The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 308615 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #825 on: 10/11/2013 17:31:57 »
Quote from: David Cooper link=topic=48746.msg423652#msg423652

Materialism looks to me like a bit of a straw man. Things that exist are material. Interactions between things that exist are not material, but they are mechanistic interactions. Materialism without mechanism is not going to get anywhere as a kind of science because it cannot handle interaction, and for that reason I don't think there's anyone out there in science doing pure materialism. There are places in science where mechanism is being ignored though, so those places need to be identified and the people who are making errors through ignoring mechanism need to be helped to see where they're going wrong.
That comment strikes me as disingenuous. I'm not familiar with any form of science, material or otherwise, that doesn't include mechanisms. That's the whole point, unless one envisions a static world in which nothing happens, and there is no causality.

Well, there can be no science without causation indeed : who said otherwise ?
Causation that requires time, and hence  requires change, movement ...action...  : there can be no science , no universe , no life ...without causation and time ( or space, time -space ...) .
(see how even atoms and their multiple sub-atomic components are in fact vibrations, waves , movement , energy ...= materialism has been superseded even by the most physical of all sciences = modern  physics .)
Not to mention the fact that the universe is evolutionary , and  must be approached as a whole in ways that must include the universe's mental side as well .
It's just that science might be able to reveal some deeper forms of causation that might turn out to be underlying the laws of physics themselves , when science will be free from materialism , and hence from its own mainstream materialist false "scientific world view "
Materialism that's just a false conception of nature : materialism that reduces reality as a whole to just the material and physical ,while pretending that the latter is all what there is to reality as a whole .
So, what has materialism ,and hence what has the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " to do with ...causation or with mechanisms  then ?

Quote
I would also suggest that mechanisms alone are not sufficient. One could imagine or invent mechanisms, entire models, but unless they correspond to something that actually exists, they are just ideas, even if they are logically consistent ones.


Indeed :
That's 1 of the reasons why all physical sciences should change radically in order to include the missing part of reality which has been labeled by materialism as non-existent , or as  just  physical material .

There might be other deeper and more fundamental forms of causation underlying the laws of physics themselves thus , if all sciences would include the mental side of reality as a whole thus .

Quote
Someone from another world who saw a car for the first time could invent or imagine mechanisms that explain its movement, whether it's many squirrels in tiny wheels, or a  sophisticated, alternative engine design, but at some point, he'd actually have to look inside to be certain.

All physical sciences  do  " have to look inside " the missing part of reality , the mental or non-physical one thus , to "be certain " .
Science cannot just continue ignoring the mental side of reality , or continue behaving as if the latter does not exist as such : the mental that is irreducible to the physical .

Quote
Never the less, it's encouraging to see Don appropriating the word mechanism (as in "the mechanism of non-physical processes,") when previously "mechanistic" was only used derisively.

See above :
To try to describe or explain and therefore understand the whole reality just via physics and chemistry alone , is what i have been derisive of, simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical ,as the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be, since the 19th century at least,thanks to materialism thus   .
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 17:42:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #826 on: 10/11/2013 19:43:18 »
Folks :
The hard problem of consciousness alone should have been  reason enough to make all sciences  question the false  mainstream materialist  "scientific world view " in fact .
Consciousness or the mental that are ,obviously , irreducible to the physical or to the material , biological .
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #827 on: 10/11/2013 19:45:38 »
Don. Posts 817 to 824 will simply not be read by anyone sane. That is not the way to argue or discuss anything.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #828 on: 10/11/2013 20:08:19 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte
<reams of junk that nobody will ever read>
You've got to be kidding me! As David said, nobody is ever going to read all that boring nonsense. I can't believe how you just wasted this thread with long boring junk like that. What on earth ever gave you the idea that was going to be read by someone?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #829 on: 10/11/2013 20:35:51 »
That comment strikes me as disingenuous. I'm not familiar with any form of science, material or otherwise, that doesn't include mechanisms.

When it comes to relativity, mechanism appears to be something that most physicists do not want to consider.

