The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 309156 times)

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #350 on: 26/09/2013 10:43:07 »
You started this discussion by asking what on Earth human consciousness was. You explained your reasons for asking and opened the conversation. In your initial reasoning you asserted that Science alone cannot explain it. You backed this up during the conversation by frequent – and lengthy – extracts from T. Nagel. Most of the other participants, myself included, oppose your assertion and believes Science adequately explains human consciousness. Most of the other participants, myself included, have debunked Nagels work as a piece of pseudo-scientific speculation with little basis in fact. Your responses to opposition have been dismissive, evasive and often downright rude, from the point of view of this Mr. Eagle Has Landed at least; you do not like opposition.

To believe that anything other than Science is responsible for something as mundane as my consciousness would be the hight of arrogance.  But here, of course, you combine all the facets of the Mind – the Human Condition, if you like – and call it “human consciousness”. It has clearly not occurred to you that, even if there is some element of the Mind/human consciousness that cannot be observed and explained by Science, there is definitely a large portion that can. So, by your definition, human consciousness is composed of “a part that science can explain” and “a part that science cannot explain”. Of course you get nowhere holding such a position up to scrutiny; it is a ridiculously circular argument.

It is, however, a definition of the Mind – Existence even - that I would be happy with, but what place does that have on a science forum? I cannot defend my “spirituality” from “scientific scrutiny” - my spirituality is not scientific. Basta! To attempt to do so would be preaching, not discussion. Do you see the difference?

That's what I'm talking about.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #351 on: 26/09/2013 12:37:58 »
Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .
I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .
I know; but it's hard to be serious when you say stuff like that. Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque :)

I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :

This is a side issue you're making such a fuss about,an easy one  : I told you that that "radar " ,so to speak, is relatively unreliable : my own faith or religion  tells me it is indeed.
Got it ?
When i said that you should not try to derail this discussion you cannot handle obviously : I meant : you either misinterpret my views or do not understand them properly as i meant them to be at least , you distort them beyond any recognition, you quote parts   of my statements by isolating them from their actual context , ...and you do put words in my mouth that are not mine ...to say just that :
Just try to compare  what i said in my previous posts to  how you responded to them as described above .
Example : I said that the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian approach or conception of evolution ( as the direct consequence  of the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature thus ) ,  for instance ,  is just  a reductionist misinterpretation of evolution   = the reductionist version of evolution that has no evidence to support it : in the sense that evolution is not exclusively biological physical , otherwise we cannot explain life , consciousness, their origins and their evolution fully .
You did not understand that : your response was like this : there is plenty of or overwhelming empirical evidence regarding   evolution ....
Compare what i said here to your reply then : i said 1 thing and you responded with a totally  different other  .
There is indeed overwhelming evidence regarding the biological physical side of evolution , but i was not talking about the latter , just about the reductionist exclusively biological physical version of evolution as a whole .

What i meant by  the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian misinterpretation of evolution that has nothing to support it ,once again= the reductionist version of evolution, was  rather this in fact : evolution cannot be explained by just those reductionist naturaist neo-Darwinian exclusive biological physical explanations approaches , simply because evolution has a non-biological non-physical side to it as well , so , there is nothing out there that supports the reductionist assumption or reductionist version of evolution that evolution  is just a matter of exclusively physical biological processes .
Got it ?
Plus , those reductionist exclusive biological physical approaches  of evolution give just an incomplete acccount of evolution, simply because evolution has a non-physical non-biological side to it also = the reductionist version of evolution has nothing to support it = evolution is not exclusively biological physical .
Another example : i see it here below in 1 of your posts , i will respond to in a sec .
There are plenty of statements of mine like that , either you do not understand, misquote way out of their context , misinterpret ...beyond ny recognition...
Another example : i said that the reductionist "emergence " trick regarding consciousness is indeed reductionistic , in the sense that it reduces consciousness to biological processes : i did not say that the purely physical biological emergence phenomena were / are reductionist = only that "emergence " reductionist magical trick regarding consciousness is reductionist : see the difference ?

 
Quote
Quote
Quote
... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?
What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .
So, you can't remember either? :)

Quote
If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations  and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .
If I don't agree with you I need a psychiatrist? Disappointing stuff... playground taunts really don't help your credibility.

