The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 309572 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #550 on: 13/10/2013 17:04:57 »


In the above first part of this post of yours , you expressed  your legetimate suspicion skepticism and aversion regarding any race ,nationality ,geography . culture...based ideologies or manufactured illusionary "identities " based on race , ethnicity , sectarianism, geography , cultures , nationalities ...and rightly so, but ,then again, you immediatly went on boosting about the Canadian achievements ...= how paradoxical can you be ?



Um, no,  I was just  kidding around. I was not sincerely bragging about the invention of the paint roller, although, it is quite nifty when you need one.

Wow, please do not insult my relative intelligence ........by lying and by being dishonest in that regard , come on ........
I should be the one "insulting " you ,by raising the issue of nazism, since you yourself admitted that you have some German "blood " running in your veins , or German "genes " in your body , but i won't do that , simply because not all Germans can be blamed for nazism, especially not those post-war German generations ...

I'm just not convinced that your attribution of the invention of science to Islam is purely the result of your  historical curiosity. You clearly have an axe to grind, and you couldn't be more obvious about it.  I wasn't calling you, personally,  a Nazi. I was simply making the point I have rarely seen anything good come  from rekindling these ancient rivalries, and trying to prove which group is superior. It never ends well.

I was just stating an undeniable  historic epistemological fact you can check or verify,so to speak,  via my sources that support that claim in the other thread in question: so, i am not gonna discuss that in this thread  .
Koshul's " The islamic impact on western civilization reconsidered " relatively short essay  on the subject (A relatively short concise brilliant epistemological scientific essay on the subject that tried to prove the fact stated by Robert Briffault to be true in the latter's "The making of humanity " book ), i did provide a direct free download link to there in that thread in question , is a very good and easy start ,if you are really interested in the subject concerning  the real origins of the scientific method : the man made his case brilliantly, epistemologically , historically , scientifically,.....so.
The rest of your speculations are just that :  speculations = irrelevant .
You compared stating a historic epistemological fact to the racial bootsing of nazis = how paradoxical absurd wicked wrong insulting can you be ? = an understatement .
(Do not worry about having a dark wicked side as well, love , we all have that ,without any exceptions :  the nazis, for example , just showed and displayed some of the lowest terrifying wicked qualities we all possess , we are all capable of under certain circumstances : the nazis were / are and will not be the worst humanity can be or do : I am not "defending " them in any way though , no way :
The christian Lebanese great poet Gibran Khlalil Gibran who spent most of his life in the US said on the subject :
in his poetic nice style , the following i will try to display via my own clumsy words ,as follows , or in words to that same effect at least :
The highest saints cannot rise above the noblest  tendencies  ,qualities or dimentions we all have and we are all capable of reaching  , and the wickeddest ones cannot sink below the lowest tendencies dimentions or abilities qualities  we all have and we can all sink to ,or reach the very bottom of  ...)

I am still waiting for your eventual apologies .haha
You know what : just forget about it : do not worry about it = irrelevant .
I should not and i do not feel insulted by such a absurd paradoxical wrong incorrect inappropriate ....nazi "comparison ", i don't and i should not feel like i am concerned by , so = irrelevant .
Just try to be careful next time regarding what you might say to your fellow humans ...

P.S.: Why do you continue playing these kindda distractions , in order to avoid tackling the core issue here concerning consciousness and therefore concerning the very simple obvious and undeniable fact that materialism is false : that the universe is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , that the universe is not only and exclusively a matter of ....matter haha ,or of material processes only  ...whatever matter itself or material processes might ever be.

That materialist belief in science or rather that's been imposed on science since the 19th century at least is  the epitome of stupidity in all the history of mankind ever = an understatement :
 How can you believe in such materialist irrational extremely and unbelievably idiotic  materialist belief you do continue to confuse with science , amazignly incredibly unbelievably ironically enough = the human will to believe is inexhaustible ....indeed.

P.S.: I was talking about a historic epistemological fact concerning the undeniable Islamic religious origins of science i am not gonna discuss here in this thread ,once again, but i forgot to mention that history writing has also been dominated by materialism also , since the 19th century at least .
The materialist approach ,or rather the materialist mis-interpretation of history that , obviously and per-definition , excludes any religious or moral ethical teleological explanations or rather interpretations of ...history .
« Last Edit: 13/10/2013 18:48:30 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #551 on: 13/10/2013 17:17:47 »
... the non-material processes or the non-material side of reality can be approached by science , indirectly , via a multitude of ways , especially via approaching their  material basis .
Such as what, for example?

Such as trying to figure just that out for yourself via reading Nagel's and Sheldrake's above mentioned books,for example ,or just via reading the multiple  excerpts of those books i did post here , just for your blue lovely scientific eyes  .
I am not gonna do the job for you ,you will not appreciate anyway , so, why should i bother ,  especially when it comes to the fact that  you have turned out to be the unparalleled champ par excellence in twisting my words , distorting them , or miscomprehending them beyond any recognition ...

Otherwise,just try to perform some sexy ritual strip-tease harmonious synchronizations oscillations vibrations under the rain public dances like neurons or ensemble of neurons seem to "do" in their own  electrical-chemical private "forest or habitat " in the brain ............Those neurons cannot join you in those public dances  under the rain  ,simply because they might get electrocuted in the process , so, they will just be assisting and guiding you from their remote private safe brain areas ...they cannot leave...otherwise , you cannot perform those dances , can you ?

« Last Edit: 13/10/2013 17:25:51 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #552 on: 13/10/2013 17:59:06 »
Quote
Objectivity is a myth

No, it's a desideratum. Not the same thing at all.

Whatever :
I stopped taking you seriously a long time ago,for obvious reasons  :
You just provided me with some extra ones yesterday ; like your irrational idiotic denial of the obvious undeniable  simple fact that materialism and science are, obviously undeniably ,  2 totally different "things " .
So, i will just say the following , just for the record , not really for your blue ,green or red blind eyes  :
Besides:
The very fact that that false materialism has been dominating all sciences and other human activities since the 19th century at least ,by selling its own materialist dogmatic belief system in science and elsewhere  to the people as scientific  ,  is reason enough to consider the so-called objectivity even at the level of the exact sciences as a ...myth .
Not to mention the fact that the materialist conception of nature in science , the materialist meta-paradigm thus in science , are obviously undeniably false ....
So, tell me where do you detect that objectivity in science under that materialist dominance since the 19th century ...where can you detect that alleged objectivity in science since science results, scientific facts , scientifc approaches ... have been misinterpreted by materialism all that time , since the 19th century ,while those materialist misinterpretations of science have been sold to the people as science .
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that the universe or reality are just only and exclusively material ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that consciousness was just the product of the evolved brain , via some magical "emergence " trick performance ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that life is just a matter of material processes only and exclusively ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that evolution is exclusively biological physical ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution can be extended to non-biological non -physical processes ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that human cognition is just the product of those so-called neurocomputational mechanisms ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that memory ,human cognition,human  conscience,.....or consciousness are somehow stored or localized in the brain ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that memory , consciousness , human cognition, human conscience ....are just biological physical processes ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that life "emerged " suddenly like magic from the dead matter ? let alone how ?
_Did science ever prove the materialist "fact " to be true that all the extremely rich diversity of life on earth at least , did evolve from the so-called original mythical legendary cell ,the latter that allegedly had suddenly emerged from the so-called original soup , not my mother's though once again, via so many atsronomical unbelievable "accidents " ?
...............
I can provide you with yet another still very  very very  long list of materialist "facts " that have never been proven by science to be "true ", ever =   they were / are just materialist belief dogmas sold to the people as scientific facts ,as science , as science results or as scientific approaches .....................
I am afraid , i was just wasting my time on you again, since you are not even able to recognize and acknowledge the very simple obvious undeniable fact that materialism is not ...science .
How can one then ever take you ...seriously for that matter ...