Quote
I would also suggest that mechanisms alone are not sufficient. One could imagine or invent mechanisms, entire models, but unless they correspond to something that actually exists, they are just ideas, even if they are logically consistent ones.

That's true - mechanism needs something to act on. The stuff that it acts on though is typically complex in nature and is held together by mechanisms, so it's very rare that you're dealing with anything fundamental, and I don't know if science has identified anything yet that can't be further divided.

Quote
Someone from another world who saw a car for the first time could invent or imagine mechanisms that explain its movement, whether it's many squirrels in tiny wheels, or a  sophisticated, alternative engine design, but at some point, he'd actually have to look inside to be certain.

Obviously it's best to look inside as that will help you to home in on the actual mechanisms involved, but you only need to come up with one viable mechanism that fits the known facts to show that whatever it is your looking at doesn't need to depend on magic. If you have a machine that can do arithmetic, for example, that is evidence that humans could do arithmetic mechanistically too and that they don't need to do it by magic. The same applies to reasoning - once a machine demonstrates that it can think as well as a human, Don's claims that the brain must think without using mechanisms will be shown to be false. He may not stick by those claims though anyway, but I wouldn't hold out any hope in that direction.

Quote
Never the less, it's encouraging to see Don appropriating the word mechanism (as in "the mechanism of non-physical processes,") when previously "mechanistic" was only used derisively.

Well, he may be getting the point that without mechanism he has only magic to fall back on, and that isn't very satisfying as an explanation as it's an utterly empty one.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #830 on: 10/11/2013 20:44:46 »
Quote from: DonQuichotte
<reams of junk that nobody will ever read>
You've got to be kidding me! As David said, nobody is ever going to read all that boring nonsense. I can't believe how you just wasted this thread with long boring junk like that. What on earth ever gave you the idea that was going to be read by someone?
[/quote]

Talking about Sheldrake's excerpts ? They are very relevant to this discussion , you have no idea, concerning the fact that the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " is false .
Take it or leave it .
Any non-dogmatic open -minded person cannot  a -priori  just dismiss ideas without reading them = that's even unscientific to reject ideas a priori .
That's no junk .
If you think it is , then, do not read it , and just speak for yourself instead .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #831 on: 10/11/2013 20:50:14 »
Don. Posts 817 to 824 will simply not be read by anyone sane. That is not the way to argue or discuss anything.
[/quote]

Why not ? See above what i said to this guy here above on the subject .
You do not seem to be willing to listen to what i say so clearly , so , i could not but resort to posting those extremely relevant excerpts from Sheldrake's book on the subject ,regarding the simple fact that the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " is false ,so.
I could not do otherwise ,since no one is open-minded enough here to listen to what i have been stating so clearly .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #832 on: 10/11/2013 20:55:44 »
That comment strikes me as disingenuous. I'm not familiar with any form of science, material or otherwise, that doesn't include mechanisms.

When it comes to relativity, mechanism appears to be something that most physicists do not want to consider.

Quote
I would also suggest that mechanisms alone are not sufficient. One could imagine or invent mechanisms, entire models, but unless they correspond to something that actually exists, they are just ideas, even if they are logically consistent ones.

That's true - mechanism needs something to act on. The stuff that it acts on though is typically complex in nature and is held together by mechanisms, so it's very rare that you're dealing with anything fundamental, and I don't know if science has identified anything yet that can't be further divided.

Quote
Someone from another world who saw a car for the first time could invent or imagine mechanisms that explain its movement, whether it's many squirrels in tiny wheels, or a  sophisticated, alternative engine design, but at some point, he'd actually have to look inside to be certain.

Obviously it's best to look inside as that will help you to home in on the actual mechanisms involved, but you only need to come up with one viable mechanism that fits the known facts to show that whatever it is your looking at doesn't need to depend on magic. If you have a machine that can do arithmetic, for example, that is evidence that humans could do arithmetic mechanistically too and that they don't need to do it by magic. The same applies to reasoning - once a machine demonstrates that it can think as well as a human, Don's claims that the brain must think without using mechanisms will be shown to be false. He may not stick by those claims though anyway, but I wouldn't hold out any hope in that direction.