These statements of yours are yet another major example of what i was saying here above regarding your  gross misinterpretations of my words :
That you would agree-disagree with me is certainly  not the issue here : that's a rather pretty normal fact = that's 1 of the reasons why i am here , in order to learn from different views, different conceptions of nature , from different world views ...from science proper that shuld not be confused with those reductionist world views, reductionist conception of nature ......
What i meant was : if you cannot either understand what i was saying regarding reductionism to the point that you distort and misinterpret my words on the subject beyond any recognition , or if you cannot see how you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by reductionism you obviously still do confuse with science proper , than is that not my problem, but yours to handle, otherwise go see a shrink : that's what i meant when i said shall i draw you a pic ,when you responded that i was not clear enough or not concise : it is not that i was not clear enough , maybe  i was ,to some degree at least : it is in fact you who do not understand my words , distort them , misinterprets them , takes them out of context ,...beyond any recognition ....

« Last Edit: 26/09/2013 18:37:05 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #352 on: 26/09/2013 12:39:41 »
Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them. No matter what logical evidence you support your arguments with, no matter what credible scientific studies provide positive proof for something, they will say "But it fails to explain this other thing," followed by an ideological rant about why something is "obviously" false just because they keep saying it is.  What's worse, they offer no reasonable, verifiable alternative for any of it.
Don essentially says you cannot expect him to provide scientific proof of the immaterial because it is immaterial. And my response is "Great! Go post these immaterial things on the The Mystical Angel My Little Pony Website."

You got it all wrong , honey : see what i said to dlorde on the subject right here  above .
The exclusively biological physical reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is false , simply because it obviously and intrinsically inherently misses the non-biological non-physical side of nature ,as Nagel said, that's why he proposed a non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature,as an alternative to reductionism  .
Besides, that reductionist exclusively biological physical conception of nature has therefore implications for how reductionists approach ,see and explain the emergence of life , the emergence of consciousness in nature ,and for their respective origins and evolution , logically =reductionism gives thus an incomplete account of evolution in general , of life's origins , emergence and evolution, of consciousness ' emergence origins and evolution ...

But, there is indeed overwhelming empirical evidence indeed for the biological physical side of evolution ,it's just that evolution has also a non-physical non-biological side to it as well ,reductionism tries so desperately to reduce to just physical biological processes , simply because reductionism , per definition, cannot do otherwise .

All those wonderful amazing great "miracles " achieved by science proper were the direct consequences of the scientific method used by scientists  ,were  the direct consequences of the effective and unparralleled scientific method thus that's like no other : reductionism in science has absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific results and huge advances ...= reductionism just takes a free ride on the  unwilling back of science proper , in order to validate itself  so desperately  , in vain .

In short :

The main core issue here is that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian misconception of nature in science .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #353 on: 26/09/2013 12:43:05 »
I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :
You're funny :)

No, i am certainly not in this case , i am deadly serious : remember your oversensitivity whenever someone misquotes you : you were not only misquoting my words , but you also did not understand them properly as i meant them to be at least , you distorted misinterpreted them beyond any recognition ...so.
Maybe , i did not formulate my answers properly : in that case , you should have asked for a better formulation, instead of  distorting my views ..
If one would continue  doing just that , there is absolutely no point in continuing any discusions for that matter with him / her : that would be an utter and total waste of time .

Quote
I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
So anyway Don, are you going to explain this? how is God relevant to science?

I told you here above that i would react to that , didn't i ?
I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?
You still continue to misquote me , i see : my patience with you is really running out .
Anyway :
This is another example  concerning the fact that you were taking my words out of context by just quoting some parts of my statements on the subject : why didn't you quote the whole sentense  ?

I said : God is not the field of science , i see dlorde here saying to you that God is irrelevant to science , it is not the case , God is irrelevant only to reductionism in science in fact , reductionism as a secular religion in science ...stuff like that .
So, God is neither  irrelevant nor relevant  to science proper , simply because God is not the field of science,so to speak then ...
You're really making me nuts with these misquotes , distortions ...of my words .

Quote
And while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?

Science has its own effective unparalleled method thanks to and through which science has been able to achieve all those "miracles " : what has reductionism as a misconception of nature  to do with science proper or with the scientific method , scientific approaches, scientific results = absolutely nothing= reductionism was/is  just crippling science via its reductionist meta-paradigm in science in fact ... .
Reductionism is no method , just a world view in science = a misconception of nature in science = science needs to be guided by a more or less valid non-reductionist  meta-paradigm in science = a non-reductionist naturalist one maybe , as Nagel proposes at least ...........

Quote
Both questions have been asked more than once and ignored so far.

Both questions were  previously  answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #354 on: 26/09/2013 12:48:02 »
I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?
I thought so; 'Not irrelevant', says 'relevant' to me. If this isn't what you meant, you only had to say so.