« Last Edit: 13/10/2013 18:05:01 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #553 on: 14/10/2013 00:02:13 »
... the non-material processes or the non-material side of reality can be approached by science , indirectly , via a multitude of ways , especially via approaching their  material basis .
Such as what, for example?
Such as trying to figure just that out for yourself via reading Nagel's and Sheldrake's above mentioned books,for example ,or just via reading the multiple  excerpts of those books i did post here , just for your blue lovely scientific eyes  .I am not gonna do the job for you ,you will not appreciate anyway , so, why should i bother
A claimed 'multitude of ways', and you still can't come up with one example. Why am I not surprised?

 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #554 on: 14/10/2013 00:54:11 »

P.S.: Why do you continue playing these kindda distractions , in order to avoid tackling the core issue here concerning consciousness and therefore concerning the very simple obvious and undeniable fact that materialism is false : that the universe is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , that the universe is not only and exclusively a matter of ....matter haha ,or of material processes only  ...whatever matter itself or material processes might ever be.

That materialist belief in science or rather that's been imposed on science since the 19th century at least is  the epitome of stupidity in all the history of mankind ever = an understatement :
 How can you believe in such materialist irrational extremely and unbelievably idiotic  materialist belief you do continue to confuse with science , amazignly incredibly unbelievably ironically enough = the human will to believe is inexhaustible ....indeed.

As unbelievable as it seems to you that one might not simply accept as a "fact" your assertion that "materialism is false" "irrational" "idiotic" "a mis-conception," and not really science, that is exactly how baffled I am by your unwillingness to accept that your claims for alternative explanations rest on evidence that directly support them, not lack of other kinds of evidence. While you mention that there are ways to test these non-material based hypotheses, whenever dlorde asks how, specifically,  you refuse to answer.

Although you call materialism, "false", on occasion, you have admitted that it has been a successful tool in science, which would seem to imply it is not actually "false" but in your view, incomplete or limited. It hasn't explained everything. I'm sure materialists themselves would agree that everything has not yet been explained.

So, in my view, the real crux of the disagreement is that materialists are saying, well it's worked well so far, lets keep going. And you believe it is a dead end road, and that it will eventually hit a wall, or that it has already, because of what it has not yet explained.

What I don't understand about mystics, though, is why they think they have solved the problem by passing the buck. They are amazed by the worlds complexity, diversity, and beauty, and they feel it can't be explained by atoms and molecules and chemical reactions and neurons firing. So they add something - "It must be God!" Or "it must be natural teleology!" Terrific, but now you are stuck trying to explain how this natural teleology works, how it affects, or interacts with, or determines things, what it predicts. Or you have to explain what God is, what he does or doesn't do, what he wants or doesn't want. All you've really done is replaced "an unknown material mechanism" with an "unknown immaterial mechanism."

Unless, of course, you simply refuse to explain it at all,  and are content with some version of "the unmoved mover," the ultimate cause that does not require explanation, and cannot be explained. And that is essentially what Sheldrake does, he just opts out. In his book The New Science, he says:

“Morphic resonance is non-energetic, and morphogenetic fields themselves are neither a type of mass nor energy. Therefore there seems to be no a priori reason why it should obey the laws that have been found to apply to the movement of bodies, particles and waves. In particular, it need not be attenuated by either spatial or temporal separation between similar systems, it could be just  as effective over 10,000 kilometres as over a centimetre, and over a century as an hour.The assumption that morphic resonance is not attenuated by time and space will be adopted as a provisional working hypothesis, on the ground of simplicity.”

As one critic put it, it's such a ludicrous assumption, explicitly designed to be untestable by science, that there’s really no point going any further.  Like faith, you either have to choose to believe it, or you don't.

To me, that really is a dead end. If materialism does turn out to have limits, at least in the interim it can tell me a lot of interesting and useful stuff about the physical world and human beings, and I just don't see that potential in any of the non-material models you have proposed.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 02:29:53 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #555 on: 14/10/2013 18:41:58 »

P.S.: Why do you continue playing these kindda distractions , in order to avoid tackling the core issue here concerning consciousness and therefore concerning the very simple obvious and undeniable fact that materialism is false : that the universe is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , that the universe is not only and exclusively a matter of ....matter haha ,or of material processes only  ...whatever matter itself or material processes might ever be.

That materialist belief in science or rather that's been imposed on science since the 19th century at least is  the epitome of stupidity in all the history of mankind ever = an understatement :
 How can you believe in such materialist irrational extremely and unbelievably idiotic  materialist belief you do continue to confuse with science , amazignly incredibly unbelievably ironically enough = the human will to believe is inexhaustible ....indeed.

As unbelievable as it seems to you that one might not simply accept as a "fact" your assertion that "materialism is false" "irrational" "idiotic" "a mis-conception," and not really science, that is exactly how baffled I am by your unwillingness to accept that your claims for alternative explanations rest on evidence that directly support them, not lack of other kinds of evidence. While you mention that there are ways to test these non-material based hypotheses, whenever dlorde asks how, specifically,  you refuse to answer.

Although you call materialism, "false", on occasion, you have admitted that it has been a successful tool in science, which would seem to imply it is not actually "false" but in your view, incomplete or limited. It hasn't explained everything. I'm sure materialists themselves would agree that everything has not yet been explained.

So, in my view, the real crux of the disagreement is that materialists are saying, well it's worked well so far, lets keep going. And you believe it is a dead end road, and that it will eventually hit a wall, or that it has already, because of what it has not yet explained.

What I don't understand about mystics, though, is why they think they have solved the problem by passing the buck. They are amazed by the worlds complexity, diversity, and beauty, and they feel it can't be explained by atoms and molecules and chemical reactions and neurons firing. So they add something - "It must be God!" Or "it must be natural teleology!" Terrific, but now you are stuck trying to explain how this natural teleology works, how it affects, or interacts with, or determines things, what it predicts. Or you have to explain what God is, what he does or doesn't do, what he wants or doesn't want. All you've really done is replaced "an unknown material mechanism" with an "unknown immaterial mechanism."

Unless, of course, you simply refuse to explain it at all,  and are content with some version of "the unmoved mover," the ultimate cause that does not require explanation, and cannot be explained. And that is essentially what Sheldrake does, he just opts out. In his book The New Science, he says:

“Morphic resonance is non-energetic, and morphogenetic fields themselves are neither a type of mass nor energy. Therefore there seems to be no a priori reason why it should obey the laws that have been found to apply to the movement of bodies, particles and waves. In particular, it need not be attenuated by either spatial or temporal separation between similar systems, it could be just  as effective over 10,000 kilometres as over a centimetre, and over a century as an hour.The assumption that morphic resonance is not attenuated by time and space will be adopted as a provisional working hypothesis, on the ground of simplicity.”

As one critic put it, it's such a ludicrous assumption, explicitly designed to be untestable by science, that there’s really no point going any further.  Like faith, you either have to choose to believe it, or you don't.

To me, that really is a dead end. If materialism does turn out to have limits, at least in the interim it can tell me a lot of interesting and useful stuff about the physical world and human beings, and I just don't see that potential in any of the non-material models you have proposed.

