Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: DonQuichotte on 01/11/2013 18:15:19
-
"What is ...Science ?
Hi, folks :
This question seems to be so obvious and simple that most , if not all, people do think they know the answer to it , but they do not , simply because science proper has been confused with materialism as a false conception of nature for so long now (since the second half of the 19th century at least thus ) by most , if not all, people , including the majority of scientists today , that all those core materialist mechanistic belief assumptions have been taken for granted as science , unfortunately enough, materialism' s core belief assumption that considers reality as a whole as just a matter of physics and chemistry , as just a matter of material physical biological processes .
Modern science thus has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , to just material biological physical processes , thanks to materialism , while science should in fact try to deal only with the observable, empirical, falsifiable, verifiable, reproducible , testable ...part of reality , the rest does "fall " outside of both science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .
I will be looking forward to your eventual reactions on the subject .
Thanks, appreciate indeed.
Cheers .
-
In a bare bones sense, I'd say that science is simply the application of the scientific method. Of course, it is stated in various different ways, but it can be more or less related as follows: identify a problem/phenomenon, propose a hypothesis to explain said problem/phenomenon, make predictions based on the hypothesis, perform experiments to test your predictions.
-
In a bare bones sense, I'd say that science is simply the application of the scientific method. Of course, it is stated in various different ways, but it can be more or less related as follows: identify a problem/phenomenon, propose a hypothesis to explain said problem/phenomenon, make predictions based on the hypothesis, perform experiments to test your predictions
.
More or less correct :
Science is just the scientific method practiced by scientists humans , there are many forms of the scientific method indeed : cosmologists , for example , cannot put the sun , planets , galaxies , stars ...in the lab to study them, they have their own scientific approaches in that regard .
But , the main core issue here is as follows :
How can science assume that reality as a whole is material physical = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ?, while science should in fact only be concerned with the observable, empirical ...
-
Science is the application of the scientific method. Observe, hypothesise, predict, observe....
The inability to control experimental variables does not invalidate that definition. The ability to control specific inputs merely speeds up the process.
Being an inanimate recursive algorithm, science cannot "assume" anything. Its practitioners may make temporary assumptions but these can be tested by the same process.
Scientific knowledge is the residue of testable, explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not yet been disproved.
-
But , the main core issue here is as follows :
How can science assume that reality as a whole is material physical = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry ?, while science should in fact only be concerned with the observable, empirical ...[/i]
Do what!!!?
You've just accepted a definition of science that clearly shows it to be a technique, a tool; a tool used for studying Observable Reality.
How can a tool "assume" something?
Why would Science be concerned with "Reality as a Whole"?
Where is "Science" concerned with the non-observable?
You are again, confusing Science with Learning.
Why not tell us what you think science should be?
-
The amazing thing is that the definition of science given by myself, supercryptid and skylii is the one that is taught and used in schools from the age of 5 upwards. How come DQ has never heard of it, or why does he choose to ignore it in favour of some irrelevant halfbaked rant about materialism?
-
I am quite satisfied that the argument is Dogma, not reasoned debate. The objection is primarily based on a reaction to the fact that Science, one of several tools used to understand "Reality as a Whole", must, by definition, ignore God.
I don't meet many God-fearing hammers.
Perhaps this will be met with a "why bring God into this?" from a correspondent who, himself, mentions God, the Soul and even telepathy(!) as arguments at every opportunity. I doubt that there is a jurist or psychologist alive who would not detect the religious fundamentalism behind this perverse view of science, behind these evasive or downright avoided answers. Indeed, it is overt enough that any adult can see what the problem really is.
DonQuichotte, I'll use your own notational form. Do you agree with the following?
Science = Ignore God = Sinful/Haram
I'm sure you can manage a simple yes/no answer.
-
This so urgently needed a fourth thread.
-
How could the scientific method even be applied to God? In principle, you might be able to detect His affects on reality (i.e. miracles), but you can't detect Him directly unless He chooses to be detected.
-
This so urgently needed a fourth thread.
[/quote]
I am afraid even a 1000th thread on the subject won't help : see what these folks have been saying regarding science and materialism ... science that has been materialistic since the 19th century at least = science that has been reducing everything to just phsyics and chemistry = science that has been reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just material physical biological processes ,thanks to materialism indeed, while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical ...
These folks do not seem to be able to get that simple fact , despite all my extensive attempts to make them understand just that ...hopeless...
-
How could the scientific method even be applied to God? In principle, you might be able to detect His affects on reality (i.e. miracles), but you can't detect Him directly unless He chooses to be detected.
[/quote]
Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans , to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .
But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction as well by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...
See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into ?
-
The amazing thing is that the definition of science given by myself, supercryptid and skylii is the one that is taught and used in schools from the age of 5 upwards. How come DQ has never heard of it, or why does he choose to ignore it in favour of some irrelevant halfbaked rant about materialism?
[/quote]
I am not responsible for your lack of understanding simple facts : see above :
People are certainly taught in schools , universites ...all around the world that materialism is science , simply put : or rather that all materialist belief assumptions in science are ...science : they take for granted as science without question :
They are not taught that materialism is just an Eurocentric outdated philosophy that dates back to the 19th century , they are not taught that materialism is just a world view , an ideology , a false conception of nature in science .
Science indeed , once again, should in fact limit itself only to the observable , empirical ....part of reality , but materialism has been making science go beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method and beyond science's jurisdiction, by making science consider the whole reality as such as just being material physical = a false materialist belief assumption in all sciences and elsewhere , that gets taken for granted without question by most people, including by the majority of scientists today , including by all of you , guys , thus , a false materialist belief assumption or a materialist false conception of nature that gets taken for granted as ...science= thanks to materialism , science has therefore been reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just material physical biological processes = the whole reality as a whole as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , and in terms of the materialist macroscopic extensions of that materialist false core belief assumption regarding the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such .............the latter as being allegedly exclusively material physical ...
Really , is that so difficult to understand ? Amazing .. .
-
Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans , to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .
But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction as well by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...
See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into ?
If scientists restrict themselves to using their "unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other" in order "to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable part of reality" because "the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm," then why would you expect them to generate theories or a conceptual frame work that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual work they are doing? How is a chemist just doing work in chemistry imposing on anyone else's beliefs?
Actually, the view that science assumes the whole of reality is material isn't even accurate. Here is an example, brought to you by the evil materialists at Scientific American.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/
In this article, a psychology professor and science writer, Jesse Bering, examines Ian Stevenson's claims involving children recalling past lives. He is impressed by the examples. He is also impressed by Stevenson's attempts to fact check, and discard any easily refutable claims. Bering says "This Sri Lankan case is one of Stevenson’s approximately 3000 such “past life” case reports from all over the world, and these accounts are in an entirely different kind of parapsychological ballpark than tales featuring a middle-aged divorcée in a tie-dyed tunic who claims to be the reincarnation of Pocahantas. More often than not, Stevenson could identify an actual figure that once lived based solely on the statements given by the child. Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them firsthand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means."
But I doubt you will see an explosion in scientific research involving reincarnation or past lives, and not because science has been hijacked by materialism. Like investigations of ESP, conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be....." And that's where it ends.
Paranormal research never gets beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. But if you can come up with some good experiments, Don, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen. There's no materialist, Eurocentric conspiracy to brain wash the entire world.
-
Normally , science is just an effective human limited and an unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other for that matter ,practiced by scientists humans , to try to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable ....part of reality only ,,the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm , and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including God, the immaterial side of reality as a whole as such ... .
But , materialism has been making science , for so long now , go beyond its empirical scientific method ,materialism has been therefore making science go beyond science's realm and byond science's jurisdiction as well by making science "assume " , via that dominating materialist meta-paradigm in science mainly , by making science "assume " that the whole reality as such is just physical material = the whole reality as such , everything thus , can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of those materialist macroscopic extensions of materialism's core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole , materialist macroscopic extensions such as " the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, consciousness is just an allegedly emergent property from or product of the evolved complexity of the brain's neuronal activity ...human reason is just a product of the so-called neuronal computation mechanisms ..." , life as whole is just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry ...
See the difference between what science really is , what science can and cannot do , what science can try to understand or explain , and what science cannot do ....and between what materialism has been turning science into ?
If scientists restrict themselves to using their "unparalleled tool instrument or sophisticated method that's like no other" in order "to understand and explain the observable , empirical, faslifiable, verifiable , reproducible, testable part of reality" because "the rest of reality is , per definition, outside of science's realm," then why would you expect them to generate theories or a conceptual frame work that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual work they are doing? How is a chemist just doing work in chemistry imposing on anyone else's beliefs?
Actually, the view that science assumes the whole of reality is material isn't even accurate. Here is an example, brought to you by the evil materialists at Scientific American.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/
In this article, a psychologist and science writer, Jesse Bering, examines Ian Stevenson's claims involving children recalling past lives. He is impressed by the examples. He is also impressed by Stevenson's attempts to fact check, and discard any easily refutable claims. Bering says "This Sri Lankan case is one of Stevenson’s approximately 3000 such “past life” case reports from all over the world, and these accounts are in an entirely different kind of parapsychological ballpark than tales featuring a middle-aged divorcée in a tie-dyed tunic who claims to be the reincarnation of Pocahantas. More often than not, Stevenson could identify an actual figure that once lived based solely on the statements given by the child. Some cases were much stronger than others, but I must say, when you actually read them firsthand, many are exceedingly difficult to explain away by rational, non-paranormal means."
But I doubt you will see an explosion in scientific research involving reincarnation or past lives, and not because science has been hijacked by materialism. Like investigations of ESP, conclusions are based on process of elimination - e.g. "There's no way this person could have this information that we can identify, so it must be....." And that's where it ends.
Paranormal research never seems to get beyond that point. There never seems to be a way to design additional experiments that provide more detailed or descriptive insight into the mechanism or process - how it works. But if you can come up with some good experiments, Don, I'm sure some scientist out there will listen. There's no materialist, Eurocentric conspiracy to brain wash the entire world.
[/quote]
Ironically , Sheldrake, for example, to mention just this scientist , has been conducting almost the same scientific research approach in relation to telepathy , in relation to his alleged morphic resonance theory ...It's just that Sheldrake does not assume that the mind is created by the brain's activity ,or that reality is material physical , as materialists do , "The mind is in the brain", for example , as just an extension of the materialist core assumption or materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere , that assumes reality as a whole to be exclusively material , a materialist belief assumption that pretends to be 'scientific " .
So, any so-called non-physical or non-biological pocesses as such would be , per definition, either dismissed as such by the mainstream materialist scientific community , or would be just reduced to physics and chemistry at their ultimate core , while trying to deliver some macroscopic materialist 'explanations " of those non-material processes , such as via computation , emergence property theory or otherwise , in ways that would fit into the materialist world view in science ,the latter that gets taken for granted as the 'scientific world view " .
So, you cannot deny the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just material physical processes , despite the fact that there are some scientists who do 'sing outside of the mainstream dominating materialist orchestra club " , such as some of the religious scientists .
So, science proper should confine itself only to the empirical, observable ...instead of 'assuming " that the whole reality is physical material , that everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry biochemistry , or just in terms of those macroscopic extensions of materialism such as that computation computer -like , machine -like analogy regarding the neuronal activity of the brain , such as the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain ...
When science does assume that reality is material physical, science ceases to take non-material and non-physical processes seriously , worse : science rejects a-priori their existence ,obviously, or science will just try to dismiss them as just "creations of the mind " or illusions , delusions ...thanks to materialism thus .
But , when science will cease to be dogmatic and will become more scientific , by rejecting materialism thus , then, science will be open to non-physical and to non-biological processes = science will cease to consider the latter as just material physical biological processes as a result, or as just elaborate 'creations of the mind via the brain's activity " .... .
In short :
Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .
Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .
Thanks, appreciate indeed
Cheers
-
In short :
Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .
Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .
Thanks, appreciate indeed
Cheers
Science DOES restrict itself to what is testable and observable.. This is why you dont see whta others are saying as you all are saying the same thing.. Except DQ is yammering on about how science cant explain somethings.. WELL let me ask you .. what is the definition of Theology or even Psychology, these are sciences based upon the unseen, the immaterial and based upon the beliefs and reactions of their subjects.