You would have noticed just that , if you read carefully what i said .
God is ,once again, neither irrelevent nor relevant to science , i said ; can't you read ? : ...God ...
What might not  be  irrelevant to something might  also be not relevant to it as well,and at the same time  .

Quote
Quote
why didn't you quote the whole sentense  ?
What, "God is irrelevant to reductionism in science"? It appeared to confirm my interpretation - by implying that God might somehow be relevant to non-reductionist science (whatever that might be). The rest of it was fluff.

Read Nagel above .
You're really exasperating and extremely irritating : the word here is "naturalism " for natural science :
If God is irrelevant to reductionist naturalism, then is God  logically also so regarding non-reductionist naturalism ...

Quote
Quote
Quote
And while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?
Science has its own effective unparalleled method thanks to and through which science has been able to achieve all those "miracles " :<...blah...>
If you mean the scientific method, that's the framework within which an approach (e.g. reductionism) is used. As I'm sure you're aware.

Reductionism is just a conception , or rather misconception of nature in science ,via its reductionist meta-paradigm mainly in science ...
Do not try to integrate reductionism in that sense within the frame work of the scientific method , as you put it at least,it has nthing to do with : reductionism  was/is  just crippling science in its capability to explain nature ,the universe , man , life , consciousness ... .

Quote
Quote
Both questions were  previously  answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .
Ah; such subtle answers they just appeared to be ignoring the questions altogether...

OK; I suppose that's that then
.

What had you in mind then ?




<... tl;dr ...>
The normal way to discuss on forums is to post your own thoughts about what you've read, not copy-paste reams of someone else's work.

It did obviously not help to post my own thoughts about what i have read : what do you think i was doing then ?,So, i resorted to posting what the guy had to say on the subject , partly .
You remind me of an experience i had  when i was in Amsterdam , i was making love to a lovely  English girl : during that , she could not stop shouting " f...me, f...me, f...me " : i shouted back : " f...what do you think i am doing ? , missing her cultural  point that she was just trying to arose me some more , and herself in the process ...due to the passion and heat of the live love making "debate" ...
Are you doing just that ,or something Freudian similar , your own different way ?, even though Freud's psychology was  largely refuted and discredited for and as having been largely ...unscientific ...



 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #355 on: 26/09/2013 13:06:20 »
You started this discussion by asking what on Earth human consciousness was. You explained your reasons for asking and opened the conversation. In your initial reasoning you asserted that Science alone cannot explain it. You backed this up during the conversation by frequent – and lengthy – extracts from T. Nagel. Most of the other participants, myself included, oppose your assertion and believes Science adequately explains human consciousness. Most of the other participants, myself included, have debunked Nagels work as a piece of pseudo-scientific speculation with little basis in fact. Your responses to opposition have been dismissive, evasive and often downright rude, from the point of view of this Mr. Eagle Has Landed at least; you do not like opposition.

To believe that anything other than Science is responsible for something as mundane as my consciousness would be the hight of arrogance.  But here, of course, you combine all the facets of the Mind – the Human Condition, if you like – and call it “human consciousness”. It has clearly not occurred to you that, even if there is some element of the Mind/human consciousness that cannot be observed and explained by Science, there is definitely a large portion that can. So, by your definition, human consciousness is composed of “a part that science can explain” and “a part that science cannot explain”. Of course you get nowhere holding such a position up to scrutiny; it is a ridiculously circular argument.

It is, however, a definition of the Mind – Existence even - that I would be happy with, but what place does that have on a science forum? I cannot defend my “spirituality” from “scientific scrutiny” - my spirituality is not scientific. Basta! To attempt to do so would be preaching, not discussion. Do you see the difference?

That's what I'm talking about.

I really did hesitate some time before responding to this surreal i do not know what to make of it post of yours : simply absurd ;

I do react now to that absurd non-sense of yours , only out of courtesy and politeness, i must admit , to be honest , because , seriously: what kindda gibberish is this then .

In short :

you did not understand a single thing of what i was saying ,or of what this discussion is all about .

............
Who did debunk Nagel ? You ?
One cannot debunk facts , such as the fact that the reductionist exclusively biological physical neo-Darwinian materialist conception of nature is ...false = a misconception of nature ...