Wow , love :
You have been opening no less than Pandora's box or boxes  ,way to go girl,  in the good positive sense though ,not in the ancient Greek mythical negative "evil " wicked sense haha : or rather you have been trying to open an open  whole huge wide "door "  : a limitless "open " space in fact = we can't really speak of any "opening " regarding that huge space ....I am not sure either we can talk about that as space , not even metaphorically ...
"Human language is way too limited indeed ,too ideological also , too cultural as well,  human language's  origins evolution or emergence that have been also reduced to  just physics and chemistry , thanks to materialism , incredibly enough : some materialist evolutionists even try to "trace back" , so to speak, the very origins and no less than the very nature itself of human language to just prior to modern man 's existence way antique, so to speak, origins = the hand and body gestures of chimps ..........haha"
To go back to our huge limitless "space " you have been trying to "open, there is a lot to say on the "subject" , as there are a lot of "things " that cannot be either said uttered formulated expressed or whatever on the "subject " , if we can call a limitless "space" a 'subject " at least , a defined one = a limitless "space"  cannot , per definition, be limited within or confined to a certain limit , obviously , such as the logical boundaries of a subject or a concept ...
Anyway :
Nevermind whether you do understand the above  or not , i do not either ...haha

(Prior note :
Science , per definition ,  as just an effective limited unparalleled tool , instrument or method practiced by   scientists humans of course  , via their human limited faculties , and via those technological and other relative extensions of those human limited faculties of course  , science thus can only cover a tiny peace of reality : the natural reality , the material side of reality ...
The rest is , per definition, out of reach of science , obviously , otherwise science would be no science as a result , if science would pretend to cover those parts of reality that cannot , obviously , be measured , be tested empirically , be falsifiable verifiable reproducible ....
Science , for example , can approach life , consciousness , feelings , emotions , beauty or aesthetics , art , even literature , human behaviour , love even, music even  ...via their physical or biological basis , but , science can say absolutey nothing about their natures , obviously , let alone that science can account for their emergence , origins or evolution ...fully , just via physics and chemistry , no way .
So, you make it sound as if anything for that matter that's outside of reach of science does not , per definition , exist , come on , do not be silly , please .
Do not brand anything that's outside of the scope or reach of science as being some sort of mysticism , paranormal , supernatural, illusionary , delusionary , non-existent ...or false : the spiritual side of man ,for example , is normal , not really paranormal :  what does "paranormal " mean anyway ? nothing : it's just semantics made up by man .
+ everything is sacred , including the inanimate matter, there is no such a thing such as the ...profane : that's 1 of the reasons why science istelf was/is and will always be  a religious duty , a form of worship of God as well in my belief ,for example .
That silly artificial illusionary manufactured made-up distinction between the religious and the secular is false = there is nothing out there that can be branded as secular or as profane , there is no such a thing like that , everything is sacred , everything has certain respective corresponding degrees of sacredness ... )

My dear charming nice lady :
Normally ,logically, scientifically , reasonably , obviously , ..... once again, when reasonable people , true scientists , true truth seekers  in general  , or whatever , whatever truth might ever be indeed , truth as a dynamic ever-changing, ever -evolving , not a static , process , when they realise the falsehood of their  beliefs , their  hypotheses ....they either reject them  partly or entirely  , or try to improve them if they can at least , otherwise , they look for alternate more or less valid beliefs , more or less valid hypotheses ....instead of sticking to them no matter what, irrationally unscientifically illogically .......like you all do .
But , the one thing they do not do , or cannot do , is to deny the falsehood of their beliefs , hypotheses ....in total contrast with you , guys .
If you cannot see that science is just a human social activity , a form of culture , ...practiced by just humans , all too human, scientists via their human, all too human , limited faculties , via their human shortcomings and flaws , .....despite the fact that modern technology has been extending the scope ,range or reach of those human limited faculties , then , i advise you to reconsider your unrealistic view of science , your understanding of what science might be , what it can and cannot do , what it can and cannot explain , what it can or cannot approach .........
You have to try to realise the very nature , function and role of science , its limits , its boundaries ......
Science that , per definition, cannot explain or approach "everything " ,let alone that science would enable us to know everything there is to know out there , via our limited human faculties ..........there are "things " out there that will always escape the reach of our limited human faculties or that are beyond that , obviously .
So,if you cannot see that materialism is just an  Eurocentric  ideology, a false one at that , that has been dominating all sciences, including the so-called human sciences  + the rest of almost all other human activities such as history, political science , economics , and even art , literature ....since the 19 th century at least , an Eurocentric false ideology that has absolutely nothing to do with science ,obviously,  with scientific results facts or with scientific approaches , after all these kilometers long pages of this thread , after i did post significant parts on this very thread of Sheldrake's and Nagel's books on the subject + other material ....after i said many times on the occasion that potentially valid alternatives to materialism in science are still in their embryonary stages, the next generations might develop further by taking it from there = that's how new eras of science begin , after all that and more , not to mention the very simple obvious undeniable fact that physics and chemistry cannot account fully for life , consciousness , memory , human congnition, human conscience , feelings , emotions , human love ...let alone their emergence , potential evolution and origins ....after all that , you just continue thinking and behaving as if materialism has been behind all those scientific huge advances , while the latter were /are due to just the scientific method itself practiced by scientists , whether they were / are materialists or otherwise , the scientific method that 's an effective and an  unparalleled method like no other , you continue to think and behave as if materialism was/ is scientific , or you just continue to use those features of that "promissory messianic materialism " , in the sense that materialism will be able to "progress " somehow via some magic that might change the very nature and definition of materialism itself , paradoxically, as an obviously undeniably false and dead superseded ideology in science ,you continue to think and behave as if materialism in science will be able to overcome its very false nature and definition by offering scientific explanations for the phenomena ,processses .....materialism cannot explain in this time of age ..........= absurd contradictory paradoxical thinking and behaviour of yours , simply because materialism ,per -definition, cannot and will not be able to overcome its very exclusively physical  and biological material conception of nature, not in a million years , logically , otherwise materialism  would or will be no materialism per-definition , materialism  that's obviously and undeniably, per definition ,  false = physics and chemistry cannot ,logically, scientifically , reasonably  , explain consciousness, life , memory , human cognition, feelings , emotions , human conscience , human morality or ethics human love ..............fully, obviously , not because science has still no sufficient data regarding the above list of processes , phenomena ....no, but simply because physics and chemistry cannot give rise  to  , account for , let alone explain such processes , phenomena ...such as consciousness, life , memory .....exclusively via physics and chemistry , no way , obviously ,so, the nature of reality ,of  nature or of the universe cannot be exclusively material physical biological ,obviouly, no way :....

In short :
Science , all sciences and the rest in fact , must be liberated from that false materialism as a result they have been confined to for centuries now .
Science must change radically revolutionary , must undergo a radical shift of meta-paradigm in order to be able to deal with the parts of reality properly  it can test empirically , a multi-disciplinary holistic approach ,combined with science , might come up with new understandings of epistemology, of science itself , of the universe and of ourselves .
Science , per definition , has a certain  nature,  function and role it cannot go beyond : the  natural reality , or rather the material observable empirical testable measurable verifiable falsifiable reproducible side of reality = the material side of reality : the non-material side of reality must be left outside of science , obviously , but science can shed some light on  some parts of the non-material side of reality as well, by shedding light on its material basis .............

P.S.: Who talked about any "unmoved mover " for that matter anyway ?
« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 20:05:05 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #556 on: 14/10/2013 18:42:31 »
@ Cheryl :
Why Materialism is False ? :


Source : http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?15753-Why-Materialism-is-False

Prior Note :

The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject :

The critique of materialism goes way beyond what the following article tries to approach ,summarize or tackle  :
-I-I do not agree with the author's allegations that materialism has succeeded in "solving " the challenge or hard problem of life , design, thought , morality ...
0_Materialism is just a dogmatic belief system or rather a false secular religion ideology  in science , a misconsception of nature in science , that has absolutely nothing to do with science thus , and that just tries to "validate " itself through science , in vain of course , logically and per-definition .
I_Those so-called neurocomputation mechanisms cannot account for such  non-physical non-biological  processes such as thought either .
II-Darwin's theory of evolution is only and exclusively biological physical , so, it tackles only the physical biological side of evolution, but materialists , per definition, just try to extend it to non-physical non-biological processes ,for obvious materialist ideological "reasons " that have ,obviously , nothing to do with science  .
III- That life can be approached via physics and chemistry does not mean that life is just that .
IV_ Materialism cannot , per definition, succeed in "refuting " the existence of God, design ................behind all those laws of physics ............