Quote
Never the less, it's encouraging to see Don appropriating the word mechanism (as in "the mechanism of non-physical processes,") when previously "mechanistic" was only used derisively.

Well, he may be getting the point that without mechanism he has only magic to fall back on, and that isn't very satisfying as an explanation as it's an utterly empty one.
[/quote]

Why don't you just read what i replied to Cheryl on this same page right at the top of it ,concerning her same post of hers you just replied to here above , instead of continuing to hold your same false assumptions regarding my own views then ? by distorting the latter ,unbelievable .
Weak .
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #833 on: 10/11/2013 21:03:36 »
Quote from: David Cooper
An example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.
That’s not a problem in special relativity. The problem here is with your understanding of special relativity. I’ll explain your error to you: If two observers are moving relative to each other such that each measures the speed of the other to be v then each reckons the other’s clock to be running slow. That’s not a problem whatsoever. No true paradoxes or contradictions arise from this observed fact. By observed fact I mean that time dilation has actually been observed so we know that it’s true from an experimental point of view.

You're missing the point. Rocket A and Rocket B are sitting together in space. They may be stationary, or they may be moving - either description is equally valid according to SR. Now, A accelerates to 86.6 the speed of light (relative to B) and goes off on a long trip, then stops, turns round and comes back at the same speed before stopping next to B. Clocks on each rocket reveal that during this trip, one year has gone by on A and two years have gone by on B.

However, we can view the whole thing a different way. A and B are initially moving at 86.6% the speed of light to start with (relative to rocket C, which I'm only adding in to provide something specific to relate their speed to). In this scenario, rocket A suddenly stops (such that it is now stationary relative to C), then after a long time it suddenly accelerates to chase after B (at a speed which I won't bother to calculate), before decelerating to match the speed of B when it catches up with it.

These are just two of an infinite number of rival accounts as to what happened, and all of them are supposedly equally valid. It is impossible to pick out any one of those accounts and to say that it is right and that all the others are wrong - there is no experiment that can be done to determine that.

The problem comes in when you want to identify a mechanism for what has taken place. In the first account, rocket A accelerated and resulted in time slowing down for it for the first half of its trip, but in the second account rocket A decelerated and resulted in time speeding up for it for the first half of the trip. It cannot have both slowed down and speeded up at the same time.

Technically though, time doesn't work like that in SR. What really happens is that some things are able to take shortcuts into the future relative to other things by travelling through less time. Again though, in one account we have rocket A accelerating and taking a shortcut into the future compared with B, while in the other account A stops taking a shortcut into the future while B continues to do so.

That is where there is a mechanistic contradiction in SR which invalidates it. What happens though is that you all ignore the whole business of mechanism on the basis that you cannot detect whether A accelerates or decelerates, because all that counts from your point of view is that the total time elapsed works out correctly when the two rockets are reunited. You simply ignore the contradictions which necessarily come in as soon as you try to apply an actual mechanism to what has taken place.

Quote
There is a famous scenario called the Twin’s Paradox which is used to clarify the nature of time dilation. This subject came up recently in my science forum. We have a resident expert on general relativity there who sent me his article on the subject. If you’re really interested in learning the correct understanding of time dilation then you can download and read about it here – The twin paradox and principle of relativity – by Øyvind Grøn which can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4154

That was interesting, but unless I'm missing something, I don't think it addresses the point I'm making. I would be happy to discover that I'm wrong though as it would be good to sort this out. I have another objection to relativity which appears to kill it by a different route (showing that the apparent chains of cause-and-effect events which appear to run through the universe cannot be cause-and-effect at all under SR but must exist by chance alone, at odds which render the word "astronomical" powerless to describe the degree of improbability involved), but we can get onto that later.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #834 on: 10/11/2013 21:34:14 »
Folks :