As for the rest of your above displayed silly talk:  i cannot make any sense of it, the more when i see how you do not only not understand my views, but you also distort them beyond any recognition as well : you are much worse than dlorde in that regard = you are making no sense whatsoever , sorry to say that .
I suggest you try to read carefully what i was saying all along , if you wanna see my point , because , honestly ,this is total non-sense of yours , turning the discussion upside down beyond any recognition :
Please , do try to read and understand what i say, before reacting , thanks , appreciate indeed: just compare what i was saying to what you made of it haha ...= 

 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #356 on: 26/09/2013 16:38:11 »
My dear fellow, Don Q,

You are casting your pearls before swine. I think you should write all this stuff up as a proper book and make it available on the Kindle where it can be read more comfortably and without being derailed repeatedly by other people with their ludicrous objections.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #357 on: 26/09/2013 18:21:28 »
My dear fellow, Don Q,

You are casting your pearls before swine. I think you should write all this stuff up as a proper book and make it available on the Kindle where it can be read more comfortably and without being derailed repeatedly by other people with their ludicrous objections.

Nice subtle irony of yours haha , that does have some elements of truth , ironically enough : "DonQ" ? haha , come on .
Hi , buddy : nice to have you back, i mean it  : Philosopher Thomas Nagel is more qualified than i could ever be in that regard .
Well, despite my repeated extensive attempts to clarify my main core point concerning the facts discussed by philosopher Thomas Nagel 's " Mind and cosmos : why the materialist reductionist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false " book , these people do not seem to be able to get it yet , so, they just distort my views ,or do not understand them properly as i meant them to be at least : maybe  i was not clear enough , who knows : i did my best though , in that regard at least .
I did even post the introduction, the conclusion , chapter 3 cognition, and chapter 4 consciousness of that book here on this thread for them, in vain .
Not to mention that i also did provide a free download link to most books of Nagel on line , including to that above mentioned book of his .
I really would love to see you forget about our previous little insignificant and meaningless conflict , it was nothing in fact really ,and enrich us with your eventual insights on the subject , seriously .
I would really appreciate it , if you would tell us  your own opinions about Thomas Nagel's book ,or about the main core issue here,as follows  : 

The exclusively biological physical reductionist naturalist materialist neo_Darwinian conception of nature is false = a misconception of nature , that gotta be replaced by a more or less valid conception of nature in science = a non-reductionist naturalist one , as Nagel proposes in fact ...
Thanks , appreciate .
I really missed your significant presence -personality here and views as well , even though i do not agree with most of your world views ,regarding reductionism in science at least,and its implications for the reductionist approaches of the emergence evolution and origins of life ,the emergence evolution and origins of consciousness ... its implications for the reductionist version of evolution ...  .
Kind regards .


« Last Edit: 26/09/2013 18:52:26 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #358 on: 26/09/2013 18:47:17 »
Metaphorically and amusingly speaking :
I hope that you,guys , do have some sense of humor though :
"Rats " are the first to leave the sinking ship, that of reductionism in science , in this case haha
So, why have you left the reductionist "unsinkable  Titanic "sinking ship .....then, you should try to rescue or defend ?
So much for your  "unshakable "  faith in ...reductionism....Disappointing . 
« Last Edit: 26/09/2013 18:49:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #359 on: 26/09/2013 19:03:51 »
Rupert Sheldrake at EU 2013—"Science Set Free" (Part 1)


list=PL039MUyjHR1waJMc1F5sHbW-WmqlAu9n5
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #360 on: 26/09/2013 21:02:28 »
OK, done that. Some impressions.

On page 1 of this thread, your third post actually, you bring God into the discussion, emphatically. On page 12 you ask me why I bring God into this discussion.
On the second page the first reference to semantics is made. By this time you have mentioned the contributions and opinions of Islam and the Holy Koran several times.
Your basic assertion, well defined by the end of the first few pages, is that evolution cannot, alone, explain the origin or subsequent development of human consciousness. As mentioned, you suggest God as the missing element in your third post. You make reference to the "soul" and the "self" and the subjective sense of self-awareness that we all possess. You assert that, in particular, the development of this subjective feature of human consciousness  could not have arisen through evolution.
As is to be expected on a forum your assertion is challenged by several people. Much of this is semantic clarification.
There are several digressions into "what is science" and "what place does God have in science" (it was during one of these that you asked me why "I" was bringing Godinto the discussion(?)).
There were also suggestions that Evolution is competent to account for human consciousness. My own was as arrogantly dismissed as any other.
From page 2 onwards you were clearly promoting Islamic scientific philosophy, backed up by a complimentary approach from Nagel
I have not read every page of Nagel posted - my subjective sense of Dignity baulks at the imposition.

No, I believe that I have understood what you have said in this thread perfectly well.

I understand the contribution that Islam has made to science - you have mentioned it several times (I was, actually, very well aware, but thanks anyway).
I understand that "human consciousness" may contain a "soul" or a "spirit" - your words, not mine.
I understand that souls, spirits and religions have no place in science.