V-Neither the materialist version or rather the materialist misinterpretation of Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution , nor Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution can account for human morality, cognition,  life or of consciousness "fully" ........let alone their  evolution .
VI-Materialism can, per definition , not account for consciousness, life ,feelings , emotions,  human cognition , human conscience , human morality , ...."fully" , let alone their origins evolution or emergence .
_VII-The brain does not cause consciousness : that alleged causality that's ,obviously , just a materialist misinterpretation of that   mutual actual factual correlation or interaction between the brain and consciousness thus  , was never proven to be true, ever , that's just a materialist belief assumption : causation is no explanation either .
VIII-There is a lot more to say on the subject , so, i will just leave it at that ,for the time being at least .

Quote :

" Why Materialism is False:

    In short, I think materialism is false. Below is why, with a detour through the reasons why Materialism isn't false.

    I don't mind if you read this or not, just thought I'd share for anyone remotely interested. No, it's not particularly well written or well structured, and there is so much more that could be said on this topic, but ... meh.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Materalism, I define as follows:
    'The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.' - Answers.com
    First, there is an important distinction to be made. Materialism and Science are not the same thing. Science is the study of the natural world, so Science has no jurisdiction over any theory regarding that which cannot be empirically tested.

    For example, suppose a Theist were to conjecture that God is the law enforcer of the universe, ensuring that at every moment, at every place, all physical occurrences obeyed the laws that God has decreed. This conjecture is impossible to test scientifically, since all possible experimental observations are consistent with its predictions. However, the unscientific character of our Theist's conjecture does not mean that it is false; the answer to the question is simply outside of the jurisdiction of the Scientific method.

    The philosophy of Materialism goes beyond the Scientific Method, postulating that only the material exists. This would place the Materialist in disagreement with our Theist. If it is true that only the material exists, then the Theist's law enforcer God does not exist, since that God would qualify as immaterial.

    The above constitutes the important distinction between Materialism and Science, whilst also explaining why Materialists are always Scientists. However the philosophy of Materialism should not be conflated with that of Science, as it is possible to both be a Scientist and not be a Materialist.

    _______________________________________________________________


    Materialism has always been an unpopular philosophy, with critics branding it as cold, uncaring and fundamentally amoral. The philosophy has had its most bitter rivals in that of Theism, as Materialism denies the truth of religious scripture, denying the existence of God, the afterlife and the immortal soul. Despite this, Materialism has stumbled on, with proponents offering Materialistic solutions to many of the long standing problems in philosophy. The problems listed below have stood as criticisms to the Materialistic philosophy now and in the past. The list is not comprehensive, but does reflect what I believe to have been the key problems that Materialism has overcome.

    1) The problem of life
    2) The problem of design
    3) The problem of thought
    4) The problem of morality
    Here I will sketch a brief overview of what each problem is and how I believe the Materialist can solve it.

    The first and easiest is the problem of life. The problem arises from the unique properties and capabilities of living organisms; it had seemed incomprehensible that the mechanical world of physics could explain the biological. Something else was needed, so it was postulated that a vital force animated living matter, imbuing it with lifelike qualities. The doctrine held that life was inexplicable in terms of physicochemical interactions. If the Materialist could not explain life, then Materialism must be false.

    The Materialist did not get his answer to this problem in one sweeping theory, but rather a cumulation of experimental findings, from William Harvey's discovery that the circularitory system was a cleverly engineered mechanism to pump blood around the body, to Fracis Crick and James Watson's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The march of scientific progress has unveiled the fine structure of cellular machinery, all working impeccably from physicochemical laws without the need for a vital animating force.

    Here the Materialist can explain how life works without appealing to any immaterial vital essence, but there still remains another problem to be solved. This is the problem of design. How is it that this incredible arrangement of organised matter came into being? The odds that such organisation would occur by chance are astronomically low, but life is bustling all around us in a multitude of forms. If the Materialist cannot explain this design, then Materialism must be false.

    In 1859, in a joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace that explanation was provided. The Materialist now had The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection i.e. The gradual accumulation of adaptive organisation by selective advantage. This elegant theory has provided the Materialist with an answer to the problem of design, which has in time been corroborated by a vast amount of evidence, from practically every field of scientific study.

    The problem of design had been solved, but an interesting disagreement between Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin persisted. The problem of thought presented itself. To Wallace, the human capacity for reasoned thought was beyond the reach of evolution, a feat which could simply not have been achieved by anything other than supernatural intervention, or in other words: God given. How could it be that a physical system could possibly think? If Materialism cannot explain how it is that we think, then Materialism must be false.

    The answer to the problem today is all around us, in front of anyone reading this at this very moment, i.e. computation. Alan Turing's Turing machine and the advent of modern electronics are a vivid illustration that complex computational architecture, obeying only the laws of physics can perform intelligent operations. The Materialist can now look to neurobiology, where cognition is explained as the consequent of neurocomputations occurring in parallel throughout the central nervous system. The Materialist now has his answer to Wallace's conjecture that the capacity for reason is unevolvable and must be God given.

    So the Materialist has provided powerful arguments to solve the problem of life, the problem of design and the problem thought. Unlike these three problems, the final problem on my list cannot refute Materialism. If Materialism is indeed amoral, it would be a nonsequitor to conclude from Materialism's amorality that it is false. For this reason, the problem of morality is a special case, but nonetheless very powerful. Briefly, the argument claims that if we are nothing but an unintentional consequence of natural selection, nothing but elaborate machines and built by selfish genes, then there is no reason to work for a higher purpose. For what reason should we treat our fellow man with compassion? What becomes of right and wrong with no God?

    The answer to this problem is the combined product of evolutionary biology, neurobiology and philosophy. The combined solutions to the previous three problems set the stage for solving the problem of morality. First, evolutionary biology, far from undermining the basis of morality, can explain why we have a moral sense in the first place. Second, neurobiology has provided scientists with evidence of how the human brain computes moral decisions. Finally, philosophers have raised objections to the accusation that Materialism is inherently amoral, refuting the accusations with powerful solutions and counterarguments.

    Note: I am sure many reading this may object to the solutions I have presented to the 'four problems,' such objections are welcome and I encourage further criticism.

    ________________________________________________________________

    I have taken this detour through the successes of Materialism to drive home that I have no political agenda against the philosophy, religiously motivated or otherwise. I now wish to draw attention to my fifth problem for Materialism:

    5) The problem of consciousness
    A single element of conscious experience is called a quale, a group of quale are known as qualia. A quale might be the subjective experience of red, cold or pain. All quale are symbolic representations of frequencies and angles. The problem for Materialism is explaining qualia, the subjective experience of life, the very subjective experience without which we cannot imagine life being worth living at all. How can a physical system such as the brain be responsible for consciousness?. This is no small problem, for if Materialism cannot explain consciousness, then Materialism is false.

    The problem of consciousness has puzzled philosophers for centuries. To clarify the problem, imagine opening up my brain whilst displaying a large red circle to my eyes. After some probing, you discover a cluster of neurons whose combined activity is responsible for my conscious experience of red. However, all you have is my word to go on, there is nothing special about that particular cluster of neurons, no telltale sign that these are responsible for my conscious experience. To the outside observer, the entire neurocomputational system would work exactly the same whether or not I was actually consciously experiencing the red circle. To make make matters more puzzling, even if I am consciously experiencing life, how do you know that what you call red is what I call red? So long as the frequencies and angles which these qualia represent maintain a constant relation to each other, then for all you know my conscious experience of red might be radically different to yours.

    No matter where you look in my brain, even if you are looking at that particular cluster of neurons responsible for my conscious experience of red, you cannot sensibly say that you are looking at the quale redness. The redness I see is qualitively independent of the neural substrate that is responsible for that quale. To put this another way, I would argue that qualia are ontologically irreducible to the neural substrate, that is, qualia have independent qualities which cannot be explained at the physical level. However, I also would argue that consciousness is entirely caused by the neural substrate, that consciousness has no informational content or cognitive ability above that which occurs on the neurocomputational level i.e. consciousness is causally reducible to the neural substrate.