Sorry, but  i do have to say the following : no insults , just facts, facts i cannot but deduce from your own stubborn attitudes here , in the very face of reality that stares at you via both of its eyes , via its  physical material and via its  mental eyes ,metaphorically speaking then  :
You're so dogmatic ,so narrow-minded ,so irrational ....and hopeless that science proper will be able to move on beyond your false materialist beliefs  and beyond you , guys , ,and leave you behind as a result , no doubt about that= inevitable = just a matter of ...time thus ,simply because materialism's end is nearer than ever  .
You cannot stop progress,seriously  .
You are just fighting against windmills ,as the fictitious  Don Quichot used to do .
That's 1 o the reasons why i did choose this nick of mine , in order to state the fact that we are all one or other relative forms of Don Quichot , in many ways , at some points of our own journeys,including myself thus  .
Don Quichot that applies to many situations ,false beliefs ,  states of mind , positions, attitudes ,dogmas , delusions, illusions,fairy tales  ...in many ways .
Don Quichot that's an endless and an ever-changing source of inspiration , and an endless source of irony , sarcasm, humor ......which can be applied to all peoples '  dogmas , false beliefs , delusions, states of mind , illusions , fairy tales ...

The dogmatic delusional illusory ...tragic-hilarious absurd implausible , inconsitent , incoherent ....pathetic ...you name it ....materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " is an unparalleled  major example of Don Quichotian Kafkaian pursuit and chasing of a mirage in the form of trying to explain "everything = nothing " just in terms of physics and chemistry , by assuming that reality is just material or physical , an absurd  surreal  false implausible dogmatic ideological  .....materialist version of reality ,that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " for so long now , at the expense of science , and hence at the expence of the truth, at the expense of humanity and humanity's progess -evolution ....= what a huge crime against humanity that has been , what an unparalleled ultimate con and scam , science will be able to reject and leave behind = science whose very nature is to dispell any dogmas , any untruths ,any half-truths even ,  any lies , any deceit , self-deceit , make-believe ....for that matter .

"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .

Nice week-end though , have fun , do not take yourselves too seriously as to ossify yourselves ,otherwise , we would be forced to put you in some sort of a museum haha , try to ridicule  yourselves if you wanna detect your intrinsic silly imperfect sides and your human, all too human , flaws .

Science is just a human activity , and hence just a reflection of all the highest and of all the lowest which are in all of us ,or as a great poet said :

"...But i say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each of you ,
So, the wicked and the weak cannot fall below the lowest which is in you also .."


Know thy self   then , i must add : science is nothing but ...you, as human beings , science is just a reflection of the highest and of the lowest which are in all of us thus .

Best wishes .



 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #835 on: 10/11/2013 22:21:07 »
The loss is worth the gain, you have no idea ,folks .
All the best .
See ya in another life , maybe ,who know ?
We have been all sleeping in this life  all along  , death will wakes-up soon enough .
The "reality " of this mortal temporary world is just a...veil  over our own blinded eyes  .

Know thyself , and you will be able to wake up , prematurely then .
Science is just a human activity ,that's just a reflection of the  self's highest and lowest states ,and of what lies in between  as well .

Bye.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #836 on: 10/11/2013 23:09:28 »
... All the best ... See ya in another life , maybe ,who know ?

Don't despair "folks", my telepathic dog has just indicated to me that DonQuichotte will be coming back :) ...



[ I didn't mock-up that book cover : it's a real book by Don's idol  ]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 20:52:04 by RD »
 

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 #837 on: 10/11/2013 23:52:38 »
Don't despair "folks", my telepathic dog has just indicated to me that DonQuichotte will be coming back :) ...
He promises to leave, then comes back to accuse others of dishonesty, he makes assertions he can't or won't explain then accuses others of dogmatism, he proposes radical changes to how science is done, but has no idea what they are, how they'd work, or what practical difference they'd make, he tilts at materialist windmills that are just mirages, and refuses to argue his case while accusing others of being close-minded. Not to mention pointlessly posting whole chapters of publications that go way beyond fair use, in breach of copyright. He's pure entertainment ;)

Quote
[I didn't mock-up that book cover : it's a real book by Don's idol  ]
Yes, that's another one that has failed several attempts at replication and been thoroughly debunked.