These are the sciences that tranverse materialism, they bridge the gap between the measurable and the immeasurable.
Science will try to observe what it can, even if its non material, non physical.. If it cant observe it, then there is no interest in looking at it, (such as existence of god) Science has never once tried to disprove the existence of any god. Science has just looked at things and found explanations for it. So say you talk about something non material, non physical such as a new religion.. if it cannot be observed even theology cannot look at it as there is nothing to look at.
Science will never close its door to new forces or experiences, as the whole idea of science is to find these and explain them. And STILL it agrees that things are not fully explained.
You talk about realms and jurisdiction as if you are putting boundaries in the universe for some reason. The boundaries either already exist.. or they do not.. both ways science is needed to find them or to prove them not there.. there is nothing (and really should be nothing) inhibiting investigation. You mention telepathy a few times in previous threads.. you surely must know that the best 'so-called' telepaths in the world have explained its no so much reading the mind, as reading the person.. its all about body language and 'tells' no reading of the mind at all. This came from those who practise it, and make money from it.. any belief otherwise to me seems inherently concerning.
-
In short :
Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .
Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .
Thanks, appreciate indeed
Cheers
Science DOES restrict itself to what is testable and observable.. This is why you dont see whta others are saying as you all are saying the same thing.. Except DQ is yammering on about how science cant explain somethings.. WELL let me ask you .. what is the definition of Theology or even Psychology, these are sciences based upon the unseen, the immaterial and based upon the beliefs and reactions of their subjects.
Theology is , obviously , no science .
psychology is no real exact science , psychology is mainly a pseudo-science , despite some scientific truths contained in it , thanks mainly to neurology ....
But , fact is , even psychology itself is dominated by the materialist "scientific world view " ,the same goes for neurology also by the way some particular school of psychology relies on , psychology thus is dominated by materialism , especially the so-called evolutionary psychology ,especially the so-called behavioural psychology , especially that of Skinner in the 1960's ... despite the fact that there are many schools of psychology out there in fact , such as the non-materialist ones at that .
These are the sciences that tranverse materialism, they bridge the gap between the measurable and the immeasurable.
Sciences such as what exactly ? see above .
All sciences , all human sciences and the rest are dominated mainly by the materialist 'scientific world view " that considers reality as a whole as to be exclusively material physical , even the human mind or intellect is reduced by neurologists to just the physical brain's neuro-chemical acitivity , via some elaborate macroscopic computation "mechanisms " extensions of materialism ,sir = the mind is in the brain, even consciousness is reduced by neurology to just some sort of magical 'emergent " property from the evolved complexity of the human physical brain's activity ...even memory is reduced to just physics and chemistry , by assuming that memory is stored in the brain ...Come on .
Science will try to observe what it can, even if its non material, non physical
That's what science should do in fact , but science has been reducing everything to just physics and chemistry , so , thanks to materialism thus .
That reality as a whole is allegedly material physical is just a materialist dogmatic belief assumption, no empirical one .
.. If it cant observe it, then there is no interest in looking at it, (such as existence of god) Science has never once tried to disprove the existence of any god. Science has just looked at things and found explanations for it. So say you talk about something non material, non physical such as a new religion.. if it cannot be observed even theology cannot look at it as there is nothing to look at
.
Science , per definition, can only deal with the observable, empirical ....the rest is outside of science's realm and jurisdiction, obviously .
Science can thus neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, for example , simply because that cannot be observable, empirical...simply put .
But , as science has been assuming , thanks to materialism, that reality as a whole is physical material , so, there is no God , no immaterial side of reality , no immaterial phenomena ...see the difference between what science actually is , and what materialism has been turning science into ? Hope so for you .
Science will never close its door to new forces or experiences, as the whole idea of science is to find these and explain them. And STILL it agrees that things are not fully explained.
Science has been in fact closing all its doors and itself in relation to the possibility of the existence of the immaterial side of reality , in relation to the immaterial side of life ,to those it can approach empirically at least , by assuming that reality as a whole is material physical, thanks to materialism, once again .
You talk about realms and jurisdiction as if you are putting boundaries in the universe for some reason. The boundaries either already exist.. or they do not.. both ways science is needed to find them or to prove them not there.. there is nothing (and really should be nothing) inhibiting investigation. You mention telepathy a few times in previous threads.. you surely must know that the best 'so-called' telepaths in the world have explained its no so much reading the mind, as reading the person.. its all about body language and 'tells' no reading of the mind at all. This came from those who practise it, and make money from it.. any belief otherwise to me seems inherently concerning.
What about the famous CIA and KGB remote viewing telepathy studies during the cold war , for example ?
What about Sheldrake's scientific approach of telepathy ?
Anyway , i am not interested really in telepathy , i just mentioned it as an example science should not dismiss a-priori as such .
There are , besides, limits to what science can and cannot do , can and cannot observe , test , verify , falsify ....obviously .
That does not mean that all what cannot be tested , observed ...empirically , does not exist as such = the abscence of evidence is not always the evidence of abscence .
But then again, i have to remind you , once again, to the point where i would sound as boring and depressing as anythingelse for that matter , but , nevertheless , i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , thanks to materialism, a fact that makes science close all its doors and a-priori to any non -physical non-material or non-biological processes out there ...to the ones it can approach empirically at least .
-
i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry
Nothing to do with science. Reality IS just physics and chemistry. And since chemistry is just physics applied to molecules, and since physics is just a trivial particularisation of mathematics, reality is just applied maths. Which is why the universe behaves so predictably.
If you don't believe that the universe in general and human behaviour in particular is predictable, read DQ's next post, and compare it with any of his others. There will not be one original thought in it.
-
i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry
Nothing to do with science
Nothing to do with science ? Well, for your information , that's the 'scientific world view " or the scientific consensus ,how can you say that then ? haven't you heard of that materialist meta-paradigm in science yet ? = reality is just physical or material , have you ? Guess not thus , obviously,despite the fact that i have been mentioning it for so long now on this forum .
. Reality IS just physics and chemistry
Is that a scientific fact ?
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?
If yes , do try to tell me how and when, not to mention by whom exactly and where when how .
If not , why do you consider it as a fact then ?
You do have some serious explanations to do , good luck : i do not wanna be in your shoes = mission impossible = materialism as just a belief , all beliefs for that matter , cannot be proven to be "true or false " empirically at least , obviously , and simply because science cannot know yet already , if ever , what the nature of reality as a whole might be : science has been just revealing some aspects of reality , despite those desperate and unscientific materialist belief assumptions attempts to try to come up with some sort of "theory of everything = theory of nothing " that pretends to explain everything = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry thus: see "A brief history of time " by Stephen Hawking at least on the subject , to mention just that apparent genius who's been also deluded by materialism into thinking that materialism is science ,unfortunately enough : what a waste for such a great talent such as his indeed .
. And since chemistry is just physics applied to molecules, and since physics is just a trivial particularisation of mathematics, reality is just applied maths. Which is why the universe behaves so predictably.
Is that a fact ?
Can everything be explained just via the laws of physics ? try to explain consciousness, human intellect , emotions, feelings , human love , memory , human conscience , human ethics , human societies, politics , economy , cultures, beliefs ...human history ....the origins of life , reality as a whole thus and beyond ...just via the laws of physics then= you would most certainly , not just probably , you would in fact make a fool of yourself with absolute certainty , not just probably = i am absolutely certain, without a shadow of a doubt , that you ,including anyoneelse for that matter , would make a complete fool of yourself by just thinking of trying to do so .
Good luck then, even though i do not believe in the existence of such a 'thing " such as ...luck indeed .
I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect theory , and modern physics had already kissed that outdated , superseded , largely discredited and largely refuted Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability nowadays , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
Try to read the following and try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/
High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos
High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.
The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.
The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.
As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.
If you don't believe that the universe in general and human behaviour in particular is predictable, read DQ's next post, and compare it with any of his others. There will not be one original thought in it.
Depends on DQ's particular audience or public at hand, depends on many other variables and on many unpredictable insights from other kindda public , events ...as well etc also indeed .
See above
I thought you were mentioning a "fact", not an act of faith grounded in an outdated refuted and superseded 19th century materialist core belief assumption .
Have you predicted the following as well ? :
Excerpts from high Arabic ancient poetry tragedy odyssey " The Epistle of forgiveness " by Al Maari : the father of Dante's "Divine comedy " :
فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،
[Mod: Please keep your posts in English.
What I saw was a mix of Chinese and Arabic.
Did you read what you were posting?]
-
Wait... you talk of science 'reducing' things..
If it can be reduced to physics and chemistry then it is materialistic, if it cant.. then feel free to use it for what ever means you wish to do.. worship it maybe?
Why should physics and chemistry not try to reduce what it can observe and test, to try and understand the why of things.
You words are starting to gain the aroma of antiscience, which similar to aetheism is the sign of deep rooted confusion. What do you gain from this belief? Other than to restrict and subjugate the development of technology and understanding. Its a very selfish view that just because you can't understand something, that no one else can and they shouldn't even try.
-
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?
Science is about disproof, not proof. AFAIK there has been no disproof of my statement.
-
فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،
Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".
Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.
-
فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،
Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".
Haha Very funny .
Where did you study Arabic ,sis : Google translation sucks really = hilarious .
I am rather flying via both of my wings , while you , folks , are flying just via one of your wings , while assuming that your other wing does not exist , but do not worry , i will be there to save you from your inevitable fall haha
Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.
The drones' inquisitions will meet the same fate as that of the medieval church haha
-
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?
Science is about disproof, not proof. AFAIK there has been no disproof of my statement.
Well,ok, have it your way then, or just let me go along with you for a change then, just for our discussion's sake then :
Has science ever disproved the fact that reality as a whole is not just material physical ?
What statement ? determinism or predictability ? = do kiss them goodbye= the maths of chaos did destroy that myth .
Not everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , obviously .
Otherwise , try to explain or rather try to predict the economy , politics, societies, cultures , history, .......consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , life as a whole ....just via physics and chemsitry then = cannot be done, obviously .
-
To the Mod who wrote the following :
[Mod: Please keep your posts in English.
What I saw was a mix of Chinese and Arabic.
Did you read what you were posting?]
I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .
That was just something to "test the amazing predictability extraordinary powers of our alancalverd , that's all : i thought you have noticed just that already .
As an Arab, it's pretty logical to assume that i do know Arabic, don't you think ?
-
Wait... you talk of science 'reducing' things..
If it can be reduced to physics and chemistry then it is materialistic, if it cant.. then feel free to use it for what ever means you wish to do.. worship it maybe?
Why should physics and chemistry not try to reduce what it can observe and test, to try and understand the why of things.
You words are starting to gain the aroma of antiscience, which similar to aetheism is the sign of deep rooted confusion. What do you gain from this belief? Other than to restrict and subjugate the development of technology and understanding. Its a very selfish view that just because you can't understand something, that no one else can and they shouldn't even try.
[/quote]
All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .
-
Why would memories, feelings and emotions not be possible to explain with materialism? Why is there any reason to believe that it is anything more than biology? Heck, I recall an experiment where different parts of the brain were stimulated with electricity in a subject which resulted in them having either very positive or very negative feelings (depending on the region of the brain stimulated). If emotions have no origin in material reality, why is it that they can be directly generated by such physical processes?
-
All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .
But shouldn't science be able to form its own boundary, and give you proof that there is more than physics and chemistry, In fact that is what science is all about anyway. Science does not look to prove or disprove the presence of metaphysical forces, it just tries to see if metaphysical forces are really involved and not some application of chemistry or physics that could then lead to us harnessing or manipulating things for the betterment of technology and mankind. If we all of a sudden found out.. "what is life" we would be able to take serious leaps and bounds in medicine (and technology) that would improve the lot of mankind. Is this such a bad thing to try for?
-
I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .
Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.
-
All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .
This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?
-
I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .
Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.
[/quote]
Oh, so : thanks for the tip indeed : Mr.Dave the computer specialist at work , nice .
-
The drones' inquisitions will meet the same fate as that of the medieval church haha
Great slogan: You should paint it on the side of your tank and come out to play.
-
All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .
This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?
Exactly.
