[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ dlorde :

A final note :

Intelligent machines can only be able to  some day  simulate (Like some simulators do in other regards ) human consciousness, thought , feelings, emotions , experiences ....but they will certainly never be able to actually think, feel, experience..."things " like we actually do ,no way, ,let alone they would be ever able to be ...conscious or to ...be , like we actually are or do .

Only humans can be or do all that , their human unique ways at least .

Machines or non-human  living species , no matter how intelligent they might ever be , can never be , almost only we can .

We should actually change that conventional outdated and discredited cogito of Descartes by the way : "I think, therefore  i am ".

We should replace it by : " I can , therefore i am ", simply because action is our root nature  .I do not know.

P.S.: The scientific method or science cannot, per definition, cross its own natural boundaries : the  realm of science = the natural reality , and therefore can never be able to say anything about the nature of our supernatural human consciousness as such : Descartes was indeed right about the latter at least .

Second : as the link i provided earlier to you had proved : "Dangerous knowledge " docu , or the other documentary  maybe : "High anxieties-the mathematics of chaos ", i do not recall which one exactly, brilliant mathematicians even had proved the fact that some things are unprovable, per definition ...................that there are also some true premises or facts we cannot prove them to be as such ...

See ya

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ dlorde :

See this fascinating scientific study video : "Placebo-cracking the code " ,regarding the power of belief and the mind ,and how the mind heals the body ...:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/placebo-cracking-code/

[dlorde]

I would spend time explaining the various lines of evidence I find convincing, but there seems little point - you've just told me it's all wrong - although, on your soapbox of incredulity, you clearly neither know nor understand of most of it.

In the absence of reasoned arguments to address, I'll leave you to it.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

author=dlorde link=topic=48315.msg416555#msg416555 date=1376951082]
I would spend time explaining the various lines of evidence I find convincing, but there seems little point - you've just told me it's all wrong - although, on your soapbox of incredulity, you clearly neither know nor understand of most of it.

(Prior note :well, that brilliant cristal-clear lecture of quantum physicist Peter Russell here above proved the essence of my above mentioned plea to be true ...cristal- clearly, to my great delight , i must admit , to be honest  : I do recommend strongly that you see it ,even though i disagree with some aspects of it, especially that part relating to  that secular humanistic  "I am God " expression or interpretation )

Weird resistance , psychological defenses , denials and false assumptions of yours :

First of all , i did not say it was all wrong what you said or what materialists say on the issue of human consciousness and  the human brain : human mind and brain , mind and body ... .

Second : i used no incredulity "argument " as the brilliant awesome lecture of physicist Peter Russell showed .

Third, i do know the general lines of "evidence " presented by materialists regarding the origin ,nature and function of the human consciousness...

No doubt , materialism has booked a lots of magnificent achievements at the level of matter where it belongs, in the first place to begin with ,at the level of exact sciences at least ( Modern physics do refute the materialistic world view in science , even at the level of matter though, even at the level of exact sciences thus , ironically enough,as quantum physicist Russell showed in his lecture  ) , to be more precize ,  but materialism fails pathetically at the level of human sciences ........and at the level of other non-exact sciences , not to mention at the level of human consciousness ...for obvious reasons related to the very nature of materialism itself , i must repeat though  .

As Russell demonstrated in that brilliant lecture of his : taking into consideration the very subjective nature of human consciousness and internal human lives , materialistic scientists cannot say anything intelligent or provable , let alone something empirical about them ,relatively speaking , i must add though .:

Human consciousness and internal human lives as  a matter of personal experiences mainly thus .

So, science can neither prove the very existence of human consciousness and internal human lives , nor say anything about their natures or processes , i must say ..

Russell proved not only that there are  levels of consciousness in every living organism , but also that the ultimate reality is spiritual, in the sense that consciousness is all what there is , all is mind ,relatively speaking then  again ,  so, time ,space, causality ,matter and the rest do not exist as such ,not as we perceive them to be at least .

As Russell's lecture also shows ,new or alternative theories or new paradigms are first ridiculed ,then  opposed and then finally accepted as obvious evidence afterwards .

And even scientists can rarely  change their minds , the more when it comes to certain shifts of paradigms : the fascinating lecture of Russell showed even that the meta-paradigm of science which underlies all the other paradigms in science had to be revised= that reality is material  .

That put aside :

Is that all you have to say ? ,despite all the time and energy i invested in my replies to you here above .Thanks a lot for just that indeed .Amazing attitude of yours .I am stunned by that .

What i said is no incredulity : the core point of my plea was/  is : how can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ? as a scientist was quoted saying in that lecture .

See what physicist Peter Russell had to say about all that , via my above mentioned link,once again  .

"Even matter is not made of matter " as some scientist was quoted saying   in that fascinating lecture : if you would watch and listen to the latter carefully , you would understand clearly what i tried to say my clumsy humble way ,even though i made some mistakes regarding what Peter Russell said about consciousness and matter in my  above displayed posts to you  (I happened to have watched and listened to that lecture some time ago ,so,  and i did watch it and listen to it again yesterday night and then i discovered some errors of mine relating to Russell's approach of consciousness and matter : those were minor errors though ).

You would even understand your own behavior or denial you displayed in this post of yours , if you watch that lecture.

Besides, I know about the general lines of "evidence " delivered by materialists in relation to human consciousness and the human brain though ,despite what you might think of that .

In the absence of reasoned arguments to address, I'll leave you to it.

That's just your own perception or interpretation of what i said .
Well, ok  then , do not listen to me in that regard , just listen to a qualified source on the subject : Peter Russell .

Deal ?

See ya after you  will  ,hopefully, undergo all those natural stages of denial Russell talked about ...

Ciao

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The Primacy of Consciousness By Peter Russell

Source : keentalks.com

Peter Russell explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and proposes that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings.

He shows why mind is more fundamental than matter, and the the key to this shift is the revolution in our understanding of the light.

Many have made such claims from metaphysical perspectives, but the possibility has always been ignored by the scientific community.

In this talk, he discusses the problems the materialist scientific worldview has with consciousness and proposes an alternative worldview which, rather than contradicting science, makes new sense of much of modern physics.

He presents a reasoned argument that shows how they are pointing towards the one thing science has always avoided considering – the primary nature of consciousness.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

"More than anything else, the future of
civilization depends on the way the two
most powerful forces of history, science
and religion, settle into relationship with
each other."

Alfred North Whitehead

[dlorde]

Peter Russell explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and proposes that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings.

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories - that there isn't a problem of consciousness if everything conscious - which of course only spreads the original difficulty to everything in the universe; you might as well go the whole hog and say god did it.

There are plenty of contemporary versions of this idea (e.g. Tom Campbell, et al), but Russells arguments are particularly poor (a mixture of argument from ignorance and special pleading), and his examples flawed. His namesake, Bertrand, must be spinning in his grave. Not surprising, as he's a physicist who admits he's spent all of 6 months on it. He defines consciousness as 'the capabiity for experience' (not awareness) then equivocates between passive experience (e.g. a stone experiences weathering), experience as a dynamic adaptive response to the environment (e.g. simple living organisms), and experience as consciousness (mind). He introduces philosophical zombies to try to emphasise how tricky consciousness is, but it's known to be an incoherent concept - if it does everything that an acknowledged consciousness does, i.e. it satisfies all the criteria we have, then it too must be acknowledged conscious.

He starts with his conclusion then tries to find arguments & evidence to fit. In doing so, he fails to consider even the most obvious alternative explanations to his favoured explanation (e.g. giving a dog an anaesthetic proves we think they are conscious; really? let's conveniently ignore the fact that if you don't they will bite and scratch and struggle...).

He spends way too long explaining 'paradigm' and 'metaparadigm' in an attempt to give his insubstantial claims more weight. He bemoans the lack of potential explanations within the current paradigm or metaparadigm, and, tossing Ockham's Razor to one side, rushes in search of a 'new' metaparadigm. Did he even pause to consider obvious alternatives in the existing paradigm, such as emergence, the primary candidate? No; don't tell the audience, they might catch on.
 
And for a physicist to bring quantum mechanical observers into a talk about consciousness is also telling (hint an 'observation' in QM is any particle interaction - consciousness is irrelevant). Any neurobiologist could also tell him that not all knowledge is 'structured in consciousness', despite the Maharishi's pseudo-profundities; the vast majority of knowledge in the brain is not accessible to consciousness.

He makes a lot of our converting perceptual reality into a map of the world that doesn't represent what's really out there; but, of course, a map is a representation, and an evolutionary biologist could tell him why we represent the world the way we do (hint - it helps us survive).