I also understand your constant reference to these non-scientific items in defence of your opinion and I understand your resorting to insults and evasion when you have them thrown back at you, although you do actually use this technique a lot when I think about it.

I understand your opinion of scientific method, tightly-based on Nagel; I don't agree with it and have given my arguments. I have received arrogance and rudeness rather than adult and logical challenge for my efforts on the majority of occasions.

This is not a discussion, it is a pulpit for a preacher, despite all your pretence of some scientific basis in your opening arguments. What, on Earth, is the Human Consciousness? Well, you have your answer, always did, and you're obviously not interested in hearing anybody elses, in fact your replies show that you despise them. You are talking "Faith", not "Science"; I understand exactly what this "thread"is about.

The worrying thing is that you, an intelligent young man, do not.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #361 on: 27/09/2013 01:33:53 »


But, there is indeed overwhelming empirical evidence indeed for the biological physical side of evolution ,it's just that evolution has also a non-physical non-biological side to it as well...
Quote

But that's the whole problem, you and Nagel haven't proven that, and your entire argument rests on that very assumption. Just because you keep saying there is a non biological, non-physical side of nature doesn't make it so. But your excuse is you can't prove it because it's immaterial, and physical science can't identify or measure something that's immaterial. Well, how convenient.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #362 on: 27/09/2013 17:43:59 »


But, there is indeed overwhelming empirical evidence indeed for the biological physical side of evolution ,it's just that evolution has also a non-physical non-biological side to it as well...
Quote

But that's the whole problem, you and Nagel haven't proven that, and your entire argument rests on that very assumption. Just because you keep saying there is a non biological, non-physical side of nature doesn't make it so. But your excuse is you can't prove it because it's immaterial, and physical science can't identify or measure something that's immaterial. Well, how convenient.

Well, honey : you are really impossible and ludicrous :
Fact is : the reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature , or rather  misconception of nature, is not only almost certainly false , it is also certainly ,obviously and absolutely false , a fact which does have serious implications for the dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science , for the materialist version of evolution, for the materialist explanations and approaches of the emergence evolution and origins of life , for the emergence origins and evolution of consciousness ...to say just that .
Besides, the exclusively biological physical materialist conception of nature is seriously debunked by the challenging  anomalies  represented by life itself , by its emergence ,origins and evolution , by the emergence evolution and origin of consciousness, by the nature of human cognition ...those exclusive physical biological materialist explanations and approaches can certainly not account for , that's why materialists just resort to reducing life , consciousnes,human cognition , memory , ...to just physical biological processes , for obvious dogmatic ideological materialist "reasons " that have nothing to do with science proper ....
Did you , at least , listen to what Sheldrake said on the subject , as my provided link to here above shows, concerning those materialist dogmatic  beliefs that do prevent science from progressing , and much more ?
Sheldrake wrote also a whole book on the subject , called "Science set free ..." ( Sheldrake did also praise that fascinating book of T.Nagel "MInd and Cosmos ...by the way " )

There he is talking about this book of his :

list=PLA-7YcJVRoWkwpdv6HvmJd-Ii7at10y1F

If this above video of Sheldrake in the US does not succeed in making you understand all this , than nothingelse  will ...

The British original title of the book was/is : "The science delusion" (Sheldrake  might have been referring to the "God delusion " of Dawkins ,i dunno,  the latter as 1 of the major representatives of the inherently atheist materialist "scientific " fundamentalism, or scientism = the dogmatic materialist belief system that was/ is sold to the people as science proper , as   scientific approaches or as scientific facts  .),  Sheldrake's book thus tackles these issues of what  can be called scientism , or the materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science that gets presented to the people as scientific facts ,or at least as scientific approaches , science has absolutely nothing to do with , ironically enough .
When Sheldrake wanted to publish his "The science delusion " book thus in the US , his US publishers advised him to change the title to " Science set free ..." , simply because people might misunderstand his views ,and might misinterpret them, as you all might do, ironically enough , as a denigration of science ...which is absolutely not the case .
Sheldrake's US publishers had to make Sheldrake change the title of that book of his , due to that polarisation in the US created by fanatics atheists such as Dawkins , Dennett , Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris ...against religion or against religious creationists and their "intelligent design " theory ...a polarisation that's obviously  conducted in the name of science , but is in fact driven by just ideology from both sides or camps .
Sheldrake is in fact trying just to liberate science from the materialist dogmatic belief systems ,once again, a materialist dogmatic ossified belief system that gets presented to the people as science proper  .