I don't see the gain of inventing an additional system (the immaterial) that doesn't explain a phenomenon, to replace or supplement your other system that doesn't explain a phenomenon. Especially when the new system doesn't explain anything else, either!
-
All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .
This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?
Exactly.
I don't see the gain of inventing an entirely new system (the immaterial) that doesn't explain a phenomenon, to replace or supplement your system that doesn't explain a phenomenon. Especially when the new system doesn't explain anything else, either!
Well, we have no choice but to accept the fact that reality as a whole is not just material physical ,whether we do like it or not , regardless of what science can or cannot explain (We cannot simply dismiss or ignore what science cannot explain as if that does not exist ,we should rather try to find some new ways of understanding this intelligible universe as a whole , or just what we can understand of it , not dismiss and ignore what we cannot describe understand or explain a-priori by reducing the whole universe to just what we can explain describe or understand .) , if we wanna try to describe explain or understand reality as a whole, or rather just the parts of reality science can deal with empirically : science is not a matter of belief taste , like or dislike , or opinion, science is a matter of facts , remember .
We cannot just pick the parts of reality we like ,via some belief of ours on the subject , if we want science to deal empirically with the parts of reality it can deal with , instead of confining science to just the part of reality we like or to what we believe it is reality as a whole, while taking that specific part of reality for granted as the whole real thing : otherwise , that would be an irrational illogical and even an unscientific assumption to hold or make or thing to do .
Science by the way is or rather should be just an effective tool instrument tool to try to describe explain and make us understand the parts of reality it can deal with empirically ,which does mean that there are some other parts of reality science cannot deal with empirically , obviously , but that does not mean that all what science cannot deal with empirically does not exist as such : one cannot dismiss that just because science cannot , per definition deal with it empirically .
I do think , see what Nagel had to say on the subject here above while you are at it , i do think that when science will be liberated from its materialist dogmatic belief system, from its materialist "scientific world view ", science will be able to expand its scope reach realm and jurisdiction exponentially in yet-unimaginable ways to us all .
Only time will tell then .
P.S.: To pretend that science , as science has been assuming thanks to materialism,to pretend thus that science already knows the nature of reality as a whole already (wao ), so only the details should be filled in , is simply ludicrous and unscientific thus, not to mention that to pretend that we can explain everything , as physicists and other scientists do, as science has been pretending thanks to materialism , is simply ludicrous and unscientific = science cannot , per definition, explain everything , not even remotely close thus = science's naturalist realm and naturalist jurisdiction do not and cannot ,per definition, cover the whole reality as a whole as such , obviously .
-
I really wish DonQuichotte would stick to addressing points one-by-one instead of posting TLDR-style slabs of text...
-
Why would memories, feelings and emotions not be possible to explain with materialism? Why is there any reason to believe that it is anything more than biology? Heck, I recall an experiment where different parts of the brain were stimulated with electricity in a subject which resulted in them having either very positive or very negative feelings (depending on the region of the brain stimulated). If emotions have no origin in material reality, why is it that they can be directly generated by such physical processes?
[/quote]
Physics and chemistry can explain just the biological hormonal ...or neuro-chemical side of feelings , emotions ,stress ... but they can absolutely not account for how we feel what we feel or rather for the very nature or origin of feeling emotion as such : our biological system alone cannot account for the feeling of pain as such , for example , the feeling of sadness, joy , happiness , the feeling of marvel at things , the feeling of music , the feeling side of love, the feeling of the smell of a flower ....the feeling of a color ...
When fire , for example, burns your finger , you feel the pain of burning which makes you try instinctively to remove your finger from the source of fire : science can explain why and how you remove your finger from the source of fire that did cause that pain of burning , but science cannot account for how that feeling of pain per se arose , so to speak, from the biological system of yours : only sentient beings such as yourself do feel pain , so, if,say, suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines can just simulate the feeling of pain or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do consciously , and as other living organisms do as well .
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain then ,say, that are related to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?
The readio and tv analogies are just that : analogies, but ,both the radio and the tv set + the signals they recieve are material , while human consciousness is immaterial + the physical brain and the immaterial consciousness are 1 in the same given body.
I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved hard problem also and mainly thus .
-
if,say, suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines can just simulate the feeling of pain or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do consciously , and as other living organisms do as well .
How exactly do you know that we will never be able to build machines that can feel pain or are conscious?
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If memories are not stored in the brain, then why are disorders and damage to the brain able to cause memory loss? If the mind is separate from the brain, then why are strokes and drugs able to mentally incapacitate people? The reason we haven't been able to locate specific memories in the brain is because the brain is an extremely complex organ which we have yet to fully understand. Also how in the world was someone 200 years ago supposed to find memories in the brain? The technology to observe and analyze the neurological functions and blood flow patterns in a living brain haven't been around nearly that long.
I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved hard problem also and mainly thus .
Yes, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved. That, however, does not mean that it must be something external to the brain.
-
if,say, suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines can just simulate the feeling of pain or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do consciously , and as other living organisms do as well .
How exactly do you know that we will never be able to build machines that can feel pain or are conscious?
Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus .
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If memories are not stored in the brain, then why are disorders and damage to the brain able to cause memory loss? If the mind is separate from the brain, then why are strokes and drugs able to mentally incapacitate people? The reason we haven't been able to locate specific memories in the brain is because the brain is an extremely complex organ which we have yet to fully understand. Also how in the world was someone 200 years ago supposed to find memories in the brain? The technology to observe and analyze the neurological functions and blood flow patterns in a living brain haven't been around nearly that long.
200 years of attempts to 'find " or "localise " memory "traces " up to this present date in the physical brain failed to do just that , for obvious reasons , simply because memory cannot be reducible to the physical, simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot account for memory that cannot be reducible to the physical, memory that's not physical thus .
That memory disappears when certain specific areas of the physical brain are damaged , that does not necessarily means that memory is "localised or stored " in the physical brain : that alleged causation is no explanation , even "factual" causation is no explanation either : there is not even causation in fact , can't be , simply because there can be no causation between the physical and the non-physical , simply because there can be no causation between those 2 totally different processes qua their totally different respective natures (even the "factual " causation between physical processes themselves might be just an illusion even, as David Hume assumed , a long time ago thus ) : i think that we should rather try to approach that just in terms of some sort of correlation or interaction between memory that's just a part of consciousness as well as a part of the sub-consciousness ,some sort of correlation or interaction between the non-physical memory thus and the physical brain : how ? : beat me , i dunno .
Or , there might be somethingelse going on between the non-physical memory and between the physical brain we do not know nothing of yet , if ever thus .
In short :
Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the non-physical memory thus :
(Science has been dominated by that mechanistic false materialism that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view ", since the 19th century at least : that machine or computer analogy in science thus in relation to life as a whole , to reality as a whole ,in relation to the whole universe thus that allegedly does behave like a clock work machine , that Newtonian mechanistic materialism is false thus = living organisms are ,obviously no machines or computers :
Have you ever seen any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of self-organization , self-maintenance , self-sustainance ,relatively speaking then, that are capable of self-reproduction or self-replication , reproduction or replication, that are capable of adaptation , flexibility , evolution , that do have those unique- to- living -organisms metabolisms ...?
Have you ever encountered any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of growing from some of their most smallest components such as genes ,cells ... ?)
you are just reasoning via some sort of "materialist promissory messianism " ,in the sense that the materialist false 'scientific world view " will , some day , in the future be able to "localise " memory in the physical brain = that will not happen ,ever, obviously , simply because physics and chemistry cannot account for memory , simply because memory cannot be 'stored " in the physical brain, memory that's not reducible to the physical , as consciousness is not , obviously : i thought that my earlier provided analogies did succeed somehow in drawing you a certain pic regarding why memory and consciousness cannot be in the physical brain .
When science will be liberated from its false materialist reductionist naturalist "scientific world view " , via replacing it by a more or less valid non-reductionist conception of nature, then and only then ,can science expand its realm beyond the material or physical one it has been confined to , thanks to materialism thus , and therefore ,man will be able to find some new ways of understading through science that might lead to new unimaginable-to-us-all-yet discoveries on the subject and maybe beyond as well, who knows .
I do also think that there are some significant parts of reality that will remain beyond science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well .
Science cannot , per definition, explain "everything " , not even remotely close thus , not even just at the physical or material level of reality , let alone beyond .
I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved hard problem also and mainly thus .
Yes, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved. That, however, does not mean that it must be something external to the brain.
"Promissory messianic materialism " : see above .
I think that consciousness is non-local : it does exist within and without , in every atom, organ and cell of ours and without : consciousness that's not reducible to the physical thus , consciousness that's not physical and non-local thus .
-
So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.
-
So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.
Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts .
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus = who does ?
-
Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus .
And you know this how? Sounds like you're treading dangerously close to the "argument from incredulity" fallacy ("I don't understand how consciousness could arise from physical sources, therefore it cannot arise from physical sources).
Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts
There aren't any empirical facts behind your arguments either. Your arguments are basically philosophical and untestable. How do you get empirical facts out of that? Even if it seems "obvious" or "common sense" to you that qualia (personal perception of consciousness and the senses) can't be tied to the physical world, that doesn't mean that it can't truly be. There are many things that were once considered obvious or common sense which are now known to be wrong (flat earth, geocentric universe, objects only being in one place at a time, universal standards for space and time).
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus = who does ?
That's obviously not true, as injury and amputation/removal of limbs and non-vital internal organs have no affect on one's mind or perceptions.
Here's an interesting riddle for you: in order to treat seizures, some people have the corpus callosum of the brain cut. This is basically a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. However, when this is cut, the person's behavior changes in such a way as to suggest that there are two minds or consciousness now in control (as the two lobes of the brain are now unable to communicate with each other). Since each lobe controls a different side of the body, each side of the body can do different things, something in contradiction to each other. One hand may try to put pants on while the other tries to take them off. If you whisper a question into one ear, the person may give a different answer than if the same question is asked in the other ear. How exactly would this physical manipulation of the brain generate two minds if the mind does not arise physically?
-
while machines can just simulate the feeling of pain or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do consciously , and as other living organisms do as well .
Correct, except for two words: "cannot" and "obviously"
-
Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus .
And you know this how? Sounds like you're treading dangerously close to the "argument from incredulity" fallacy ("I don't understand how consciousness could arise from physical sources, therefore it cannot arise from physical sources).
Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts
There aren't any empirical facts behind your arguments either. Your arguments are basically philosophical and untestable. How do you get empirical facts out of that? Even if it seems "obvious" or "common sense" to you that qualia (personal perception of consciousness and the senses) can't be tied to the physical world, that doesn't mean that it can't truly be. There are many things that were once considered obvious or common sense which are now known to be wrong (flat earth, geocentric universe, objects only being in one place at a time, universal standards for space and time).
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus = who does ?
That's obviously not true, as injury and amputation/removal of limbs and non-vital internal organs have no affect on one's mind or perceptions.
Here's an interesting riddle for you: in order to treat seizures, some people have the corpus callosum of the brain cut. This is basically a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. However, when this is cut, the person's behavior changes in such a way as to suggest that there are two minds or consciousness now in control (as the two lobes of the brain are now unable to communicate with each other). Since each lobe controls a different side of the body, each side of the body can do different things, something in contradiction to each other. One hand may try to put pants on while the other tries to take them off. If you whisper a question into one ear, the person may give a different answer than if the same question is asked in the other ear. How exactly would this physical manipulation of the brain generate two minds if the mind does not arise physically?
[/quote]
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.
That is science's biggest mistake, pushing this non-explanation as an explanation. It's manifestly wrong when it comes to pain and suffering, and by extension it's wrong about every other kind of quale too.
[/quote]
Well said , Dave :
The biggest error ever made in science is that the image of the process gets confused with the cause of the process , and hence that silly materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origins or nature of consciousness is false :
The biggest error ever made in the name of science :
.............
Folks :
The core issue here is , once again , as follows :
We shouldn't try to ossify science as to hold it imprisonned within a certain false conception of nature , as it has been the case since the 19th century at least thus .
Science that's a kind of an effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that should be completly free in its inquiry in relation to reality whatever the nature of which might turn out to be .
So, to keep science confined to just a certain conception of nature is like pretending that we do already know what the nature of reality is , and it is more like dictating to an adeventurer such as science what specific part of reality it must explore , and no other .