    To clarify, we can play a thought experiment involving two billiard balls. Billiard ball 1 and billiard ball 2. First take these two examples:

    1) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity.
    2) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity.
    Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1. Now, take a third example:

    3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

    The problem for the Materialist is that consciousness itself is immaterial, the frequencies and angles that make up subjective experience may be caused by, but are not part of the Material world. Thus, I conclude that Materialism is false.

    ________________________________________________________________

    A possible criticism of my theory is that consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. This is a tempting view to take, analogous to the quality of wetness. A body of water is wet, even though no particular element of that body of water is wet. To clarify, a single molecule of H2O cannot be wet, because the quality of wetness is dependent upon the interactions of the constituent parts, without belong to any of those particular constituent parts. Wetness is an emergent property. A critic might conjecture that consciousness is also an emergent property of brain activity.

    I do not think that consciousness is an emergent product of brain activity. The difference between wetness and consciousness is that the quality of wetness follows from the physical laws governing the behavior of H2O, that is, given only the laws of physics I could predict that particular chemical substances would have the emergent property of wetness. The same cannot be said of consciousness. Given only the laws of physics, I could not predict the emergence of consciousness, it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be." End Quote.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #557 on: 14/10/2013 19:41:26 »
Quote
I am afraid , i was just wasting my time on you again, since you are not even able to recognize and acknowledge the very simple obvious undeniable fact that materialism is not ...science .

You are indeed, since I never said it was. No "ism" can be science, by definition.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #558 on: 14/10/2013 20:27:50 »
Quote
I am afraid , i was just wasting my time on you again, since you are not even able to recognize and acknowledge the very simple obvious undeniable fact that materialism is not ...science .

You are indeed, since I never said it was. No "ism" can be science, by definition.

Is that all you have to say ? no wonder ....
Anyway , you did not say that explicitly at least , but you meant it implicitly ,consciously or sub-consciously :  when you said the following , i will reproduce for you here below : sometimes , we all say the exact opposite of what we mean to say that reveals our own true positions on the given  subject : our words are ,sometimes, "wiser" than ourselves , either way ...
You accused me , apparently , of  confusing science with materialism haha , ironically enough , while i have been the one accusing you, guys , of doing just that : hilarious .

I have not been talking about science , just about materialism in science , materialism that gets sold to the people as science : your own failure to notice or see grasp just that means that you cannot separate science from materialism, obviously thus , despite my latter  provided relatively  long list of materialist "facts " in science that get sold to the people as scientific results facts or as scientific approaches at least = you cannot but confuse materialism with science , logically , as a result = it's like saying there is no difference between the 2 , despite what you said here above, to the contrary  : Comprende , amigo ?

Here you go :

Quote
  DonQuichotte : Materialism and Science are not the same thing.

Quote
Alancalverd : except, apparently, in your own ravings.

Beware of selfcontradiction. Remember the fate of the Oozlum bird: not knowing whether it was coming or going, it changed direction so many times that it flew up its own arse and disappeared. Incidentally this is the basis of Continuum String Theory.

Shalom ...Mr. what's the English name of that animal which buries its head in the sand again , come again ....
I am not trying to "offend " you by calling you by the name of that animal, no , since our materialist evolutionists see us  all , human beings ,  as being just ...animals, the bloody ...animals haha  .


« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 20:33:38 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #559 on: 14/10/2013 20:41:26 »
@ Cheryl :

Since you do seem to love and appreciate high poetry ,see the following : a gift to you, even though it's not mine , i wish : cheers :

You can download it for free, in different formats , including kindle ,  from this nice great site :

http://fr.feedbooks.com/book/2843/the-prophet

P.S.: The following are the exact poetic words of Gibran, i did misquote here above , in an earlier post of mine to you , i quote here below :

Quote :
" ....But i say that even as the holy and righteous   cannot rise beyond  the highest which is in each  one of you ,
So, the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also ...." End quote .


Source : "The Prophet"  by Gibran Khalil Gibran : Chapter 12 : "On Crime and punishment" = a totally different moral ethical view , a so true  beautiful -ugly  one  in comparison with the rest , or just with that  sick pathological morality  contained in  Dostoyevsky 's " Crime and Punishment " book you can also download from that same site for free , and much more ..... .

Beautiful, ugly,awesome , and so true ...
« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 21:15:55 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #560 on: 14/10/2013 20:51:12 »
...  the non-material side of reality must be left outside of science , obviously , but science can shed some light on  some parts of the non-material side of reality as well, by shedding light on its material basis ...
So non-material reality has a material basis?

Is consciousness part of non-material reality?

If so, does that mean science can shed light on it by shedding light on its material basis? if not, why not?

On the other hand, if consciousness is part of material reality, science can shed light on it directly...

« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 20:53:20 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #561 on: 14/10/2013 21:07:34 »
...  the non-material side of reality must be left outside of science , obviously , but science can shed some light on  some parts of the non-material side of reality as well, by shedding light on its material basis ...
So non-material reality has a material basis?

Is consciousness part of non-material reality?

If so, does that mean science can shed light on it by shedding light on its material basis? if not, why not?

On the other hand, if consciousness is part of material reality, science can shed light on it directly...

I will try to correct my earlier clumsy formulations, as follows :

Obviously , we are body and mind , matter and spirit :
The position of any given person regarding just that depends largely on his/her philosophical  secular , philsophical religious , or just on the religious view of the person in question regarding body and mind : dualism, monism , idealism ...
The materialist dominance in science has just choosen to turn that monism of Spinoza on the subject to materialist monism in science ...

The "view" of Islam , for example , as i understand it to be at last , is neither monistic , nor dualistic , or idealistic = it is neither : sees mind and body , or matter and spirit as 2 different 'things " or rather processes in one or as one ... : 2 = 1....i dunno .

So, the  approach of the  issue or hard problem of consciousness depends thus largely on the world view of the approacher in question ,so to speak .

I think that science cannot say much about consciousness as such ,or rather almost nothing at all ,  simply because consciousness  is immaterial , but science can help us shed some light on the physical biological brain as the kindda "receiver " or   as the executive material power of consciousness, i dunno  : basis was a wrong mistaken word : human language is too limited , too ideological, too cultural , too local ...so.

How the physical material biological brain and the immaterial non-physical and non-biological consciousness do interact correlate with each other is anybody's guess : beat me ...
« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 21:13:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #562 on: 14/10/2013 22:41:31 »
Quote
you cannot but confuse materialism with science , logically , as a result

Speak for yourself. I have no problem distinguishing betwen the two. Science is a process, materialism is a belief or a way of life. No similarity, no connection. I'm sorry for those who find such a simple distinction confusing but that's not my problem.

All I can advise is that if you fill your head with isms, religion or philosophy, you will waste an otherwise satisfying and productive life, and possibly learn to despise others or hold them in contempt. 
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #563 on: 14/10/2013 22:43:45 »
How the immaterial, non-physical, non-biological can affect or influence the material, physical, biological does seem to be a serious challenge for the immaterial consciousness idea. To influence the material means having a material effect, which suggests a material basis, but to be immaterial suggests the opposite.

Conversely, for immaterial consciousness to be aware of what's coming in through the senses and what is going on in the brain, it must be influenced or affected by material brain activity. A control system can't operate 'blind', without feedback.

Which raises the question, if something can both affect and be affected by the material, in what sense is it not material?

And if the non-material can both affect and be affected by the material, the assertion that it can't have a material basis seems fatally undermined.

These appear to be fundamental problems for the idea of immaterial consciousness, but the idea is testable, if not entirely falsifiable.