Science does not have to be materialist , materialism  has just been hijacking science for so long now ,that most people cannot but  confuse it with science proper as a result , as you all do by the way  .
If science is delivered from materialism some day , and it will certainly be , then, whole new unimaginable vistas will open up for science , the latter that has been seriously held back by that backward secular religion in science : materialism , to say the least = an understatement .
« Last Edit: 27/09/2013 18:15:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #363 on: 27/09/2013 18:25:37 »
OK, done that. Some impressions.

On page 1 of this thread, your third post actually, you bring God into the discussion, emphatically. On page 12 you ask me why I bring God into this discussion.
On the second page the first reference to semantics is made. By this time you have mentioned the contributions and opinions of Islam and the Holy Koran several times.
Your basic assertion, well defined by the end of the first few pages, is that evolution cannot, alone, explain the origin or subsequent development of human consciousness. As mentioned, you suggest God as the missing element in your third post. You make reference to the "soul" and the "self" and the subjective sense of self-awareness that we all possess. You assert that, in particular, the development of this subjective feature of human consciousness  could not have arisen through evolution.
As is to be expected on a forum your assertion is challenged by several people. Much of this is semantic clarification.
There are several digressions into "what is science" and "what place does God have in science" (it was during one of these that you asked me why "I" was bringing Godinto the discussion(?)).
There were also suggestions that Evolution is competent to account for human consciousness. My own was as arrogantly dismissed as any other.
From page 2 onwards you were clearly promoting Islamic scientific philosophy, backed up by a complimentary approach from Nagel
I have not read every page of Nagel posted - my subjective sense of Dignity baulks at the imposition.

No, I believe that I have understood what you have said in this thread perfectly well.

I understand the contribution that Islam has made to science - you have mentioned it several times (I was, actually, very well aware, but thanks anyway).
I understand that "human consciousness" may contain a "soul" or a "spirit" - your words, not mine.
I understand that souls, spirits and religions have no place in science.

I also understand your constant reference to these non-scientific items in defence of your opinion and I understand your resorting to insults and evasion when you have them thrown back at you, although you do actually use this technique a lot when I think about it.

I understand your opinion of scientific method, tightly-based on Nagel; I don't agree with it and have given my arguments. I have received arrogance and rudeness rather than adult and logical challenge for my efforts on the majority of occasions.

This is not a discussion, it is a pulpit for a preacher, despite all your pretence of some scientific basis in your opening arguments. What, on Earth, is the Human Consciousness? Well, you have your answer, always did, and you're obviously not interested in hearing anybody elses, in fact your replies show that you despise them. You are talking "Faith", not "Science"; I understand exactly what this "thread"is about.

The worrying thing is that you, an intelligent young man, do not.

You, obviously , still have no clue whatsoever regarding what we have been talking about all along : incredibly amazing lack of understanding  :

Gross absurd surreal misinterpretations of my words , once again, unfortunately enough : unbelievable : use your God -given mind , dude : just listen to a great scientist on the issue : Sheldrake : it does not take a genius to do just that :
See this above displayed post of mine on the issue , and especially the important relevant link in it regarding Sheldrake's debunking of materialism in science , to Cheryl :
If that does not succeed in making you, people,  understand the lethal predicament represented by the materialist dogmatic belief system in science ,then nothingelse will...
Good luck indeed.
« Last Edit: 27/09/2013 18:30:32 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #364 on: 27/09/2013 18:44:56 »
To all our surreal unbelievable reductionists here :

Once again, if this following lecture of this great scientist: Rupert Sheldrake, as a preview to his "Science set free ..." book ,does not succeed in making you understand or grasp what we have been talking about all along here , concerning the reductionist misconception of nature in science that has been crippling science for so long now that you cannot but confuse it with science proper , the latter has absolutely nothing to do with, then , nothingelse will  ...:


list=PLA-7YcJVRoWkwpdv6HvmJd-Ii7at10y1F
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #365 on: 27/09/2013 20:02:48 »
" The Science Delusion " By Rupert Sheldrake :
The science delusion = the materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science, or scientism :  :




Rupert Sheldrake- Dispelling Dogmas and Opening New Frontiers




 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #366 on: 27/09/2013 23:43:31 »
My dear young sir, once again you have given a non-answer – I “don't understand”.

Of course, you don't say what I don't understand. You can't. You do not have any argument, just a “feeling” that I am wrong. Therefore you resort to dismissal. You will, indeed, dismiss this assertion in the same way; you have no choice.

Don't worry, it is a time-honoured tactic of preachers, be they skinheads preaching the virtues of racial purity or murderers preaching the “sinfulness” of western education. I don't mind – I know where it comes from.