Science that's still a relatively young effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that cannot pretend to know the nature of reality as a whole already , an adventurer that must be totally free in exploring reality , or just the parts of reality it can dela with empirically , free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be thus .
The mainstream materialist conception of nature , and hence the 'scientific world view " , just hold back science and restrict its scope ,realm ,reach and jurisdiction , by keeping science imprisonned within the materialist version of reality that's obviously false.
The materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature , in the sense that reality is just material or physical , is false , and hence the materialist 'scientific world view " is false also .
Reality is thus not just physical or material ,which means that all physical sciences for that matter must undergo a revolutionary and radical change , in order to be able to deal with the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the materialist false "scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ,if all physical sciences want to fully deserve being called sciences at least : science thus has no choice but to include the missing part of reality in its attempts to try to describe , explain or understand reality as a whole .
Science must be totally free to explore reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be , instead of being held captive within a particular conception of nature, a false one at that .
Science whose nature is to try to go beyond what it has already revealed , including beyond the laws of physics themselves .
There might be some more fundamental processes or whatever that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves thus , who knows ? and that might turn out to be totally different from any human notion of law that's just a human projection .
No wonder that modern physics do speak in terms of fields , for example : electro-magnetic and other fields thus : even the most basic particules are a matter of waves and mass ...
Do the maths then .
Cheers.
-
Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.
Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
-
Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.
Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
[/quote]
It all comes down to the following :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .
So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?
Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus :
Even evolution itself cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence ,the same goes for the origins of human language....and the rest .
-
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain then ,say, that are related to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?
Memories have been localized to even individual neurons in the brain, although researchers did not expect it. I can cite the articles in Nature, but I suspect you won't care.
200 years of science has definitely failed to show that brain is a receiver or has any structures in it that act as a receiver. If it were true, as you yourself say above, "then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain." 200 years of science has also failed to show that consciousness is transmitted as a signal. As one critic of this argument pointed out, "Considering the vast amount of information encoded in such a signal for all humans on Earth, it would have to be exceedingly energetic, VERY steady and not prone to interference, yet utterly elusive." Claiming this is just an "analogy" begs the question, analogy to what actual mechanism, and what is the evidence for for that mechanism? My argument is not even materialist - explain the mechanism, which should be easier for you to do now that Cooper has convinced you that mechanisms are required in science.
-
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.
Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death? The thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer. A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured. Computation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.
-
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain then ,say, that are related to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?
Memories have been localized to even individual neurons in the brain, although researchers did not expect it. I can cite the articles in Nature, but I suspect you won't care.
200 years of science has definitely failed to show that brain is a receiver or has any structures in it that act as a receiver. If it were true, as you yourself say above, "then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain." 200 years of science has also failed to show that consciousness is transmitted as a signal. As one critic of this argument pointed out, "Considering the vast amount of information encoded in such a signal for all humans on Earth, it would have to be exceedingly energetic, VERY steady and not prone to interference, yet utterly elusive." Claiming this is just an "analogy" begs the question, analogy to what actual mechanism, and what is the evidence for for that mechanism? My argument is not even materialist - explain the mechanism, which should be easier for you to do now that Cooper has convinced you that mechanisms are required in science.
[/quote]
(Prior note :
You are just confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process , in relation to the old-new -eternal body-mind issue memory is just a part of .
Second : the mind is in the brain, or that memory is stored in the brain ....are just surreal absurd false implausible ...extensions of the materialist version of reality as a whole , in the sense that reality is just physical or material .
Third : Cooper did convince me of nothing regarding causation , see my reply to you on the subject there on the consciousness thread : there might be some more fundamental ,deeper , and hence other unknown forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , maybe totally different forms of causation at that ,science might be able to find out about somehow , relatively speaking , if the missing part of reality would be included , as it will be in fact , by all sciences when they will reject materialism whose end is nearer than ever .
Science will be able to do the latter and much more , science whose very nature is to try to dispell any dogmas , lies, deceit , self-deceit , half -truths , make -believe ...relatively speaking then .
Science whose very nature is to try to go beyond what it has been able to reveal so far .)
Dear lady :
Nice to have been knowing you all , this way at least ,it's been an enormous pleasure , you have no idea ,despite all my disappointments in you, guys :
But , as the author of "I am strange loop " (dlorde mentioned that in some of his posts , a book i did download and read some parts of : you would be delighted to read it , simply because he shares what you said here above with you and much more , via his highly elaborate mathematical maze and complex abstractions , models ... through his materialist belief ,he did take for granted as the forest or as the whole pic ,while that was just a tree in fact that did hide the forest from his blinded-by-materialism sight , a metaphor he used himself in that book of his , but he could not see it did apply perfectly to his core message and life ,as displayed in that book of his thus ) ,as the author thus of that book said :
"The gain is worth the loss " : it goes without saying thus that this same saying applies in totally different ways and contexts to he and i .
So, i am gonna just have to leave you with the following , while wishing you the very best from the very bottom of my heart , to all of you in fact , regarding your own lives , work, search , journeys ....on this temporary mortal world .
Here you go , i do hope that you would just absorb the core message of this final message of mine , as follows , not via your cognitive human unparalled intelligence that's not the highest kind of human intelligence :
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 .
-
Once again, DonQuichotte, you did not specifically address my point about Split-Brain Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain)
On a second note, you keep emphasizing that science must not exclude the immaterial. However, you have also said that science cannot be applied to the immaterial. So, at best, science should simply ignore it instead of making any assumptions about it. If that is the case, then why complain that "science is being misused" if it is not appropriate to studying the immaterial in the first place? Science is a process, not an intelligence which can reason. It makes no assumptions. Only scientists are able to do that.
I believe in the immaterial as well, but the fact that so many properties of the mind can be linked so closely with (and controlled/manipulated by) physical processes suggests to me that the human mind has a physical origin. Take note that I believe in the spiritual realm, so I'm not a materialist.
You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death?
We don't yet know the answer to this, but to say that the fact that we don't understand it means that it can't be material is an argument from ignorance.
The thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer.
If it cannot "just emerge", then must it exist before the creation of the brain? Where does it exist in the meantime and how does it come into being, then?
A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured.
No, a ground-up car cannot motor along. That's the point.
Computation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.
And you know this how? Some people are born without the ability to feel pain. This lack of an ability to feel pain can be linked to physical causes, such as excessive endorphins in the brain and sodium channel anomalies, which in turn are caused by mutations. If the experience of pain must be immaterial in origin, then why are purely physical processes able to eliminate it?
-
Why do we not consider to resolve this discussion by burden of proof..
Scientists will continue to work their thing and see if things are materialistic..
DQ can work his magic to prove that things arent materialistic.
Give us 1 piece of proof and you win the argument.. Science provides plenty of proof disproving what was previously thought of as immaterial so far.. yet they will keep heading towards fully understanding the universe (with or wihtout materialistic explanations) and if they do find the immaterial, science will try to find the patterns or determinism of said immaterial. (although that would then turn the immaterial > material by your view)
Give 1 example of something which you have solid proof of being immaterial, if you cannot supply 1 unattested fact, then why do you even bother trying to argue your point?
-
"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .
but demonstrably untrue. The only puzzle is why you keep repeating nonsense llike this. Are you trying to convince yourself?
-
You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death?
We don't yet know the answer to this, but to say that the fact that we don't understand it means that it can't be material is an argument from ignorance.
That's one of Don's mistakes. There's no reason to suppose that if a brain can feel pain in some way that the material of the brain doesn't feel pain, so it's pretty easy to solve this part of the problem and to identify a possible sufferer (or sufferers) which have enough substance to them to be able to suffer. The fact that all the material of the brain is repeatedly replaced is unimportant, because the sufferer needn't be the same one throughout your life - the "soul" could be replaced with a new one and the new one would have no way of telling that it wasn't the old one.
The thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer.
If it cannot "just emerge", then must it exist before the creation of the brain? Where does it exist in the meantime and how does it come into being, then?
There's no reason why whatever it is that suffers can't be eternal. The material in rocks could be sentient too for all we know. The real problem for science is not so much in identifying the actual sufferer though, but in how you can get knowledge of experience of qualia out of the sufferer and into an information system capable of generating data about that experience.
A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured.
No, a ground-up car cannot motor along. That's the point.
That was a bad edit - clearly I meant to say non-ground-up, but I started trying to phrase the whole thing a different way and my modification of it then went wrong.
Computation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.
And you know this how?
Do you seriously think you can torture an action or pure geometry or number?
Some people are born without the ability to feel pain. This lack of an ability to feel pain can be linked to physical causes, such as excessive endorphins in the brain and sodium channel anomalies, which in turn are caused by mutations.
Some light bulbs are attached to light fittings which are not connected up to the electricity supply due to a breakage. Some light fittings don't have bulbs in them. There are many reasons why a light may not work, but the causes of the failure do not necessarily tell you anything about how light is produced in the bulb. In the case of the brain, it's communications that are being disrupted rather than power, so disrupting them tells you even less. What it may eventually do is pinpoint locations where pain is experienced though, but that could be hard to do because you could be breaking the connections that prevent the experience or you may be breaking connections that report the experience - you can't tell the difference.
If the experience of pain must be immaterial in origin...
Why should it be immaterial? My argument is that it should be material because immaterial things such as actions/geometry/number can't suffer.
...then why are purely physical processes able to eliminate it?
If you interfere with any part of the chain of causation, of course the effect will be affected by that, regardless of how the suffering part is done. My complaint here is that the standard scientific account of consciousness involves qualia such as pain being experienced by something that doesn't exist as anything that could realistically experience pain (e.g. an action, geometry or plurality) while denying that those parts of the system which could more reasonably experience qualia (e.g. matter or energy) are banned from doing so. The reality with emergence is that anything that "emerges" is always 100% rooted in the components of the system (which includes the fabric of space and the rules which it imposes on the contents). If pain is experienced collectively by n items in arrangement x and arrangement x is not something capable of experiencing pain, then at least one of the n items (or a part of at least one of them) must be experiencing the pain. Alternatively, pain could be a compound sensation and different components of the system could experience different parts of the sensation, but to have them all experienced by a system without any of the parts experiencing anything is simply not viable.
Alternatively, if none of the n items in a system arranged with geometry x experienced anything, but pain was experienced by the system, then geometry x must have experienced the pain. Sentient geometry is the only solution left open in such a case, but it is infinitely more far fetched. [We can actually rule out the whole idea of sentient plurality because that would not be disrupted by the break up of the system, so it's only geometry that remains.]
-
Wait, what? I'm not quite sure what you're arguing, as you now say that pain must be material because immaterial things can't suffer. It seemed before like you were arguing that the mind and its sensations must be immaterial because no single part of a material system can experience these things.
-
Wait, what? I'm not quite sure what you're arguing, as you now say that pain must be material because immaterial things can't suffer. It seemed before like you were arguing that the mind and its sensations must be immaterial because no single part of a material system can experience these things.
Your initial interpretation must have been performed too quickly to judge what you were reading correctly. Here's the starting point again:-
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.
-
I'm on vacation right now, so I'm not feeling too much into debating, but let me see if I follow. So your stance is that consciousness is not a phenomenon that emerges by the combination of different parts of the brain working together, but instead comes from some sub-part of the brain that is already conscious?
-
My position on it is that nothing can emerge to do such an important thing as to suffer without any of the physical components feeling anything. If a heap of atoms can't suffer and they aren't allowed to suffer even once they are rearranged into a functioning brain, what is it in there that's capable of suffering that wasn't in the original heap? Complexity? Can you torture something so abstract as complexity? Where's your sufferer? If you can't propose something that could realistically suffer, you don't have any suffering, or any other qualia, or consciousness. Emergence produces a magical sufferer of no substance whatsoever, and that's a very poor solution.
-
Once again, DonQuichotte, you did not specifically address my point about Split-Brain Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain)
That's an extremely puzzling phenomena indeed : i would not call that "split-brain " syndrome though : it is just a specific brain disorder , like when specific areas of the brain are damaged , so their corresponding aspects of consciousness woud just have a "hard time " communicating with them properly , whatever that communication might be, by coordinating between them , which results in that "spli brain " phenomena , i guess, i dunno .