Sheldrake has become seriously flakey of late, and is now claiming there's a grand conspiracy of skeptics out to suppress the publication of paranormal  and psychic articles on Wikipedia, etc.: Sheldrake's Skeptical Conspiracy, Sheldrake's 'Gallileo Syndrome', Guerrilla Skeptics mock Sheldrake’s paranoia.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #838 on: 11/11/2013 04:53:04 »
Quote
[I didn't mock-up that book cover : it's a real book by Don's idol  ]
Yes, that's another one that has failed several attempts at replication and been thoroughly debunked.

If dogs could read their owner's mind could any be led calmly to the vet to be made "two stones lighter:)

Sheldrake has become seriously flakey of late, and is now claiming there's a grand conspiracy of skeptics out to suppress the publication of paranormal  and psychic articles on Wikipedia, etc.: Sheldrake's Skeptical Conspiracy ...

David Ike , or his management , have demonstrated that worryingly there's a market for this anti-science conspiracy-theory stuff , so there's market-pressure to come up with increasingly nutso paranoid nonsense, at £10-£15 a copy.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #839 on: 11/11/2013 21:49:46 »
If that's you away, Don, fare thee well and good luck with whatever you turn to next.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #840 on: 14/11/2013 20:15:18 »
If that's you away, Don, fare thee well and good luck with whatever you turn to next.
[/quote]

Thanks , man , appreciate indeed .
There is in fact nothing more interesting , more important and challenging than the hard problem of consciousness  ( I have been working on my own self or consciousness , and oh ,boy , human consciousness is an unimaginable universe  = an understatement thus ) , the latter whose THE key to understanding ourselves , the universe and beyond : it is a deplorable shame that science has been neglecting or ignoring this hard problem of consciousness for so long now ,thanks to materialism thus , by assuming the mind or consciousness to be as just some sort of biological side -effects of evoluton , while consciousness cannot be biological in fact , and hence evolution neither .
When one would assume or rather would believe that reality as a whole is just material or physical , including the mind or consciousness,as science has been doing for so long now, thanks to materialism thus ,  then , no wonder that science has been reducing consciousness or the mind as well to just neuro-biology ....

In short :

Reality as a whole is not just material or physical , and hence the mental or non-physical in general, consciousness or the mind are irreducible to the physical or material , and therefore  the 'scientific world view " is ...false .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #841 on: 14/11/2013 20:39:27 »
Amazing how people have been taking the idiotic and false materialist conception of nature for granted as  being   "true " without question for so long now , and hence as the " scientific world view " .........Unbelievable=  unparalleled stupidity at the very heart of science  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #842 on: 15/11/2013 18:36:19 »
Folks :

I do propose the following premise :

What if science does finally acknowledges the fact that consciousness is non-physical , after rejecting materialism , and therefore science would be able to deal empirically with the mental , the mind or consciousness ...empirically , relatively speaking, instead of reducing the irreducible to the physical , instead of reducing the mental, the mind or consciousness to just biological processes they are not  .

What then ?

The sky would  not even  be  the ...limit then , i guess .
« Last Edit: 15/11/2013 18:37:58 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #843 on: 15/11/2013 19:05:10 »
The best approach is to look for the causation linkage. It doesn't really matter what kind of voodoo is used to support consciousness, because at some point it has to interact with the computer that is the brain, and that interaction is something that science should be fully able to examine and document, and although the complexity of the brain will ensure that progress will be very slow, it will be a task that can be completed over time.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #844 on: 15/11/2013 19:11:50 »
... The sky would  not even  be  the ...limit then , i guess .

The sky isn't the limit for science, e.g. there's a vehicle currently on Mars , and another has just left the solar system.

NB:  DonQ has come-out as a god-botherer in another thread. [ You didn't do a very good job of hiding it Don ].