If consciousness is immaterial and controls all voluntary behaviours, such as memory, judgment, planning, personality, etc., we might expect to observe apparently spontaneous neural activity arising as the appropriate neurons are somehow influenced by consciousness to cause or modify these activities, and we would not expect to see changes consistent with consciousness being a process of the material brain, such as broad or non-specific influences on the brain (e.g. narcotics, stimulants, sedatives), having correspondingly broad influences on the functions of consciousness; or local and specific influences on the brain (e.g. localised damage or stimulation) having correspondingly specific effects on consciousness. 

However, when we examine the evidence, we don't see the levels of spontaneous activity that we might expect if some external influence was supplying memory, judgment, planning, etc. But the brain is extremely complex, so we can't be certain this influence is absent.

On the other hand, we do see that both specific local and broad non-specific influences on the brain have effects on consciousness entirely consistent with consciousness being the product of brain activity, and inconsistent with the immaterial consciousness idea.

So what would a reasonable person prefer:

the idea (immaterial consciousness) that has a fundamental contradiction or inconsistency at its core (how material & non-material can interact, and if they can, what differentiates them), for which there is no supporting evidence, explanatory model or mechanism, and which is not consistent with the available evidence...

Or the idea (consciousness materially generated) that is consistent with the available evidence, has an increasingly detailed model and explanatory mechanism and has at its core not a contradiction or inconsistency, but an as yet unanswered question?

Your choice; are you a reasonable person?


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #564 on: 14/10/2013 23:28:34 »
It's all been done before, and more succinctly:

Quote
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: The Life of Dr Johnson
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #565 on: 14/10/2013 23:42:55 »
It's all been done before, and more succinctly:

Quote
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: The Life of Dr Johnson
True - one of my favourite stories; empirical, pragmatic, and succinct.

But then, of course, Bishop Berkeley would have grasped his point without elaboration.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2013 23:58:26 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #566 on: 15/10/2013 02:22:00 »


Source : http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?15753-Why-Materialism-is-False

Prior Note :

The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject :



    ....In short, I think materialism is false. Below is why, with a detour through the reasons why Materialism isn't false.....

   
...The first and easiest is the problem of life. The problem arises from the unique properties and capabilities of living organisms; it had seemed incomprehensible that the mechanical world of physics could explain the biological. Something else was needed, so it was postulated that a vital force animated living matter, imbuing it with lifelike qualities. The doctrine held that life was inexplicable in terms of physicochemical interactions. If the Materialist could not explain life, then Materialism must be false.

    The Materialist did not get his answer to this problem in one sweeping theory, but rather a cumulation of experimental findings, from William Harvey's discovery that the circularitory system was a cleverly engineered mechanism to pump blood around the body, to Fracis Crick and James Watson's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The march of scientific progress has unveiled the fine structure of cellular machinery, all working impeccably from physicochemical laws without the need for a vital animating force.

    Here the Materialist can explain how life works without appealing to any immaterial vital essence, but there still remains another problem to be solved. This is the problem of design. How is it that this incredible arrangement of organised matter came into being? The odds that such organisation would occur by chance are astronomically low, but life is bustling all around us in a multitude of forms. If the Materialist cannot explain this design, then Materialism must be false.

    In 1859, in a joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace that explanation was provided. The Materialist now had The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection i.e. The gradual accumulation of adaptive organisation by selective advantage. This elegant theory has provided the Materialist with an answer to the problem of design, which has in time been corroborated by a vast amount of evidence, from practically every field of scientific study.

    The problem of design had been solved, but an interesting disagreement between Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin persisted. The problem of thought presented itself. To Wallace, the human capacity for reasoned thought was beyond the reach of evolution, a feat which could simply not have been achieved by anything other than supernatural intervention, or in other words: God given. How could it be that a physical system could possibly think? If Materialism cannot explain how it is that we think, then Materialism must be false.

    The answer to the problem today is all around us, in front of anyone reading this at this very moment, i.e. computation. Alan Turing's Turing machine and the advent of modern electronics are a vivid illustration that complex computational architecture, obeying only the laws of physics can perform intelligent operations. The Materialist can now look to neurobiology, where cognition is explained as the consequent of neurocomputations occurring in parallel throughout the central nervous system. The Materialist now has his answer to Wallace's conjecture that the capacity for reason is unevolvable and must be God given.

    So the Materialist has provided powerful arguments to solve the problem of life, the problem of design and the problem thought. Unlike these three problems, the final problem on my list cannot refute Materialism. If Materialism is indeed amoral, it would be a nonsequitor to conclude from Materialism's amorality that it is false. For this reason, the problem of morality is a special case, but nonetheless very powerful. Briefly, the argument claims that if we are nothing but an unintentional consequence of natural selection, nothing but elaborate machines and built by selfish genes, then there is no reason to work for a higher purpose. For what reason should we treat our fellow man with compassion? What becomes of right and wrong with no God?

    The answer to this problem is the combined product of evolutionary biology, neurobiology and philosophy. The combined solutions to the previous three problems set the stage for solving the problem of morality. First, evolutionary biology, far from undermining the basis of morality, can explain why we have a moral sense in the first place. Second, neurobiology has provided scientists with evidence of how the human brain computes moral decisions. Finally, philosophers have raised objections to the accusation that Materialism is inherently amoral, refuting the accusations with powerful solutions and counterarguments.

    Note: I am sure many reading this may object to the solutions I have presented to the 'four problems,' such objections are welcome and I encourage further criticism.

    ________________________________________________________________

    I have taken this detour through the successes of Materialism to drive home that I have no political agenda against the philosophy, religiously motivated or otherwise. I now wish to draw attention to my fifth problem for Materialism:

    5) The problem of consciousness
    A single element of conscious experience is called a quale, a group of quale are known as qualia. A quale might be the subjective experience of red, cold or pain. All quale are symbolic representations of frequencies and angles. The problem for Materialism is explaining qualia, the subjective experience of life, the very subjective experience without which we cannot imagine life being worth living at all. How can a physical system such as the brain be responsible for consciousness?. This is no small problem, for if Materialism cannot explain consciousness, then Materialism is false.

 
    No matter where you look in my brain, even if you are looking at that particular cluster of neurons responsible for my conscious experience of red, you cannot sensibly say that you are looking at the quale redness. The redness I see is qualitively independent of the neural substrate that is responsible for that quale. To put this another way, I would argue that qualia are ontologically irreducible to the neural substrate, that is, qualia have independent qualities which cannot be explained at the physical level. However, I also would argue that consciousness is entirely caused by the neural substrate, that consciousness has no informational content or cognitive ability above that which occurs on the neurocomputational level i.e. consciousness is causally reducible to the neural substrate.

   
    ________________________________________________________________

    A possible criticism of my theory is that consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. This is a tempting view to take, analogous to the quality of wetness. A body of water is wet, even though no particular element of that body of water is wet. To clarify, a single molecule of H2O cannot be wet, because the quality of wetness is dependent upon the interactions of the constituent parts, without belong to any of those particular constituent parts. Wetness is an emergent property. A critic might conjecture that consciousness is also an emergent property of brain activity.

    I do not think that consciousness is an emergent product of brain activity. The difference between wetness and consciousness is that the quality of wetness follows from the physical laws governing the behavior of H2O, that is, given only the laws of physics I could predict that particular chemical substances would have the emergent property of wetness. The same cannot be said of consciousness. Given only the laws of physics, I could not predict the emergence of consciousness, it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be." End Quote.

I doubt octopi and aardvarks could be predicted from fundamental particles either, so consciousness is not special in that regard.
Materialism is not the same as reductionism. As I mentioned earlier, probability and statistics has studied higher order relationships since the 1800s. It is rooted in empirical data, measurements of observable events, but a single dot on the graph tells you nothing.  You cannot predict the traffic patterns in Los Angeles, when and where accidents are most likely to occur, by looking at the length of screws in cars, the construction of tires, the components of the internal combustion engine.  Those are the wrong levels of organization for obtaining the information you are looking for.