I do still see the physical brain as just some sort of both a generator and a receiver , while consciousness is some sort of a transmitter .
How the immaterial consciousness does communicate or interact with the physical brain , is anybody's guess indeed
On a second note, you keep emphasizing that science must not exclude the immaterial. However, you have also said that science cannot be applied to the immaterial. So, at best, science should simply ignore it instead of making any assumptions about it. If that is the case, then why complain that "science is being misused" if it is not appropriate to studying the immaterial in the first place? Science is a process, not an intelligence which can reason. It makes no assumptions. Only scientists are able to do that.
You do seem not to know the fact that science ( science is just the scientific method used or practiced by scientists humans , science is just a human activity thus : personifying science is just a metaphor ) , science thus is driven by the assumption that the universe is intelligible ,a scientific core assumption without which there would be no point in trying to explain describe and hence understand the universe through science thus , and by the materialist meta-paradigm , the latter that "sees " reality as a whole as just being material or physical .
So, science has thus been assuming for so long now that reality as a whole is just material or physical , thanks to materialism thus .
When science will reject materialism, and hence the latter's false version of reality or false conception of nature in all sciences for that matter , then, science will be able to expand its realm , reach and jurisdiction as to include the missing part of reality , the immaterial one ( or just the part of it though that can be dealt with empirically: see how Sheldrake, for example , tries to study telepathy scientifically. ) , that has been labeled as being non-existent or as false by the mainstream "scientific world view " , or as being just material or physical .
I believe in the immaterial as well, but the fact that so many properties of the mind can be linked so closely with (and controlled/manipulated by) physical processes suggests to me that the human mind has a physical origin. Take note that I believe in the spiritual realm, so I'm not a materialist.
How can you then believe in the existence of the immaterial or spiritual , while believing at the same time in the "truthfulness " of the materialist mainstream " scientific world view ", the latter that excludes , per definition, the existence of the immaterial or spiritual as such then ? = a real paradox you gotta try to sort out or solve for yourself , if you wanna be consistent with yourself at least .
P.S.: To say that the immaterial or non-physical mind can have a physical origin, as you put it is just yet another extension of the materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , just an extension of the materialist false conception of nature , just an extension thus of the materialist false version of reality , just an extension of the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " concerning the nature of reality that's allegedly just material or physical .
So, if the mind or consciousness can originate from the physical brain, then , everything is physical or material , including the mind or consciousness, and therefore there are no such things such as the immaterial realm or spirituality ......
Try to solve that paradox of yours , in the above mentioned sense thus : Good luck indeed : you cannot have it both ways :
You either do believe in the "truthfulness " of the -in-fact- false 'scientific world view" , which means that reality as a whole is just material or physical and therefore there are no such things such as the immaterial side of reality or spirituality as such , or you do reject the false 'scientific world view " while believing in the existence of the immaterial realm or spirituality .
-
Something strange happened. I tried to post a reply, but the forum informed me that I tried to post a "blacklisted term" and thus refused to post my message. Frustratingly, it would not inform me as to which term was blacklisted, so I could not correct my message. I would appreciate it if the mods would do something about that.
-
Something strange happened. I tried to post a reply, but the forum informed me that I tried to post a "blacklisted term" and thus refused to post my message. Frustratingly, it would not inform me as to which term was blacklisted, so I could not correct my message. I would appreciate it if the mods would do something about that.
[/quote]
The exact very same thing happened to me twice : i searched and searched for a non-specified potentially blacklisted term, in vain , but then i removed that symbol one uses in email addresses ( at or add or whatever ) from my post in questio , and that was the presumed blacklisted term haha weird .
P.S: That puzzling so-called split-brain syndrome that's a kindda disconnection between the 2 brain hemispheres is very interesting indeed : when the both hemispheres are disconnected like that , their corresponding aspects of consciousness get also disconnected as a result ,which does result in the seemingly experience of 2 minds thus , i guess .
-
I think I figured out what the problem was. I used the "at" symbol in my post, which was probably picked up by the forum as an attempt to spell out an E-mail address. That's typical of spambot posts, so I'll just avoid the use of that in the future.
To David Cooper:
So does consciousness exist on a different plane than physical matter? What is it about this plane that allows consciousness to come into existence? How does a conscious mind which exists in this plane locate and link itself to a brain made out of physical matter?
My best guess is that consciousness is not a consequence of any single concept such as complexity, geometry or particular materials, but rather an interplay between different factors acting together to create just the right process. I would probably liken it to life itself: there is no one factor (reproduction, growth, ingestion, excretion, metabolism, etc.) that makes something alive, but instead all of these things working together make something alive. When looking at dead matter like charcoal, air or water, it really is hard to fathom how the same atoms which make up those materials are capable of being arranged in such a way as to make something as novel as life. Nonetheless, we know that not only are living things made of atoms just as dead matter is, but that life can turn non-life into new life by ingesting and assimilating it into new tissue.
To DonQuichotte:
There is no paradox if I only believe that the human mind originates in the physical (and by extension, animal minds). The existence of a physical mind is not incompatible with the existence of an immaterial mind that something like a spirit might possess. Both kinds of minds can exist simultaneously. The minds would simply have different natures and function in fundamentally different ways.
-
I think I figured out what the problem was. I used the "at" symbol in my post, which was probably picked up by the forum as an attempt to spell out an E-mail address. That's typical of spambot posts, so I'll just avoid the use of that in the future.
I did tell you about just that here above ,you do seem to have missed somehow , weird .
To DonQuichotte:
There is no paradox if I only believe that the human mind originates in the physical (and by extension, animal minds). The existence of a physical mind is not incompatible with the existence of an immaterial mind that something like a spirit might possess. Both kinds of minds can exist simultaneously. The minds would simply have different natures and function in fundamentally different ways.
I do not get that : try to elaborate on that then .
The mind or consciousness in any given living organism cannot be physical , obviously, otherwise try to make some sort of a sentient machine then = cannot be done , obviously , not now , not tomorrow , and not in a trillion years to come either .
I do just think of human consciousness as a process , as the soul or the self .
Just tell me then how the soul or the self can be physical = a paradox .
Or just how the "unconscious " matter can give rise to the immaterial consciousness then .
Mission...impossible , obviously .
-
So does consciousness exist on a different plane than physical matter? What is it about this plane that allows consciousness to come into existence? How does a conscious mind which exists in this plane locate and link itself to a brain made out of physical matter?
Why shouldn't ordinary stuff be conscious? Why shouldn't all the atoms in a rock be able to experience qualia all the time? It's far easier to imagine that happening than an arrangement of non-conscious atoms supporting something like sentient geometry.
The whole business of consciousness emerging is really a side issue and of little importance - it doesn't matter how much magic is involved in producing something that can experience qualia, because the real problem with consciousness is how it interfaces with information systems such as the one in the brain that produces claims about the existence of consciousness. How can that information system know that the data it's generating about consciousness is true when it can't test it? There is nothing in any information system we understand that could allow it to access qualia in such a way as to recognise that they exist.
My best guess is that consciousness is not a consequence of any single concept such as complexity, geometry or particular materials, but rather an interplay between different factors acting together to create just the right process. I would probably liken it to life itself: there is no one factor (reproduction, growth, ingestion, excretion, metabolism, etc.) that makes something alive, but instead all of these things working together make something alive. When looking at dead matter like charcoal, air or water, it really is hard to fathom how the same atoms which make up those materials are capable of being arranged in such a way as to make something as novel as life. Nonetheless, we know that not only are living things made of atoms just as dead matter is, but that life can turn non-life into new life by ingesting and assimilating it into new tissue.
Life itself is just complex chemistry with nothing magical added at all. It's only when consciousness is added that we have a problem explaining things. That is where we currently depend either on magical interactions or else we have to deny that there is such a thing as consciousness altogether.
-
Dave :
How can physics and chemistry alone or the physical material nature for that matter "generate " life , consciousness , the mental or the mind then ?
Absurd .
-
Dave :
How can physics and chemistry alone or the physical material nature for that matter "generate " life , consciousness , the mental or the mind then ?
Absurd .
Life: easy - it's just complex chemistry.
Consciousness: hard. We need to find the interface, and until we can identify where it is and see what's being exchanged through it, there's nothing useful can be said on the matter.
The mind: machine side is easy, only consciousness aspects are hard.
-
To DonQuichotte:
Yes, I did miss your statement about the "at" symbol, sorry.
I'm speaking in regards to the fact that you stated that it is a paradox to both believe in things that are immaterial and a consciousness that arises from the physical. If human consciousness were the only possible immaterial thing, then you would be right. However, it isn't. There are a multitude of immaterial things that could exist, including the likes of ghosts, psychic energy, Heaven, etc. My belief is that immaterial beings (angels and demons) have a consciousness that originates from the immaterial (as the "stuff" that composes them is immaterial) and that material beings (humans and animals) have a consciousness that originates from the material world.
You keep saying "obviously" and "obvious" a lot. The word "obvious" implies that something is self-evident or easily observable. When it comes to something like consciousness, there is very little we know for certain about it. We cannot observe anyone's consciousness except our own. We can't even know for sure if any being other than ourself is conscious. Everyone else could be a philosophical zombie. We only accept that other people are conscious because Occam's Razor suggests that, since other people behave like us, then they are probably conscious like us too.
You say that a machine cannot be conscious, but that is far from obvious (as you imply). As I've said before, we cannot directly test for or observe consciousness. If we were to build an artificial intelligence that behaved in a manner identical to a human being, then it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that it has a form of conscious awareness. All of the basic tests, logical, philosophical or otherwise, which we use to conclude that other human beings are conscious would therefore be passed by this advanced AI. If it passes the tests, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is conscious. If not, then why not? Because it doesn't have a human brain? Your next step would then be to prove that it is impossible to build a machine that can mimic human behavior. That's gonna be a hard thing to disprove.
There is a way to test some aspects of your claims. You say that consciousness and memories are both immaterial. When people are knocked out (either through physical trauma or chemical sedatives) the body and brain should be more or less inert and unresponsive. We know that this much is true. The next question then becomes "What happens to the immaterial mind at this time?" The mind itself, being immaterial, should be unaffected and should continue to remain consciously aware, capable of thinking and forming new memories. The only thing that has changed is that the brain itself is unresponsive. To a person who is knocked out, they should keep on thinking even though they can't move their body or use their senses. It would be akin to those sensory deprivation chambers that people use to relax.
Once their brain "restarts", they should be able to testify of their continued conscious awareness during the knock-out period. However, many people do not have any such memories of when they are unconscious. Why is this? It's not because they simply forgot that they were conscious, because you say that memories are immaterial and should be capable of forming just fine during the unconscious period. I myself have been put under (having my wisdom teeth pulled) and I did not dream or have any other conscious experience during that time. That goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the brain is where consciousness (or at the very least, memory) originates.
To David Cooper:
I guess you are supporting some kind of view of animism then? What does a rock experience? It doesn't have any senses. If it does have senses, how do they work?
As far as consciousness seeming magical or special, one must keep in mind that life seemed miraculous and unexplainable many moons ago. Once biology and technology advanced enough, we were able to figure out what makes it tick. It is certainly possible that with sufficiently advanced neuroscience and physics, we could one day uncover the root cause of consciousness as well.
-
Dave :
How can physics and chemistry alone or the physical material nature for that matter "generate " life , consciousness , the mental or the mind then ?
Absurd .
Life: easy - it's just complex chemistry.
Life can't be just chemistry , no way, be serious .
How can physics and chemistry alone give rise to life , no way .
How could life have emerged from the dead matter,in the so-called original soup , in the first place to begin with .
Otherwise , it would be easy to make living sentient machines : absurd .
Think about just that .
Consciousness: hard. We need to find the interface, and until we can identify where it is and see what's being exchanged through it, there's nothing useful can be said on the matter.
Consciousness is non-physical, dude : can't be reduced to the physical : physics and chemistry alone can , obviously , not give rise to consciousness , Mr.magician .
You're just chasing an absurd mirage you do take for real .
The mind: machine side is easy, only consciousness aspects are hard.
Nothing is easy about the human intellect that's unique to man , even though it has some similarities with that of animals ...
-
We can't even know for sure if any being other than ourself is conscious. Everyone else could be a philosophical zombie.