This thread deals with “human consciousness”. Let us assume you did some research into the subject before you started writing. Research is, after all, what any sensible adult would do.

Your research into psychology no doubt made you aware of Transactional Analysis. Broadly speaking, it occupies the place in psychology that “materialist reductionism” occupies in other branches of science. You are, therefore, familiar with the parent/child/adult aspects of “character”, a fundamental feature of human consciousness.

(If these assumptions regarding your validity as a commentator are incorrect my apologies. However, an appreciation of psychiatric principles and methods is usual, nay, essential, in discussions on “human consciousness”, particularly if you add God to the mix - your third post.)

It is not hard to discern from your posts that your parent sits like a solemn giant on all the wisdom and truth that Creation possesses; it is the guardian of your value system. Your child believes implicitly in this body of “truth” and cannot comprehend how anybody could disagree with the certain “truth” that was fixed in your value system before you were ten years old. It behaves as a child behaves; yeah but, no but, yeah but “why bring God into the discussion” circular arguments and “It's not fair!” dismissals. Your adult, the would-be modifier of your value system, lies battered and bleeding in the corner where it has crawled to die. This is because it gets a good kick from your child every time it dares to think that there might be some other truth. Externally this manifests itself in your frequent recourse to “What are you talking about?” and “you don't understand”.

You have now added another name to Nagels to “prove” that everything you learned at your parents knee was the one and only solemn truth of Creation (including, but certainly not limited to human consciousness). In fact, Nagel and Sheldrake are the only ideas you can accept; anything else would mean that your parent was wrong and your adult is nowhere near strong enough to stand up to your implicitly-believing child.

A child can only preach that his daddy is the strongest – what else does he know that he can rely on? It is only with adulthood, after time and experience have modified its Weltanschauen, that a child realises that daddy was not always right.

Of course, you have no choice but to dismiss this as well; how can you, a grown man, be thinking childishly on such an important topic? You know the difference between preaching and discussing, right?

Wrong. You don't. You need to a) grow up and b) develop some humility – you have at least one good book on the subject; the best.

I won't quote any of the many evasive, rude and dismissive answers that you have given to back up my assertion but I will quote something you said recently (reply 357):

“ these people do not seem to be able to get it yet , so, they just distort my views ,or do not understand them properly “

It's not fair! Is it.

Now, I think it's reasonable to bring a little of the “science” of human consciousness into a discussion on the subject. You do not like it; you can't – you don't not have the ability to give credence to criticism of your beliefs or your style of argument; your adult is simply not strong enough.

Which means you have no choice but to dismiss this again. However, may I suggest that, this time, you bottle your child-like arrogance and try something a bit more adult than “you don't understand”. Your lack of common courtesy is most telling and very irritating.

Finally, there is a phrase in your last post: “Dispelling Dogmas and Opening New Frontiers”.
It's a good idea; you should try it when you're ready.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #367 on: 28/09/2013 02:46:26 »


Well, honey : you are really impossible and ludicrous :
Fact is : the reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature , or rather  misconception of nature, is not only almost certainly false , it is also certainly ,obviously and absolutely false , a fact which does have....

That is not a fact.

There exist diseases that do not yet have a known cause. By your logic, I should be able to say that  science, blinded by its materialistic paradigm, has failed miserably to find their true cause, which is obviously the work of Satan (or the supernatural force of my choice.) And offer no reason or proof because as we all know, immaterial things don't require that. They just require that you keep saying it over and over.

« Last Edit: 29/09/2013 23:29:21 by cheryl j »
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #368 on: 28/09/2013 04:22:36 »
I don't believe that facts are the issue here Cheryl, and the more I read the more I am convinced by that. Your reference to "Satan", who neither myself nor anybody I know has ever met, are far more the issue.

This seems all about immovable objects and irresistible forces - Faith Vs. Science. It has been dressed up a bit, rather clumsily and transparently, but when a "scientific discussion" starts referring to souls, spirits, God and now Satan (a reference I accept as perfectly valid given the context) it really is time to call it a day.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #369 on: 28/09/2013 12:38:33 »
The science delusion = the materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science, or scientism :

Piffle. Science is a process of systematic unbelief. Isms are anathema to science.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #370 on: 28/09/2013 17:23:02 »
I don't believe that facts are the issue here Cheryl, and the more I read the more I am convinced by that. Your reference to "Satan", who neither myself nor anybody I know has ever met, are far more the issue.

This seems all about immovable objects and irresistible forces - Faith Vs. Science. It has been dressed up a bit, rather clumsily and transparently, but when a "scientific discussion" starts referring to souls, spirits, God and now Satan (a reference I accept as perfectly valid given the context) it really is time to call it a day.