I’m not crazy about “wetness” as an example of an emergent property, as it would involve a circular definition, the property of having  a lot of water or some other liquid in it or on its surface. But I do like dlorde’s example of brass being stronger than either tin or copper. David Cooper said a while back that a system cannot have properties that are not in its components, but I disagree. None of the cells in a bird are capable of flight, but a bird flies. So, if offered a choice, should I believe that flight is a property that emerges from the bird’s interacting components?   Or should I believe that a bird becomes infused with the non-material spirit of flight, or is somehow given flight by non material morphic resonance?

Flight is also the result of the bird's physical interaction with its environment, the air pressure difference above and below the wing. One thing we have not discussed very much, if at all, in this thread is the effect of environment on the brain. Not everything the brain does can be accounted for by its parts because it does not exist in isolation. Genes are big factor in human behaviour and ability, but environment has a major influence on how this is manifested. Several gene variants have been associated with things like anti-social behaviour disorder (aggression, violence, criminality.) Statistically speaking, the genes alone do not predict anti-social behaviour unless combined with an abusive, neglectful childhood. To put it simply, bad genes, good home: you’re fine. Good genes, bad home: still fine. Bad genes, bad home: disaster.

Another higher order, environmental effect is learning, which changes both the structure of the brain and its function. It also changes consciousness, or what you are conscious of. When you were first learning to type, you had to look down and hunt for every letter. Now your fingers seem to fly effortlessly over the keyboard, as you focus on what you want to say and how you next want to insult me. Curiously, if I asked you where the letter “V” is on the key board, you will probably have to look, or at the very least think about it a lot longer than you do when you are typing. Why? One explanation is that a learned skill is first obtained consciously, but its execution eventually becomes a process that happens just below the level of conscious awareness, where it works faster and more efficiently, and incidentally, with less energy consumption. So why doesn’t the entire brain function by these automatic processes?

One possible reason is that automatic programs are inflexible. A rat in a cage where there is both a juicy morsel of food and an electric shock will approach, withdraw, approach and withdraw. He becomes stuck in the middle of the cage. One thing that distinguishes humans (and even chimps and dogs) from, say, reptiles is the number and variety of ways they can respond to a stimulus or situation, a kind of flexibility. But flexibility requires a number of things, a way to switch back and forth between programs, and acquire new ones.
 Consciousness seems most active, not just in terms of certain types of brain activity on imaging, but also from people’s subjective experience of it (which you are so fond of,) when the environment violates your brain's expectations. If hitting the letter V on the keyboard started producing a T every time, you would stop thinking about the falseness of materialism, become aware of what your fingers were doing, and look down at the keyboard, puzzled. You can drive down the road, thinking of other things, barely remembering what you saw the last few miles, unless there’s a car flipped over in the ditch. When someone across a noisy room mentions your name, you hear it, and turn around, even though you have no recollection what else they were saying and feel as though you weren’t even listening to them. Neuroscience can explain these things, rather specifically. I don’t know about morphic resonance. But my main point is, that the statement in the article you posted: “it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be” is not a reasonable assumption.

« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 13:59:26 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #567 on: 15/10/2013 12:44:03 »
,,,But my main point is, that the statement in the article you posted: “it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be” is not a reasonable assumption.
Indeed; and there's something about the phrasing of that statement that seems curiously ambiguous in isolation.

It also seems to me that the alternative, the immaterial ghost in the machine, the Cartesian theater, is far more unsatisfactory, raising more unanswerable questions than it attempts to answer; at the analytical extreme it results in an infinite recursion of theaters and viewers, and at the the other extreme, a hand-waving vagueness of indeterminate ontology and epistemological vacuity, that effectively limits rational enquiry in much the same way as the god idea terminates rational enquiry into the chain of causality. Whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, I've yet to see anything to dissuade me that the god idea and the immaterial consciousness are lazy philosophical bedfellows of causal abrogation without explanatory or predictive utility.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #568 on: 15/10/2013 17:13:42 »
,,,But my main point is, that the statement in the article you posted: “it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be” is not a reasonable assumption.
Indeed; and there's something about the phrasing of that statement that seems curiously ambiguous in isolation.

It also seems to me that the alternative, the immaterial ghost in the machine, the Cartesian theater, is far more unsatisfactory, raising more unanswerable questions than it attempts to answer; at the analytical extreme it results in an infinite recursion of theaters and viewers, and at the the other extreme, a hand-waving vagueness of indeterminate ontology and epistemological vacuity, that effectively limits rational enquiry in much the same way as the god idea terminates rational enquiry into the chain of causality. Whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, I've yet to see anything to dissuade me that the god idea and the immaterial consciousness are lazy philosophical bedfellows of causal abrogation without explanatory or predictive utility.


The core point is :

The materialist magical approach of consciousness ,life ....and materialism itself are false ,so, one should try to look for alternatives to materialism :
That the potentially alternatives to materialism seem unsatisfactory to you , won't make the fact go away that materialism is false : comprende , amigo ?
Once again, i think that the immaterial side of reality , including consciousness , are , per definition, out of reach of the current conventional science :
I do not see either how any kindda evolved science in the future , via a so-called non-reductionist naturalism in science , can approach that immaterial side of reality ...directly , that you call paranormal , the latter is normal though ,not paranormal : paranormal is just made-up by man meaningless semantics .
Science can approach the immaterial side of reality though ,indirectly , via approaching the material side of reality , by shedding light on the brain as the "receiver " of consciousness ...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #569 on: 15/10/2013 17:25:54 »
It's all been done before, and more succinctly:

Quote
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: The Life of Dr Johnson
True - one of my favourite stories; empirical, pragmatic, and succinct.

But then, of course, Bishop Berkeley would have grasped his point without elaboration.

(Idealism is partly true though , partly wrong ...= the universe is matter and spirit , not only spirit .
Materialism is the exact opposite of idealism : materialism that assumes or rather believes that the universe is exclusively material , a materialist idiotic assumption and belief that are obviously ...false ...

Materialism is thus no better than that idealism of that silly bishop= they stand at the same level = oh no, rectification correction = mind or spirit are way too fundamental than matter can ever be = materialism is even lower or is rather a degenerate form of ....idealism also ... )

Wrong : there is nothing true , empirical pragmati succint regarding the alleged refutation of that story :
Science can neither prove nor disprove the silly allegations of that bishop ,obviously ....reason , logic ...neither .
It does not mean that idealism is true though ,as i said above ....
I can say that God is behind everything and at every moment in the universe and beyond : empirical science can say nothing about this allegation of mine , simply because science has no jurisdiction, so to speak, on that ....= that 's outside of the natural realm of science = in fact , that' s outside of the material side of reality as the domain or realm of science ....

Your unnuanced unrelative Russell's tea pot argument does not cover what i said here above ....= the simplest and best obvious answer to our existential questions is simply ...God = occam's razor ...



« Last Edit: 15/10/2013 18:51:40 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #570 on: 15/10/2013 17:35:24 »
Quote
you cannot but confuse materialism with science , logically , as a result

Speak for yourself. I have no problem distinguishing betwen the two. Science is a process, materialism is a belief or a way of life. No similarity, no connection. I'm sorry for those who find such a simple distinction confusing but that's not my problem.

No, you do , obviously , confuse science with materialism , as the majority of scientists do , a fact you cannot deny as such , a fact i have been extracting from your own replies on this and on other threads as well, all along .

Do you think that reality   is exclusively material, for example ? If you do, and i think you do , then you are a materialist who happens to confuse his materialism with the material side of reality , the latter as the domain or realm of science .

Quote
All I can advise is that if you fill your head with isms, religion or philosophy, you will waste an otherwise satisfying and productive life, and possibly learn to despise others or hold them in contempt.