If consciousness is real and I have it, I know that someone else has it too, because I wasn't the first to come up with the idea of consciousness. Someone else thought of it first, and if that person had been a zombie who merely thought he had it but didn't, then I would be a zombie too and not have consciousness at all - I would just be programmed to generate false information about consciousness like everyone else.
You say that a machine cannot be conscious, but that is far from obvious (as you imply). As I've said before, we cannot directly test for or observe consciousness. If we were to build an artificial intelligence that behaved in a manner identical to a human being, then it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that it has a form of conscious awareness.
It would be unreasonable to assume that, because we don't know for certain that we have consciousness ourselves.
All of the basic tests, logical, philosophical or otherwise, which we use to conclude that other human beings are conscious would therefore be passed by this advanced AI. If it passes the tests, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is conscious. If not, then why not? Because it doesn't have a human brain? Your next step would then be to prove that it is impossible to build a machine that can mimic human behavior. That's gonna be a hard thing to disprove.
Mimicking human behaviour is not enough, because everything relating to consciousness could be faked. You have to look at the internal mechanisms and make sure that they are the same.
Once their brain "restarts", they should be able to testify of their continued conscious awareness during the knock-out period. However, many people do not have any such memories of when they are unconscious. Why is this?
It's not impossible that whatever it is in us that is conscious (meaning that it experiences qualia), continues to be conscious (experiencing qualia and nothing more than that) while the animal is unconscious, but because the brain is shut down to a degree and can't record memories, there is no record kept of those experiences - while knocked out for surgery you could be in extreme pain the whole time and not remember the fact afterwards, and this could happen if the anaesthetic targets the ability to write memories rather than blocking pain trigger inputs. It could also happen even if the inputs are blocked, though that's unlikely because there would be nothing systematically inducing whatever it is that experiences qualia to experience pain rather than just random sensations at low intensity.
I guess you are supporting some kind of view of animism then? What does a rock experience? It doesn't have any senses. If it does have senses, how do they work?
It wouldn't need senses - it could just be that matter/energy experiences qualia all the time, the exact feelings being changed from moment to moment by the way that matter or energy is arranged. This is a much more reasonable idea than having something immaterial pinging into magical existence through emergence to suffer pain, but that too would be a kind of animism - just a more magical variety of it.
As far as consciousness seeming magical or special, one must keep in mind that life seemed miraculous and unexplainable many moons ago.
If you don't separate out consciousness from life, it still seems miraculous and unexplainable. Plants though are not sentient, so they don't do anything special that can't just be classed as complex chemistry, though the DNA they contain might count as an information system depending on how it works (meaning whether it involves representation as opposed to direct generation of chemicals).
Once biology and technology advanced enough, we were able to figure out what makes it tick. It is certainly possible that with sufficiently advanced neuroscience and physics, we could one day uncover the root cause of consciousness as well.
If there is such a thing as consciousness, that will indeed happen.
-
To DonQuichotte:
Yes, I did miss your statement about the "at" symbol, sorry.
No worries .
P.S.: You should try to quote me directly instead of replying this way .Thanks , appreciate .
I'm speaking in regards to the fact that you stated that it is a paradox to both believe in things that are immaterial and a consciousness that arises from the physical. If human consciousness were the only possible immaterial thing, then you would be right. However, it isn't. There are a multitude of immaterial things that could exist, including the likes of ghosts, psychic energy, Heaven, etc. My belief is that immaterial beings (angels and demons) have a consciousness that originates from the immaterial (as the "stuff" that composes them is immaterial) and that material beings (humans and animals) have a consciousness that originates from the material world.
First of all , to say that human consciousness and that of other species on earth , can be physical is absurd : how can the "unconscious " matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ? ,the latter that's , obviously , irreducible to the physical: that's our own subjective and collective experiences of consciousness as such = a non-physical process: how can physics and chemsitry give rise to the sense of the self ....Don't be an irrational guy , come on, be serious : you're being absurd : you do sound like a soul mate of that absurd old ancient Greek fellow philosopher Zeno ,really .
Physics and chemistry cannot give rise to consciousness that's totally different from the former : that materialist magical "emergence " trick regarding the nature or origins of consciousness is just that : materialist magic in science , no empirical fact : makes no sense either .
Not to mention that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the emergence of life , consciousness , human intellect , cannot account for the non-physical nature of feelings emotions , human love , human conscience ....
P.S.: What you do not get yet is that science has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical : that's the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " that's just the materialist naturalist reductionist false conception of nature , no empirical fact .
So, when you do reduce reality as a whole , including man and life in general ,to just material physical biological processes ,that means you have been believing in the materialist version of relaity ,and hence in its false "scientific world view " : if reality thus as a whole is just material or physical , as you seem to assume it to be , as materialists do , that does not only make you a materialist ,ironically paradoxically enough (a weird paradoxical materialist who pretends o believe in the immaterial also = contradictio in termo ) , but that materialist version of reality you seem to be believing in , crazily enough , does also , and per definition thus, exclude any existence of the immaterial out there , any existence of God ...despite your belief in the latter = a paradox thus , you 're not even aware of and which you should try to solve for yourself , if you wanna be consistent with yourself at least .
You keep saying "obviously" and "obvious" a lot. The word "obvious" implies that something is self-evident or easily observable. When it comes to something like consciousness, there is very little we know for certain about it. We cannot observe anyone's consciousness except our own. We can't even know for sure if any being other than ourself is conscious. Everyone else could be a philosophical zombie. We only accept that other people are conscious because Occam's Razor suggests that, since other people behave like us, then they are probably conscious like us too.
Obvious to me is self-evident indeed : consciousness is obviously non-physical , you do not need to be a philsosopher to know just that : it's absurd to assume that reality as a whole is just physical or material ,including consciousness , human intellect ....life ... as you have been assuming , and as materialism has been doing : there is nothing self-evident about that false materialist conception of nature that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view ", simply because reality as a whole, including man, life , and other species , cannot be just material or physical , the same goes for the whole universe .
You say that a machine cannot be conscious, but that is far from obvious (as you imply). As I've said before, we cannot directly test for or observe consciousness. If we were to build an artificial intelligence that behaved in a manner identical to a human being, then it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that it has a form of conscious awareness. All of the basic tests, logical, philosophical or otherwise, which we use to conclude that other human beings are conscious would therefore be passed by this advanced AI. If it passes the tests, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is conscious. If not, then why not? Because it doesn't have a human brain? Your next step would then be to prove that it is impossible to build a machine that can mimic human behavior. That's gonna be a hard thing to disprove.
What you're saying here is total non-sense : machines can only simulate consciousness , they can never be conscious , simply because physics and chemistry cannot give rise to consciousness .
There is a way to test some aspects of your claims. You say that consciousness and memories are both immaterial. When people are knocked out (either through physical trauma or chemical sedatives) the body and brain should be more or less inert and unresponsive. We know that this much is true. The next question then becomes "What happens to the immaterial mind at this time?" The mind itself, being immaterial, should be unaffected and should continue to remain consciously aware, capable of thinking and forming new memories. The only thing that has changed is that the brain itself is unresponsive. To a person who is knocked out, they should keep on thinking even though they can't move their body or use their senses. It would be akin to those sensory deprivation chambers that people use to relax.
Non-sense : mind and body are 1 , even though they are totally different from each other , so , mind and body do affect each other in ways we still do not know much about : the mind is even more fundamental and powerful than the body can ever be .
So, when the brain or body are sedated , drugged , damaged , when they suffer from some disorder or disease ,deficiency ...genetic disorder ... that has implications for the mind that's inseparable from the body or brain, in this life at least : that does not mean that consciousnes is caused by the physical brain , or that the mind is in the brain .
I think personally that the human mind consciousness or soul or self will be for ever out of reach of science in fact, simply because they are both subjective and immaterial .
Once their brain "restarts", they should be able to testify of their continued conscious awareness during the knock-out period. However, many people do not have any such memories of when they are unconscious. Why is this? It's not because they simply forgot that they were conscious, because you say that memories are immaterial and should be capable of forming just fine during the unconscious period. I myself have been put under (having my wisdom teeth pulled) and I did not dream or have any other conscious experience during that time. That goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the brain is where consciousness (or at the very least, memory) originates.
Does that mean that consciousness is caused by the brain ,or that the mind is in the brain ? What makes you extrapolate the one from the other ?
Can't there be other explanations ?
What you do not realise is that the absurd belief assumptions that the mind is in the brain , memory is stored in the brain , ....are just extensions of the materialist version of reality in the sense that the latter is just material or physical, including the mind ....= that's just a convenient and handy materialist ideological belief assumption that makes the scientific data fit into its false conception of nature , not the other way around , no empirical fact .
Does the tv set or radio create respectively their own images and radio broadcasts they do receive ?
Don't be silly : saying that the mind is the brain is like saying that Obama lives inside of the tv set ....absurd .
-
Supercryptid :
You're either a materialist or a non -materialist : you cannot be both at the same time = a paradox : you cannot have it both ways , by believing both in the existence of the immaterial , and in the materialist version of reality you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " without question so far , the materialist false conception of nature , and hence the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " that have been assuming or rather believing for so long now , that everything is just material or physical .
If everything is just material or physical, then there is no such a thing such as the immaterial ...obviously .
So, make up your mind then , and stop being so ridiculously irrationally paradoxical or contradictory .
-
simply because physics and chemistry cannot give rise to consciousness .
This is dangerously close to a definition of the c word. Now we know where it can't come from, perhaps someone will tell us what it does - or doesn't do?
-
You're either a materialist or a non -materialist : you cannot be both at the same time = a paradox : you cannot have it both ways , by believing both in the existence of the immaterial , and in the materialist version of reality you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " without question so far , the materialist false conception of nature , and hence the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " that have been assuming or rather believing for so long now , that everything is just material or physical .
If everything is just material or physical, then there is no such a thing such as the immaterial ...obviously .
So, make up your mind then , and stop being so ridiculously irrationally paradoxical or contradictory .
How is he being contradictory or paradoxical? Like you, he believes in the immaterial (or doesn't rule the possibility out) He just doesn't think consciousness is immaterial.
You said: "All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect"
Why is he forced to chose "one or the other" if you don't?
-
You're either a materialist or a non -materialist : you cannot be both at the same time = a paradox : you cannot have it both ways , by believing both in the existence of the immaterial , and in the materialist version of reality you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " without question so far , the materialist false conception of nature , and hence the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " that have been assuming or rather believing for so long now , that everything is just material or physical .
If everything is just material or physical, then there is no such a thing such as the immaterial ...obviously .
So, make up your mind then , and stop being so ridiculously irrationally paradoxical or contradictory .
How is he being contradictory or paradoxical? Like you, he believes in the immaterial (or doesn't rule the possibility out) He just doesn't think consciousness is immaterial.
You said: "All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect"
Why is he forced to chose "one or the other" if you don't?
[/quote]
What has the false materialist naturalist reductionist conception of nature that goes way beyond science and beyond the scientific method thus , and hence the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " to do with causation , ....? They both are 1 ,and both have just been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , including consciousness or the mind mental thus ,and hence , there is no such a thing or process such as the immaterial ....
So, when science , under the exclusive supremacy monopoly and dominance of materialism , has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , so, science has been trying to explain everything , reality as a whole thus , just in terms of physics and chemistry , just in terms of the laws of physics or mechanistic causation , while missing the other part of reality in the process .
So, when all sciences for that matter will be able to reject materialism, and hence the false "scientific world view ", by including the parts of the immaterial side of reality with wich they can deal empirically , they might therefore discover that the mechanistic causation or the laws of physics were / are just human projections , in the sense that the notion of laws is just a human projection , which might mean , in its turn , that reality as a whole might be functioning and existing , evolving ...within some other totally different notions than the physical mechanistic laws , or the mechanistic causation that are intrinsically determinist , without any existence of any notion of free ...will , the latter that's a matter of consciousness mainly , even though sub-consciousness does play a role in that .
Free will that cannot exist within a mechanistic determinist materialist version of reality , which considers , logically , consciousness as to be just a side -effect of biological evolution = or rather just a side effect of the materialist version of evolution .(Reality as a whole is not just material or physical in fact , consciousness cannot be a biological process, and hence evolution itself cannot be just biological, the same goes for life ....its origins emergence and evolution , the same goes for human language ,its evolution emergence and origins ....the same goes for human intellect , feelings , emotions ....and the rest .) .