You must have a masochistic streak to try to convert those of a scientific persuasion to believe in your invisible-friend and associated religious intangibles.
« Last Edit: 15/11/2013 19:24:42 by RD »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #845 on: 15/11/2013 20:26:19 »
... The sky would  not even  be  the ...limit then , i guess .

The sky isn't the limit for science, e.g. there's a vehicle currently on Mars , and another has just left the solar system.

That was just a metaphor , amigo.

Quote
NB:  DonQ has come-out as a god-botherer in another thread. [ You didn't do a very good job of hiding it Don ].

I am not hiding anything , why should i ?

Quote
You must have a masochistic streak to try to convert those of a scientific persuasion to believe in your invisible-friend and associated religious intangibles.

I was just talking about the fact that  the false materialist conception of nature has been taken for granted for so long now as the "scientific world view " , and therefore science has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , and hence there is no God , no immaterial side of reality , no such a process such as the non-physical mental that's been reduced to just biological processes .........

The "scientific world view " is thus false , and therefore science should reject that false materialism , in order to include the missing part of reality ...that's all .
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #846 on: 15/11/2013 20:57:36 »
The "scientific world view " is thus false ...that's all .

There’s no “thus” about it . The "scientific world view" created the clothes on your back , the food in your belly, the roof over your head, and the medium you’re using to communicate* , so evidently is not “false”.

Worshipping [insert God here] did not make these things possible : it was science wot done it.

[* BTW why do you bother using the internet if “telepathy is normal” : just communicate telepathically, it’s gotta be cheaper].
« Last Edit: 15/11/2013 21:10:06 by RD »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #847 on: 16/11/2013 19:02:03 »
Quote from: David Cooper
An example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.
That’s not a problem in special relativity. The problem here is with your understanding of special relativity. I’ll explain your error to you: If two observers are moving relative to each other such that each measures the speed of the other to be v then each reckons the other’s clock to be running slow. That’s not a problem whatsoever. No true paradoxes or contradictions arise from this observed fact. By observed fact I mean that time dilation has actually been observed so we know that it’s true from an experimental point of view.

You're missing the point. Rocket A and Rocket B are sitting together in space. They may be stationary, or they may be moving - either description is equally valid according to SR. Now, A accelerates to 86.6 the speed of light (relative to B) and goes off on a long trip, then stops, turns round and comes back at the same speed before stopping next to B. Clocks on each rocket reveal that during this trip, one year has gone by on A and two years have gone by on B.

However, we can view the whole thing a different way. A and B are initially moving at 86.6% the speed of light to start with (relative to rocket C, which I'm only adding in to provide something specific to relate their speed to). In this scenario, rocket A suddenly stops (such that it is now stationary relative to C), then after a long time it suddenly accelerates to chase after B (at a speed which I won't bother to calculate), before decelerating to match the speed of B when it catches up with it.

These are just two of an infinite number of rival accounts as to what happened, and all of them are supposedly equally valid. It is impossible to pick out any one of those accounts and to say that it is right and that all the others are wrong - there is no experiment that can be done to determine that.

The problem comes in when you want to identify a mechanism for what has taken place. In the first account, rocket A accelerated and resulted in time slowing down for it for the first half of its trip, but in the second account rocket A decelerated and resulted in time speeding up for it for the first half of the trip. It cannot have both slowed down and speeded up at the same time.

Technically though, time doesn't work like that in SR. What really happens is that some things are able to take shortcuts into the future relative to other things by travelling through less time. Again though, in one account we have rocket A accelerating and taking a shortcut into the future compared with B, while in the other account A stops taking a shortcut into the future while B continues to do so.

That is where there is a mechanistic contradiction in SR which invalidates it. What happens though is that you all ignore the whole business of mechanism on the basis that you cannot detect whether A accelerates or decelerates, because all that counts from your point of view is that the total time elapsed works out correctly when the two rockets are reunited. You simply ignore the contradictions which necessarily come in as soon as you try to apply an actual mechanism to what has taken place.

Quote
There is a famous scenario called the Twin’s Paradox which is used to clarify the nature of time dilation. This subject came up recently in my science forum. We have a resident expert on general relativity there who sent me his article on the subject. If you’re really interested in learning the correct understanding of time dilation then you can download and read about it here – The twin paradox and principle of relativity – by Øyvind Grøn which can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4154

That was interesting, but unless I'm missing something, I don't think it addresses the point I'm making. I would be happy to discover that I'm wrong though as it would be good to sort this out. I have another objection to relativity which appears to kill it by a different route (showing that the apparent chains of cause-and-effect events which appear to run through the universe cannot be cause-and-effect at all under SR but must exist by chance alone, at odds which render the word "astronomical" powerless to describe the degree of improbability involved), but we can get onto that later.

Well?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #848 on: 16/11/2013 19:08:28 »
The best approach is to look for the causation linkage. It doesn't really matter what kind of voodoo is used to support consciousness, because at some point it has to interact with the computer that is the brain, and that interaction is something that science should be fully able to examine and document, and although the complexity of the brain will ensure that progress will be very slow, it will be a task that can be completed over time.
[/quote]

What you do fail to understand so far, is as follows, despite all these lengthy kilometers of pages  :

How can the "unconscious " matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness that's irreducible to the material or to the physical biological ?


In other words :

How can physics and chemistry account for the mental or for the non-physical ?



No way .

In short :

You're just chasing a ...mirage you do take for ...real , like a desert mirage that gets taken for water : no matter how long and how hard you would chase it , it will continue to be as elusive , as deceptive as ever , leaving you thirsty ,and leaving you dying as a result ...unless someone or something would rescue you by offering you some real water , the offered latter you continue to reject in favor of that elusive deceptive surreal absurd mirage of yours .

How irrational can you ever be indeed .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #849 on: 16/11/2013 19:26:09 »
The "scientific world view " is thus false ...that's all .

There’s no “thus” about it . The "scientific world view" created the clothes on your back , the food in your belly, the roof over your head, and the medium you’re using to communicate* , so evidently is not “false”.

Worshipping [insert God here] did not make these things possible : it was science wot done it.

[* BTW why do you bother using the internet if “telepathy is normal” : just communicate telepathically, it’s gotta be cheaper].
[/quote]


Refuting you is so easy , man, you have no idea , it is even an enormous pleasure to do so , the pleasure is all mine thus  : a piece of cake , despite your arrogant insulting condescendent fancy talk and many unnecessary links :

The "scientific world view "  has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical  for so long now , thanks to materialism thus .

To assume thus that reality as a whole is just material or physical is just a false materialist naturalist reductionist neo-darwinian false conception of nature , or just a materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , and hence the mainstream 'scientific world view " is also false , obviously .

The mainstream 'scientific world view " that's just been  a core materialist belief assumption, no empirical one .

Science has never proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist belief core assumption regarding the nature of reality to be "true ", obviously , never , ever .

Congratulations , genius :

You have not only been believing in a materialist core belief assumption big lie , make -believe , without question , but you also have been taking it for granted as the "scientific world view " .

How brilliant can you ever be indeed .

You're so overwhelmingly brilliant thus as to believe in a false conception of nature that you do take for granted as  the 'scientific world view " , you are so overwhelmingly brilliant in that sense that i do not wish to see any more  overwhelmingly  brilliant ideas or insights of yours like that anymore haha, simply because they are so overwhelming ......so absurd , so surreal , so irrational, so unscientific even .....so worse than those of any given superstitions of any given ignorant religious believer just because your materialist beliefs have been taken for granted without question as the 'scientific world view "= there is nothing whatsoever in all mankind's history for that matter that's worse than imposing a certain false belief or false world view as the 'scientific world view "  haha : tragic-hilarious , pathetic , silly ...........you name it ...

Congrat.... .
« Last Edit: 16/11/2013 19:30:52 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #849 on: 16/11/2013 19:26:09 »

 

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