My friend , everyone on this planet , including you me and our friends here , have their own beliefs , materialist beliefs or otherwise , world views .....
So, do not make it sound as if you are some unique special exception of that general rule that applies to every human on this planet , consciously or sub-consciously ...
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #571 on: 15/10/2013 18:01:08 »
Don, I notice you still haven't addressed my earlier post where I asked:
Quote
... So what would a reasonable person prefer:

the idea (immaterial consciousness) that has a fundamental contradiction or inconsistency at its core (how material & non-material can interact, and if they can, what differentiates them), for which there is no supporting evidence, explanatory model or mechanism, and which is not consistent with the available evidence...

Or the idea (consciousness materially generated) that is consistent with the available evidence, has an increasingly detailed model and explanatory mechanism and has at its core not a contradiction or inconsistency, but an as yet unanswered question?

Your choice; are you a reasonable person?
Fancy a go? :)
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #572 on: 15/10/2013 18:29:14 »
How the immaterial, non-physical, non-biological can affect or influence the material, physical, biological does seem to be a serious challenge for the immaterial consciousness idea. To influence the material means having a material effect, which suggests a material basis, but to be immaterial suggests the opposite.


Lethal thought error, and false materialist premise  :

You're looking at consciousness from the materialist point of view , dude , in order to prove the materialist magical approach of consciousness haha : very convenient indeed .
It's like saying i know, as many people do , that  i am a false pathological chronic deceptive manipulative liar , so, i will prove i am indeed  .
Since materialism is false , do not try to apply it to non-physical non -biological processes , as you do here above :

You cannot apply a false premise or a false hypothesis ,in order to prove your false premise , false hypothesis or materialist belief to be "true " = makes no sense .

So, I will turn this materialist non-sense of yours upside down : you cannot but "think" materialistically , i see :

Thoughts of a scientist observer can influence or change the activity of atoms he/ she is "looking " at or "observing" : do you think that those thoughts that are immaterial of course do just that to atoms ,via some material way  haha ,RU nuts  ? How then ?
By sending some invisible undetectable "energy" or remote 'signals "  from the brain to those atoms , like a tv remote control device do to the tv ?  haha

We can detect those signals sent by the remote control device to the tv at least though .



Quote
Conversely, for immaterial consciousness to be aware of what's coming in through the senses and what is going on in the brain, it must be influenced or affected by material brain activity. A control system can't operate 'blind', without feedback.

How did you deduce from that silly reasoning of yours that consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain ? does not add up :

Did you read the book or watched the movie concerning the extremely inspiring story of Helen Keller : The story of my life ?
She was born blind and deaf.....
Consciousness exists even without our senses ....

Quote
Which raises the question, if something can both affect and be affected by the material, in what sense is it not material?

You're building your reasoning on a false premise , amigo ?
Who said consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain through our senses ? Why not say that consciousness gets somehow informed by the brain via the senses ,or something like that , instead of assuming that consciousness gets affected and influenced by the brain through the senses , in order to get where you wanna get , as Thomas Aquinas used to do haha , regarding his silly attempts to prove the existence of God , for example ............very convenient .


Quote
And if the non-material can both affect and be affected by the material, the assertion that it can't have a material basis seems fatally undermined.

False premise = false reasoning = false conclusions .

Quote
These appear to be fundamental problems for the idea of immaterial consciousness, but the idea is testable, if not entirely falsifiable.

How can you test that then at least ? or make that partly falsifiable ?

Quote
If consciousness is immaterial and controls all voluntary behaviours, such as memory, judgment, planning, personality, etc., we might expect to observe apparently spontaneous neural activity arising as the appropriate neurons are somehow influenced by consciousness to cause or modify these activities, and we would not expect to see changes consistent with consciousness being a process of the material brain, such as broad or non-specific influences on the brain (e.g. narcotics, stimulants, sedatives), having correspondingly broad influences on the functions of consciousness; or local and specific influences on the brain (e.g. localised damage or stimulation) having correspondingly specific effects on consciousness. 

False premises again : what makes you think that consciousness gets affected or influenced by all that you mentioned ?
Why not think of the brain as some sort of a receiver then ?

What do you mean by spontaneous ? = something arising out of or emerging from nothing ..............
RU gonna send us back to that refuted  silly spontaneous generation?

Quote
However, when we examine the evidence, we don't see the levels of spontaneous activity that we might expect if some external influence was supplying memory, judgment, planning, etc. But the brain is extremely complex, so we can't be certain this influence is absent.

Brain and consciousness do interact and correlate with each other , how ? = that's anyone's guess , once again ...

Quote
On the other hand, we do see that both specific local and broad non-specific influences on the brain have effects on consciousness entirely consistent with consciousness being the product of brain activity, and inconsistent with the immaterial consciousness idea.

False  magical materialist bullshit  premises again .
Interaction or correlation between brain and consciousness = no causation .
Even the alleged causation is no explanation , simply because causation is no explanation .


Quote
So what would a reasonable person prefer:

the idea (immaterial consciousness) that has a fundamental contradiction or inconsistency at its core (how material & non-material can interact, and if they can, what differentiates them), for which there is no supporting evidence, explanatory model or mechanism, and which is not consistent with the available evidence...

You start with materialist false premises ,in order to prove those materialist false premises haha : How silly can you be ? : you're no better than Thomas Aquinas ...

You start with a false materialist hypothesis , just to get where you want = false premises = false reasoning = false conclusions .

A reasonable person should reject that false idiotic materialism ,obviously , unless one finds himself / herself comfortable in that materialist false idiotic belief = the human will to believe is inexhaustible indeed.

Quote
Or the idea (consciousness materially generated) that is consistent with the available evidence, has an increasingly detailed model and explanatory mechanism and has at its core not a contradiction or inconsistency, but an as yet unanswered question?

It's not a matter of preference or taste , like- dislike ...it's a matter of the truth we are talking about here , no matter what the truth might ever be .

Do not be stupid :
Physics and chemistry cannot , magically , give rise to consciousness ....thought , feelings , emotions ,...otherwise , we can build machines that would really think feel experience things , love ...exactly like humans do , not just simulate all that = cannot be done, for obvious reasons .

Quote
Your choice; are you a reasonable person?

You're a stupid person, blinded by the irrational false materialist faith, despite your relative intelligence , scientific qualifications , ...in the same fashion Stephen Hawking , Dawkins and all the rest of those materialists are ..............
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #573 on: 15/10/2013 18:35:03 »
Quote
I can say that God is behind everything and at every moment in the universe and beyond

....and I can say "bullshit". Since my statement involves nothing undefined, nothing unprovable, and no assumptions, it is a better statement than yours, and more likely to be true. Occam's Razor is a very sharp tool.   
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #574 on: 15/10/2013 18:39:10 »
Don, I notice you still haven't addressed my earlier post where I asked:
Quote
... So what would a reasonable person prefer:

the idea (immaterial consciousness) that has a fundamental contradiction or inconsistency at its core (how material & non-material can interact, and if they can, what differentiates them), for which there is no supporting evidence, explanatory model or mechanism, and which is not consistent with the available evidence...

Or the idea (consciousness materially generated) that is consistent with the available evidence, has an increasingly detailed model and explanatory mechanism and has at its core not a contradiction or inconsistency, but an as yet unanswered question?

Your choice; are you a reasonable person?
Fancy a go? :
)


See above :
Why do you think it's not possible that the immaterial consciousness can interact and correlate with the brain via unknown immaterial ways , either way ?

The immaterial consciousness and the immaterial side of reality are , per definition, out of reach of ...science .
You cannot just decide to turn the immaterial to the material ,via some magic , just to suit your own materialist beliefs: that's something that cannot be bought by really intelligent folks :
Go sell that  materialist non-sense to the ...atoms or to the inanimate matter : even those would not buy it , simply because even those are not just matter or just material processes...= everything in this universe is matter and spirit with  relative respective degrees of spirit ..............or consciousness...
Even atoms are conscious ,their own atomic degree of consciousness .


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #574 on: 15/10/2013 18:39:10 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length