To believe that everything is just material or physical, including man and man's consciousness, while assuming that there might be some immaterial beings out there, at the same time, is simply paradoxical : the one belief assumption excludes the other .
In short :
If that guy does really believe in the immaterial , he should also believe in the immaterial side of man and life ,including in the immaterial nature and origins of consciousness thus , and in the immaterial side of reality as a whole , while rejecting that false 'scientific world view " regarding the nature of reality as a whole , the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical,including the mind or consciousness thus .
He certainly can't have it both ways .
In short :
Materialism has just been clever enough to integrate the prior -to -materialism mechanical conception of nature , in order to pretend to be 'scientific " .
P.S.: It might turn out to be that reality is spiritual at its ultimate core : the material or physical side of reality might turn out to be just an elaborate ...illusion .Who knows ? I dunno.
Finale note :
When science has been forced by materialism to see all reality as just a matter of just material physical biological processes , while missing the immaterial side of reality as a result , science has been therefore just trying to explain "everything" just within the materialist false version of reality as a whole which has been taken for granted by science as the whole reality = the laws of physics or physics and chemistry are a distortion of reality as a whole = reality as a whole might turn out to be totally different from any human projections such as physical laws , causation.... ...
Other totally unknown phenomena or whatever we might not be able to call causation in the physical sense thus , might turn out to be the ones "running the whole show " of the whole universe ,while they or whatever delegate a part of the whole show to us humans , via our conscious human free will.
I can only guess at this point of course on the subject , as anybodyelse only can do .
-
In short :
If that guy does really believe in the immaterial , he should also believe in the immaterial side of man and life ,including in the immaterial nature and origins of consciousness thus , and in the immaterial side of reality as a whole , while rejecting that false 'scientific world view " regarding the nature of reality as a whole , the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical,including the mind or consciousness thus .
He certainly can't have it both ways .
Well, I'll let Supercryptid speak for himself about what he believes or doesn't believe. But again, if its fine for you to believe that some things can be explained by just chemistry and physics, but "not everything", then it should be okay for anyone else to hold that view, even if they disagree about what goes in which category.
-
if reality thus as a whole is just material or physical , as you seem to assume it to be
I don't. I believe in the existence of angels and demons. Therefore, I am not a materialist. Believing in angels and demons does not mean that I have to believe that the human mind is immaterial. These two beliefs are unrelated. It is not a paradox. I am having a really hard time following your line of reasoning. If I believe in the existence of material minds, why can't I also believe that there are other, fundamentally different, immaterial minds? That's like saying that I'm allowed to believe that ice cream can be made to have the flavor of chocolate, but that it cannot be made to have the flavor of vanilla.
Your biggest argument about this whole thing is that you cannot fathom how consciousness can arise from physical matter and as a result have come to the hasty conclusion that it can't. This is a perfect example of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Just because you can't understand it means that it can't be true? I, personally, don't understand calculus. Therefore, calculus must be wrong!
I will give you some credit however, as you have outlasted me in this debate because I am no longer willing to continue. You keep reiterating the same points again and again with no evidence further than your own personal reasoning to back up your claims. To be honest, this kind of debate would be more at home on a philosophy forum than a science one. Unlike scientific arguments, philosophical arguments have a tendency to rely on the unprovable and as such are difficult to prove wrong in a debate.
-
In short :
If that guy does really believe in the immaterial , he should also believe in the immaterial side of man and life ,including in the immaterial nature and origins of consciousness thus , and in the immaterial side of reality as a whole , while rejecting that false 'scientific world view " regarding the nature of reality as a whole , the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical,including the mind or consciousness thus .
He certainly can't have it both ways .
Well, I'll let Supercryptid speak for himself about what he believes or doesn't believe. But again, if its fine for you to believe that some things can be explained by just chemistry and physics, but "not everything", then it should be okay for anyone else to hold that view, even if they disagree about what goes in which category.
[/quote
]
You just did misunderstand my words :
I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything" as the elusive so-called physical "theory of everything = nothing " tries to do , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .
-
if reality thus as a whole is just material or physical , as you seem to assume it to be
I don't. I believe in the existence of angels and demons. Therefore, I am not a materialist. Believing in angels and demons does not mean that I have to believe that the human mind is immaterial. These two beliefs are unrelated. It is not a paradox. I am having a really hard time following your line of reasoning. If I believe in the existence of material minds, why can't I also believe that there are other, fundamentally different, immaterial minds? That's like saying that I'm allowed to believe that ice cream can be made to have the flavor of chocolate, but that it cannot be made to have the flavor of vanilla.
Since you do seem to believe in the materialist false 'scientific world view " by saying that the universe , including life on earth and including the mind thus , that the universe is just material or physical , that makes you a materialist .
When you say that you do believe in angels ....that makes you a non-materialist .
Try to solve that paradox for yourself then: you can't have it both ways .
If you believe in the immaterial, then you have to reject the false materialist "scientific world view " which has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical .
If you believe in the immaterial, then you have to believe in the immaterial side of reality as a whole also ,including in the immaterial side of life , including in the immaterial side of evolution istelf , including in the immaterial side of everythingelse , including in the immaterial nature and origins of consciousness ...simply because everything in this universe has material physical and non-material non-physical sides , except those purely immaterial or spiritual beings out there .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical , including life and the mind = including sentient life thus ,as the false materialist conception of nature wanna make you believe it is , and hence as the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " does .
Reality as a whole is therefore not just material or physical , and hence life is not just material or physical , the mind or consciousness are non-physical , and even evolution itself cannot be just biological .
When science will be able to reject materialism ,and hence its false materialist "scientific world view ", by acknowledging the fact that reality as a whole ,including life , evolution and the rest , is not just material or physical , then all our scientific knowledge ,all sciences , will be changed radically : use your imagination then .
Your biggest argument about this whole thing is that you cannot fathom how consciousness can arise from physical matter and as a result have come to the hasty conclusion that it can't. This is a perfect example of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Just because you can't understand it means that it can't be true? I, personally, don't understand calculus. Therefore, calculus must be wrong
!
No, physics and chemistry cannot give rise to consciousness, simply because the latter is totally different from the former ,as we all do experience consciousness to be .
I am not gonna argue you with you any further on the subject of consciousness, the latter that 's non -physical , and therefore is consciousness irreducible to the physical .
Consciousness that's a subjective individual process and a collective one also : how can physics and chemistry give rise to subjective and collective senses of the self like that ?
I will give you some credit however, as you have outlasted me in this debate because I am no longer willing to continue. You keep reiterating the same points again and again with no evidence further than your own personal reasoning to back up your claims. To be honest, this kind of debate would be more at home on a philosophy forum than a science one. Unlike scientific arguments, philosophical arguments have a tendency to rely on the unprovable and as such are difficult to prove wrong in a debate.
You're right , just in the sense that we have been talking here just conceptions of nature , not science :
The false materialist conception of nature , and hence the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " are just that = false conceptions of nature , false world views , false philosophy in science that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view ", and hence the "mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain ..." are just that : extensions of the false materialist conception of nature , and hence just extensions of the false "scientific world view " .
In short :
There is a lot of materialist crap out there you have been taking for granted as science , including your belief in the materialist belief assumption that "the mind is in the brain ..." .
Try to sort all that out for yourself .
Good luck indeed.
-
If you say so...
Cheryl j seems to understand why there is no paradox in my beliefs. I have a feeling that everyone else here does as well. I'm not going to get bent out of shape because one stranger on the Internet can't understand it. So this'll be my final post in this thread.
-
You just did misunderstand my words :
I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything" as the elusive so-called physical "theory of everything = nothing " tries to do , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .
Yes, perhaps I have misunderstood you, and I'm sorry for forgetting at times that English is not your first language.
In English, when one says that "Not everything can be explained by X," it implies that some things can be explained by X, but other things cannot.
If you want to say that zero things are explained by X, you would say "nothing is explained by X"
What makes a phrase like "not everything" ambiguous is that it is not always clear if the writer means "not all of the members of a set" or "not every aspect of all members of the set."
If I were trying to explain why a group of people are friends, I might say “not everything” is explained by their interest in music. That could mean that some of the people in the group are musicians but some are not. Or it could mean they are musicians but they are also Chinese and musicians. Unless I am more specific, no one will know what I mean. If I really truly mean that music has nothing to do with it, I would say “nothing” about that group is explained by an interest in music.
That is one reason why I think you are being misunderstood. It has not been clear in many of your posts when you say “Not everything can be explained by chemistry and physics” whether you believed:
1)Some things can, but others can’t be explained by chemistry or physics or
2)Everything always involves an immaterial explanation, even if there is sometimes chemistry and physics involved in the process, or
3)Chemistry and physics do not explain anything that happens. They do not matter at all, they are irrelevant. They explain nothing. They explain nothing by themselves or even when combined with a immaterial explanation.
To be honest though, I'm not 100% sure it is just a language problem. I am not entirely sure that you haven't flipped back and forth or contradicted yourself by saying in some posts that chemistry and physics could explain the "purely physical, purely biological" but later denying in other posts that anything is purely physical, or purely biological.
-
If you say so...
Cheryl j seems to understand why there is no paradox in my beliefs. I have a feeling that everyone else here does as well. I'm not going to get bent out of shape because one stranger on the Internet can't understand it. So this'll be my final post in this thread.
[/quote]
Stranger or not : science or the truth are not a democracy , not the right of the majority ,dude .
That you cannot all see the intrinsic paradox of your own beliefs is your problem , not mine .
The main problem is that you have been all taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted as the "scientific world view " , that's why you are so confused .
You cannot believe in the latter , while believing in the immaterial at the same time , no way = a paradox .
Try to sort just that out for yourself, or not , who cares : your problem, not mine .
Running away from the problem won't make it go away : just try to face the music then ...or not ...
Good luck, either way .
-
You just did misunderstand my words :
I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything" as the elusive so-called physical "theory of everything = nothing " tries to do , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .
Yes, perhaps I have misunderstood you, and I'm sorry for forgetting at times that English is not your first language.
Has nothing to do with that, not really .
That has everything to do with the fact that you have been all taking the materialist false conception of nature for granted as the "scientific world view " , that's why you are so confused : centuries of materialist indoctrinations and brainwash are not that easy to undo .
Good luck with just that .
In English, when one says that "Not everything can be explained by X," it implies that some things can be explained by X, but other things cannot.
I was just referring to that physical "theory of everything = theory of nothing " that tries to explain everything = nothing just in terms of physics and chemistry, while taking the latter for all what there is out there .
There might be some more fundamental forms of causation out there , a non-physical one at that underlying the laws of physics themselves , the latter that cannot alone explain how living organisms , for example ,can be self-organizing , can give rise to their own forms and shapes ...
DNA or physics and chemistry alone cannot explain just that and the rest .
If you want to say that zero things are explained by X, you would say "nothing is explained by X"
Don't try to play the wise girl, sis :
Your launched boomerang might hit you back in the face , while missing its intended target(s):
Well, see above : to try to explain everything = reality as a whole just via physics and chemistry alone , by assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , is like trying to explain the whole pic just via one single part of it : just an analogy .
Physics and chemistry alone do explain nothing in fact , they just try to describe the physical material or the biological they take for the whole real thing .
What makes a phrase like "not everything" ambiguous is that it is not always clear if the writer means "not all of the members of a set" or "not every aspect of all members of the set."
See above , wise girl .
The material physical part of reality is not all what there is to reality as a whole , so, that physical "theory of everything " = a theory of nothing , can explain nothing thus , simply because the physical or material part of reality is not all what there is to reality .
To be honest though, I'm not 100% sure it is just a language problem. I am not entirely sure that you haven't flipped back and forth or contradicted yourself by saying in some posts that chemistry and physics could explain the "purely physical, purely biological" but later denying in other posts that anything is purely physical, or purely biological.
Yeah, right :
When you can't understand or do not want to understand something , thanks to some false irrational outdated belief of yours you do take for granted as science , just accuse somebodyelse instead: how convenient and handy .
Irrelevan and false silly speculations : grow up .