Well, it also seems to be a problem with logic. I did watch one of the Sheldrake videos. The experiment he mentioned, in which a blind child seemed to be receiving information from his sighted mother was, if validly controlled, interesting. But claiming that any unexplained phenomena, whether it is the appearance of ESP or UFOs, is more likely to have one explanation than another, if you have no evidence for either, only a lack of evidence, is not logical.

The other problem with his reasoning is asserting that his subjective impression of the qualitative nature of things as a kind of fact. He calls things non-biological which he has not proven to be non biological, and are certainly not immaterial or unobservable or unmeasurable scientifically, such as human behavior, social interactions, or economics. That is the basis of this claim that "Besides, the exclusively biological physical materialist conception of nature is seriously debunked by the challenging  anomalies  represented by life itself ..."

For his next debate, I suggest he move to the physics forum and tell them that there can't possibly be so much empty space inside atoms because it fails to explain why the brick wall he's been banging his head against feels so solid.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #371 on: 28/09/2013 17:31:36 »


Well, honey : you are really impossible and ludicrous :
Fact is : the reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature , or rather  misconception of nature, is not only almost certainly false , it is also certainly ,obviously and absolutely false , a fact which does have....

That is not a fact.

There exist diseases that do not yet have a known cause. By your logic, I should be able to say that  science, blinded by its materialistic paradigm, has failed miserably to find their true cause, which is obviously the work of Satan (or the supernatural force of my choice.) And offer no reason or proof because as we all know, immaterial things don't require that. They just require that you keep saying it over and over.

It is an indeniable obvious fact that nature or the universe are not a matter of just exclusively biological physical processes,as reductionism makes you believe they are  .

I am , once again, not talking about science proper , just about that untrue reductionism in science , reductionist materialism as a world view in science ...as a misconception of nature ...as a meta-paradigm in science ...

Did you listen to what Sheldrake had to say on the subject ? , I guess not .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #372 on: 28/09/2013 17:36:31 »
The science delusion = the materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science, or scientism :

Piffle. Science is a process of systematic unbelief. Isms are anathema to science.

It was not about science proper , once again : what Sheldrake talked about is that materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science ,and which has thus nothing to do with science proper .
Sheldrake just tries to liberate science proper from that prison of that materialist dogmatic belief system , that's all .
Can't you get just that ? Is that so difficult to understand ?
Just try to listen to what Sheldrake has to say on the subject then .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #373 on: 28/09/2013 17:37:32 »
Maybe, it would help to draw you a pic ...Unbelievable .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #374 on: 28/09/2013 17:47:03 »
I don't believe that facts are the issue here Cheryl, and the more I read the more I am convinced by that. Your reference to "Satan", who neither myself nor anybody I know has ever met, are far more the issue.

This seems all about immovable objects and irresistible forces - Faith Vs. Science. It has been dressed up a bit, rather clumsily and transparently, but when a "scientific discussion" starts referring to souls, spirits, God and now Satan (a reference I accept as perfectly valid given the context) it really is time to call it a day.

Well, it also seems to be a problem with logic. I did watch one of the Sheldrake videos. The experiment he mentioned, in which a blind child seemed to be receiving information from his sighted mother was, if validly controlled, interesting. But claiming that any unexplained phenomena, whether it is the appearance of ESP or UFOs, is more likely to have one explanation than another, if you have no evidence for either, only a lack of evidence, is not logical.


You still do not get it , honey :
Science does not have to be materialistic , it just has been hijacked by materialism since the 19 th century at least up to this present date .
The objective reality out there is not exclusively biological physical...

Quote
The other problem with his reasoning is asserting that his subjective impression of the qualitative nature of things as a kind of fact. He calls things non-biological which he has not proven to be non biological, and are certainly not immaterial or unobservable or unmeasurable scientifically, such as human behavior, social interactions, or economics. That is the basis of this claim that "Besides, the exclusively biological physical materialist conception of nature is seriously debunked by the challenging  anomalies  represented by life itself ..."

What makes you so sure that reality is exclusively biological physical ?
Who said that non-biological or non-physical processes cannot be studied scientifically ?
What do you think Sheldrake was doing then ?

Quote
For his next debate, I suggest he move to the physics forum and tell them that there can't possibly be so much empty space inside atoms because it fails to explain why the brick wall he's been banging his head against feels so solid.

Don't be silly :
Do not confuse science proper with materialism in science , materialism that has been challenged even by modern physics , or quantum physics ...
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #374 on: 28/09/2013 17:47:03 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums