0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
author=dlorde link=topic=48315.msg416555#msg416555 date=1376951082]I would spend time explaining the various lines of evidence I find convincing, but there seems little point - you've just told me it's all wrong - although, on your soapbox of incredulity, you clearly neither know nor understand of most of it.
In the absence of reasoned arguments to address, I'll leave you to it.
Peter Russell explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and proposes that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/08/2013 18:08:06Peter Russell explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and proposes that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings.Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories - that there isn't a problem of consciousness if everything conscious - which of course only spreads the original difficulty to everything in the universe; you might as well go the whole hog and say god did it. There are plenty of contemporary versions of this idea (e.g. Tom Campbell, et al), but Russells arguments are particularly poor (a mixture of argument from ignorance and special pleading), and his examples flawed. His namesake, Bertrand, must be spinning in his grave. Not surprising, as he's a physicist who admits he's spent all of 6 months on it. He defines consciousness as 'the capabiity for experience' (not awareness) then equivocates between passive experience (e.g. a stone experiences weathering), experience as a dynamic adaptive response to the environment (e.g. simple living organisms), and experience as consciousness (mind). He introduces philosophical zombies to try to emphasise how tricky consciousness is, but it's known to be an incoherent concept - if it does everything that an acknowledged consciousness does, i.e. it satisfies all the criteria we have, then it too must be acknowledged conscious.He starts with his conclusion then tries to find arguments & evidence to fit. In doing so, he fails to consider even the most obvious alternative explanations to his favoured explanation (e.g. giving a dog an anaesthetic proves we think they are conscious; really? let's conveniently ignore the fact that if you don't they will bite and scratch and struggle...). He spends way too long explaining 'paradigm' and 'metaparadigm' in an attempt to give his insubstantial claims more weight. He bemoans the lack of potential explanations within the current paradigm or metaparadigm, and, tossing Ockham's Razor to one side, rushes in search of a 'new' metaparadigm. Did he even pause to consider obvious alternatives in the existing paradigm, such as emergence, the primary candidate? No; don't tell the audience, they might catch on. And for a physicist to bring quantum mechanical observers into a talk about consciousness is also telling (hint an 'observation' in QM is any particle interaction - consciousness is irrelevant). Any neurobiologist could also tell him that not all knowledge is 'structured in consciousness', despite the Maharishi's pseudo-profundities; the vast majority of knowledge in the brain is not accessible to consciousness. He makes a lot of our converting perceptual reality into a map of the world that doesn't represent what's really out there; but, of course, a map is a representation, and an evolutionary biologist could tell him why we represent the world the way we do (hint - it helps us survive). He equivocates matter as experienced and in reality - matter is mostly empty space, and particles are not really particles, so he introduces solidity as if it's contradictory - but any physicist knows it isn't, knows that electrostatic forces explain why some matter is solid, why we don't fall through the 'empty space' of the floor and can't walk through or see through walls and, if nothing else, this point makes it clear that he's deliberately misleading to make his point fit his conclusion. Having tried to build a case the that our experience doesn't represent reality because reality is different from our experience of it, he then claims that 'all the indications are that there may not be an objective reality' (so what does he think he was supposedly studying all those years as a physicist?), sawing away at the very branch he sits on and teetering on the edge of solipsism. He claims 'there is only consciousness... a consciousness field ... which we experience and translate in the mind into shape & form & matter...' but, one is tempted to ask, if there's only consciousness, where does this 'mind' come from to translate it into shape & form & matter? String theory consists of strings of consciousness? no, they are simply mathematical constructs. If you could travel at the speed of light? You can't. From light's point of view it doesn't exist in space & time? No; it doesn't have a 'point of view' because it has no valid reference frame. Under the very theory of Special Relativity he uses to introduce these ideas, they are invalid by definition. It's total gibberish, and he must know it. But in his rush to use SR to undermine objectivity and external reality, he also conveniently forgets that SR is an explicitly objective theory that explains the subjective experience of the observer. He quoted Kant - "Space & time are the framework within which the mind is constrained to construct its experience of reality" (my emphasis) in support of his suggestion that space & time are not 'part of the external world'; the complete opposite of what Kant was saying. If anyone noticed, they kept quiet. Next he gets applause for bamboozling them with the principle of least action and the emission & absorption of light. It's standard physics, folks. He laughs at the 'average scientist' for thinking that stuff is outside our mind when it's inside our mind. I suspect the average scientist know the difference between the map and the territory. That's what they do for a living. He never gives a proper argument to support panpsychism, only the supposition from ignorance - we don't know how it arises so let's say it's universal - conveniently ignoring the evidence that it appears to involve brains (creatures without brains show no apparent consciousness), and the more complex the brain the greater the apparent degree of consciousness. He prefers intuition to reason - 'we intuitively know jellyfish are conscious despite having no nervous system because we'd rather unplug a computer than throw a jellyfish on the fire'. Really - that's supposed to be an argument? Forgetting, for a moment, the millions who'd happily throw a jellyfish on the fire rather than unplug their computer, did he not consider that we perhaps identify more with a fragile living thing than a human-built machine? or that maybe we know that you can plug a computer back in but you can't unburn a jellyfish?There are far better proponents of this kind of speculation than Russell, and at the end of it all, you still have the problem you're trying to solve - what is consciousness? but instead of narrowing it down, you've made it axiomatic, universal, unfalsifiable, impossible to solve, and as an explanation, it has no utility whatsoever, and no predictive power. Rather like the god explanation - which he introduces at the end.It's full of holes (it's practically made of holes) and I don't buy it. I buy this though.
you do not seem to be qualified to have any degree of heart's intelligence...First of all, who the hell do you think you are , pretending to possess the golden key to unveiling the secrets of the most greatest challenge to all humanity ever ?I am really stunned by your arrogance, self-projections and self-righteousness ...What knowledge do you possess , what qualifications do you have , what experiences , wisdom ...or career do you have...what makes you better than he is ?why do you seem to think like you are some sort of exception to that rule then ?...i detect no "humanity " in you, i feel like talking to a cold robot .What makes your world view better than his or better than mine then ?Just spare me your exclusive intolerant handicaped half-blind narrow -minded reductionistic deterministic materialistic key hole world views ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/08/2013 17:55:43you do not seem to be qualified to have any degree of heart's intelligence...First of all, who the hell do you think you are , pretending to possess the golden key to unveiling the secrets of the most greatest challenge to all humanity ever ?I am really stunned by your arrogance, self-projections and self-righteousness ...What knowledge do you possess , what qualifications do you have , what experiences , wisdom ...or career do you have...what makes you better than he is ?why do you seem to think like you are some sort of exception to that rule then ?...i detect no "humanity " in you, i feel like talking to a cold robot .What makes your world view better than his or better than mine then ?Just spare me your exclusive intolerant handicaped half-blind narrow -minded reductionistic deterministic materialistic key hole world views ...Very nice... A barrage of insults because I explained why I think the "brilliant cristal-clear" "awesome" lecture you urged me to watch is a bit rubbish. Says it all, really.[p.s. Forum rules: Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.]
You are so self-centered or egocentric ,as a materialist , no wonder, that you blame everything on others , and never on yourself : i presume you are not familiar with self-reflection,self-criticism or introspection.I was also stunned by your lack of integrity or dishonestyyou were not only dishonest in that sense , but you were also lyingyour self-deceit , lies and dishonesty in the name of science ... , are simply appaling and patheticyou are not conscious, self-aware , or mature enough to acknowledge the obvious logics of what i have been sayingSweet dreams in your own wonderland, mr. insensitive heartless unsubtle immature cold mechanic Alice.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/08/2013 02:19:49You are so self-centered or egocentric ,as a materialist , no wonder, that you blame everything on others , and never on yourself : i presume you are not familiar with self-reflection,self-criticism or introspection.I was also stunned by your lack of integrity or dishonestyyou were not only dishonest in that sense , but you were also lyingyour self-deceit , lies and dishonesty in the name of science ... , are simply appaling and patheticyou are not conscious, self-aware , or mature enough to acknowledge the obvious logics of what i have been sayingSweet dreams in your own wonderland, mr. insensitive heartless unsubtle immature cold mechanic Alice.OK. Feel better now?
Do you think that the western values, norms, principles ......of freedom, individual freedom, equality , democracy ,justice.....are the best developements humanity can ever come up with ?Do you think that democracy is the best government system ever , the best philosophy ....or do you see some future developments beyond those western ideals ...? ,as one should expect , since man is still evolving ...[/b]
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/08/2013 18:24:57Do you think that the western values, norms, principles ......of freedom, individual freedom, equality , democracy ,justice.....are the best developements humanity can ever come up with ?Do you think that democracy is the best government system ever , the best philosophy ....or do you see some future developments beyond those western ideals ...? ,as one should expect , since man is still evolving ...[/b]I'm no expert in socio-political systems, but it seems to me that those principles are desirable, although I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the way the democratic process is organised in the UK. I'm with Churchill on that question. Then again, having been raised in a Western democratic tradition, I would say that, wouldn't I?Unfortunately, these principles are implemented by human beings, and so tend to be corrupted by human failings, which seriously degrades the system. Whether a different system would be more resistant to corruption, I don't know. Whether we can come up with anything better, that depends on your criteria, and who knows what the future will bring?
You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .
Try to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously, if you want to at least ,while you are at it
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness
... for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness,
... Between the seventh and 13th centuries, Muslim scientists and thinkers were "the most erudite and productive ones in the world". ... So what went wrong? There are many complicated reasons behind the loss of influence, but one factor is the change in Muslim outlook. Back then, Muslims were part of a confident, cosmopolitan civilisation that was open to foreign cultures. Today, by contrast, the "common Muslim mind" is "insular", focused on protecting the "Islamic" sphere from the ideas of "the unbelievers".
If Muslims want more Nobel Prizes, and the knowledge and success that goes with them, "we must begin by challenging this close-mindedness".