I think you're over-estimating your own capacity of judgement,poor girl .
I will explain that to you as follows , this simple way , see above also :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, and hence nothing is just physical or material , including matter itself ( see modern physics regarding the latter ) = nothing can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , while physics and chemistry "pretend " to be able to explain everything = nothing in the above mentioned sense , via that physical "theory of everything " = theory of nothing in fact : physics and chemistry just try to describe or try to explain the physical material biological ,while assuming that the latter is all what there is to reality as a whole , including life and the rest .
So, physics and chemistry alone can explain ...nothing in fact,for the above mentioned reasons .
Science must thus reject its false physical material " scentific world view ", by including the mental that's irreducible to the physical ,once again : science has no choice but to try to do that , if science wanna deserve fully to be called ...science at least .
Science that's been extremely succesfull in revealing some aspects of the physical material reality , while assuming that that is all what there is to reality as a whole .
The latter false 'scientific " assumption is what makes science so far unable to "see " the missing part of the whole pic without which there would be no real scientific understanding of reality as a whole .
Get that ?
Take an aspirin ,if your brain , or rather your mind happens to hurt as a result .
Cheers .
-
So this'll be my final post in this thread.
That's what everyone else ought to do too, so this will be my final post in any of these silly threads.
-
Has nothing to do with that, not really .
I am happy for you that it is not actually a language problem, but disappointed that it has been a matter of deliberate obscurification on your part all along. Avoiding questions or making ambiguous statements does not prevent others from seeing logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your position - they are still glaringly obvious.
-
So this'll be my final post in this thread.
That's what everyone else ought to do too, so this will be my final post in any of these silly threads.
[/quote]
Well , that's your own free choice : that does not mean you're right .
That will not keep me awake at night either , do not worry about just that .
But, that won't make the fact go away that the 'scientific world view " is false , and hence reality is not just material or physical,including life , its emergence origins and evolution, including even matter itself (see modern physics regarding the latter ), including evolution itself that cannot be logically just biological = that physical "theory of everything " = theory of nothing .
In short :
The most fundamental form of causation of them all might turn out to be ...non-physical at its ultimate core , in the form of some sort of non-physical fields of some sort ,or otherwise , who knows ? I don't know .
All i know is that reality as a whole cannot be explained just via its physical side , no way , its physical side that's way less fundamental than its mental non-physical one that's irreducible to the physical .
In other words :
Trying to explain the whole pic just via its physical side, is not only an extremely idiotic absurd surreal attempt at that , and a false one at that , but it is also ...unscientific = mixing up science with materialist ...magic = mixing oil with water, so to speak .
-
Has nothing to do with that, not really .
I am happy for you that it is not actually a language problem, but disappointed that it has been a matter of deliberate obscurification on your part all along. Avoiding questions or making ambiguous statements does not prevent others from seeing logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your position - they are still glaringly obvious.
See above : i cannot be any clearer :
I have even been trying to use just simple language ,anybody for that matter , can understand :
You just keep on being blinded by your false materialist beliefs ,you do confuse with science .
And i am not responsible for your centuries-long materialist indoctrinations and brainwash you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " ,without question .
Try to sort that our for yourself then .
I am afraid , i cannot help you in that regard any further .
Good luck with your own search or journey .
-
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.
I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.
I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.
-
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.
I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.
I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.
I agree with you. But Don has never explained or defined his concept of the immaterial. From the all of his posts, it appears to be a mystical catch-all concept and nothing definite, or nothing he is willing to define, because someone might disprove it, or worse, decide it is just inconsequential. I doubt Don's immaterial has very much in common with an isosceles triangle or Pi, which are also immaterial, but can be described in very specific ways.
Don has gotten a lot of attention on this forum. I can't help but notice that the conversation dies down on these particular threads when he disappears. At the same time, he doesn't understand that you don't change people's thinking or create a "paradigm shift" by beating people with a stick and saying "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" You convince them by offering them alternative theories, with in depth explanation of those ideas and evidence for them, that are more convincing than the theories they had.
-
On the other hand, shouting incoherent rantings into the ether is symptomatic of syphilis, so there may be a madness to his method.
-
On the other hand, shouting incoherent rantings into the ether is symptomatic of syphilis,
Is that a scientific fact , sis ? Weird doc you are haha .
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?
so there may be a madness to his method.
There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .
-
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.
What are you afraid of ? only dogmatic , ignorant people , idiots ,fools or materialists haha are afraid of the truth .
You're part of that list = you are such a dogmatic guy ,that you cannot but run away by not facing the music .
Congratulations .
I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense.
(Prior note :
For your info : the mainstream "scientific world view " excludes, per definition, any existence of the immaterial as such , in any form or shape, including even thoughts , qualia ..., .)
Well, the mainstream "scientific world view " does think that consciousness is just a biological process = consciousness allegedly originated from the evolved complexity of the physical brain = consciousness was just an "emergent " phenomena or property from the evolved complexity of the brain = materialist magic in science = no science = no empirical fact .
What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.
Who said otherwise ? How brain and mind are linked ? : that's just a matter of belief or world view , not a scientific matter .
I do believe that consciousness the self or soul do permeate every atom , cell and organ of ours within and without .
I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.
Numbers and logic are no "things ", no entities , just concepts , symbols ,abstract "language" ...numbers do not exist as such : just abstractions, symbols ...
Do you know , by the way , any non-human species , on earth at least , except those purely immaterial beings then, that can think abstractly , via logic , reason ...the latter that seem to be independent of the subject using them ?
Can you explain the higher form of human intellect just in mechanistic materialist computation terms ? as products of the neurons' interactions ? via patterns ...
Should i remind you of the fact that the "scientific world view " just assumes that human intellect is also a biological process thus ? absurd .
Where did maths come from, for example ? super maths that seem to be underlying the physical laws ?
How did we get to have maths ?
Are they just biological , as mainstream science assumes them to be ?
-
Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.
I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.
I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.
I agree with you. But Don has never explained or defined his concept of the immaterial. From the all of his posts, it appears to be a mystical catch-all concept and nothing definite, or nothing he is willing to define, because someone might disprove it, or worse, decide it is just inconsequential.
The immaterial can , per definition, not be defined as such ,sis , come on , be serious: that's the main trouble with it , whatever that might be .
The main trouble with western thought is that almost all its knowledge is conceptual : that's no serious way to apprehend reality as a whole .
We can try to define the immaterial consciousness ,for example , by saying that it is the self, the soul or whatever , but then again : that's no definition : what is the self then ? what is the soul ? = that escapes any definition , simply because the self or soul are immaterial+ subjective and non-local , and hence cannot be "captured " as to confine them to a certain time or space, or to a certain definition .
I am not inventing the immaterial , such as consciousness , the immaterial is the other side of the same coin of reality as a whole , the other side being the physical or material, so nothing is just material or physical, including matter itself as modern physics have been showing concerning the latter at least .
In short :
To try to explain reality as a whole just via its physical or material side ,is not only an idiotic absurd surreal ...you name it ...attempt , but it is mainly unscientific to try to do so , so, all sciences must try to include the mental or non -physical non-material that's irreducible to the physical or to the material , if all all sciences wanna deserve fully to be called sciences at least ,if all sciences wanna be able to try to approach reality as a whole somehow , or just some of it ,including at least some of its mental side thus, in order to make us try to understand reality as a whole package ,relatively speaking then .
Life , human language , and the rest , their evolution origins nature or emergence , for example , cannot therefore be just physical or material .
Evolution itself cannot be just biological .
Matter itself cannot be just material or physical .
I doubt Don's immaterial has very much in common with an isosceles triangle or Pi, which are also immaterial, but can be described in very specific ways.
Do not confuse the abstract with the immaterial .
Those triangles ,Pi....do not exist as such : they are just abstract symbols : abstract mathematical "language " .
Don has gotten a lot of attention on this forum. I can't help but notice that the conversation dies down on these particular threads when he disappears. At the same time, he doesn't understand that you don't change people's thinking or create a "paradigm shift" by beating people with a stick and saying "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" You convince them by offering them alternative theories, with in depth explanation of those ideas and evidence for them, that are more convincing than the theories they had.
I did provide you, guys , with a lots of material on the subject , including significant excerpts from Sheldrake's "science set free ..." , from Nagel's " Mind and cosmos : why the materialist ....conception of nature is.... false" ....not to mention my extensive posts on the subject ....
I did say also , on many occasions , that i am here just to state the problem , to tell what science is not , not to propose a solution : defining the problem is half a solution .
The core problem or deep malaise at the very heart of science is ,once again :
that all sciences at least have been wrongly assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , and hence the "scientific world view " has been doing the same all along , since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism thus , the latter's false conception of nature that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " : that has serious and far reaching implications for all our presumed scientific knowledge under materialism, we have been taking for granted at all levels and in any scientific given field : there is thus a lots of materialist crap out there we have been all taking for granted as science ; a lots of materialist crap we have to kiss goodbye :
All sciences must abandon or reject their false materialist meta-paradigm thus , must undergo a major ,revolutionary , radical change and shift of meta-paradigm ,as to include the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ....
You will all have to throw most of your presumed "scientific " knowledge out of the window at some point of history thus .
What do you want more form me ?
Just try to conduct your own research on the subject via all those sources and material i have been displaying on this forum thus.
-
The immaterial can , per definition, not be defined as such ,sis , come on , be serious: that's the main trouble with it ,
Yeah, that would seem to be a bit of a problem, wouldn't it?
The main trouble with western thought is that almost all its knowledge is conceptual : that's no serious way to apprehend reality as a whole .
It's worked pretty well so far, that concepty thing.
-
I do believe that consciousness the self or soul do permeate every atom , cell and organ of ours within and without
That's the LSD "oneness" (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49377.msg424350#msg424350)talking.
https://www.google.com/search?q=LSD+oneness+universe+hallucination
"Rupert Sheldrake (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48746.msg423743#msg423743)| Materialism & LSD" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXdyF_cSdgAbe55b2fcb5c$Qn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXdyF_cSdgAbe55b2fcb5c$Qn)
-
If anyone is throwing their presumed scientific knowledge out of their window, please let me know. I may have a use for it. Thank you.
-
If anyone is throwing their presumed scientific knowledge out of their window, please let me know. I may have a use for it. Thank you.
[/quote]
Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said ( I said most of one's presumed "scientific" knowledge.) : you might turn out to be not interested in the latter, after all .
-
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?
There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .
-
Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said ( I said most of one's presumed "scientific" knowledge.) : you might turn out to be not interested in the latter, after all .
Well, you never know, I might be interested. Just tell me specifically what I'd be getting without all that silly chemistry and physics and biology stuff, and I'll let you know.
-
To try to explain reality as a whole just via its physical or material side ,is not only an idiotic absurd surreal ...you name it ...attempt
Then I challenge you to explain reality "as a whole" using any method you choose without reference to testable and repeatable measurement of the physical universe. I dare you to try.............................
-
Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said
You say "crap" do you? We've all been exposed to a great deal of that "crap" lately, and I think you know who I'm talking about, don't you??
-
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?
There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .
So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus , thanks to materialism .
Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?
When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....
Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .
-
So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus , thanks to materialism .
Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?
When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....
Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .
Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.
-
Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.
Thanks Cheryl j for reminding him. But I doubt it will get any creditable response. In fact, I've become so bored with his useless rhetoric, I've been thinking about just ignoring him. He really has nothing to add and listening to his rants is a waste of time. He's only seeking attention and I, for one, have heard enough.
-
So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus , thanks to materialism .
Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?
When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....
Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .
Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.
[/quote]
There is no 'challenge " to take on :
Is reality just material or physical ? When either of you will answer just that , then, we can talk further .
The physical or material reality is not the only reality out there,obviously: our phsyical bodies or brains are not all what there is to us , as human beings ,for example .
Major examples ? : the nature of consciousness, the nature of life ...
-
There is no 'challenge " to take on :
Typical response from someone with no creditability. He ignores my challenge, so from now on, I will be ignoring him and this thread!!
-
There is no 'challenge " to take on :
Typical response from someone with no creditability. He ignores my challenge, so from now on, I will be ignoring him and this thread!!
[/quote]
Bye : before you go ,watch this , you might learn something from ,after all :
7 Experiments that could change the world :