He equivocates matter as experienced and in reality - matter is mostly empty space, and particles are not really particles, so he introduces solidity as if it's contradictory - but any physicist knows it isn't, knows that electrostatic forces explain why some matter is solid, why we don't fall through the 'empty space' of the floor and can't walk through or see through walls and, if nothing else, this point makes it clear that he's deliberately misleading to make his point fit his conclusion.

Having tried to build a case the that our experience doesn't represent reality because reality is different from our experience of it, he then claims that 'all the indications are that there may not be an objective reality' (so what does he think he was supposedly studying all those years as a physicist?), sawing away at the very branch he sits on and teetering on the edge of solipsism. He claims 'there is only consciousness... a consciousness field ... which we experience and translate in the mind into shape & form & matter...' but, one is tempted to ask, if there's only consciousness, where does this 'mind' come from to translate it into shape & form & matter? String theory consists of strings of consciousness? no, they are simply mathematical constructs. If you could travel at the speed of light? You can't. From light's point of view it doesn't exist in space & time? No; it doesn't have a 'point of view'  because it has no valid reference frame. Under the very theory of Special Relativity he uses to introduce these ideas, they are invalid by definition. It's total gibberish, and he must know it. But in his rush to use SR to undermine objectivity and external reality, he also conveniently forgets that SR is an explicitly objective theory that explains the subjective experience of the observer.

He quoted Kant - "Space & time are the framework within which the mind is constrained to construct its experience of reality" (my emphasis) in support of his suggestion that space & time are not 'part of the external world'; the complete opposite of what Kant was saying. If anyone noticed, they kept quiet. Next he gets applause for bamboozling them with the principle of least action and the emission & absorption of light. It's standard physics, folks. He laughs at the 'average scientist' for thinking that stuff is outside our mind when it's inside our mind. I suspect the average scientist know the difference between the map and the territory. That's what they do for a living.

He never gives a proper argument to support panpsychism, only the supposition from ignorance - we don't know how it arises so let's say it's universal - conveniently ignoring the evidence that it appears to involve brains (creatures without brains show no apparent consciousness), and the more complex the brain the greater the apparent degree of consciousness.

He prefers intuition to reason - 'we intuitively know jellyfish are conscious despite having no nervous system because we'd rather unplug a computer than throw a jellyfish on the fire'. Really - that's supposed to be an argument? Forgetting, for a moment, the millions who'd happily throw a jellyfish on the fire rather than unplug their computer, did he not consider that we perhaps identify more with a fragile living thing than a human-built machine? or that maybe we know that you can plug a computer back in but you can't unburn a jellyfish?

There are far better proponents of this kind of speculation than Russell, and at the end of it all, you still have the problem you're trying to solve - what is consciousness? but instead of narrowing it down, you've made it axiomatic, universal, unfalsifiable, impossible to solve, and as an explanation, it has no utility whatsoever, and no predictive power. Rather like the god explanation - which he introduces at the end.

It's full of holes (it's practically made of holes) and I don't buy it. I buy this though.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Peter Russell explores the problems science has explaining consciousness and proposes that consciousness is not created by the brain, but is inherent in all beings.

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories - that there isn't a problem of consciousness if everything conscious - which of course only spreads the original difficulty to everything in the universe; you might as well go the whole hog and say god did it.

There are plenty of contemporary versions of this idea (e.g. Tom Campbell, et al), but Russells arguments are particularly poor (a mixture of argument from ignorance and special pleading), and his examples flawed. His namesake, Bertrand, must be spinning in his grave. Not surprising, as he's a physicist who admits he's spent all of 6 months on it. He defines consciousness as 'the capabiity for experience' (not awareness) then equivocates between passive experience (e.g. a stone experiences weathering), experience as a dynamic adaptive response to the environment (e.g. simple living organisms), and experience as consciousness (mind). He introduces philosophical zombies to try to emphasise how tricky consciousness is, but it's known to be an incoherent concept - if it does everything that an acknowledged consciousness does, i.e. it satisfies all the criteria we have, then it too must be acknowledged conscious.

He starts with his conclusion then tries to find arguments & evidence to fit. In doing so, he fails to consider even the most obvious alternative explanations to his favoured explanation (e.g. giving a dog an anaesthetic proves we think they are conscious; really? let's conveniently ignore the fact that if you don't they will bite and scratch and struggle...).

He spends way too long explaining 'paradigm' and 'metaparadigm' in an attempt to give his insubstantial claims more weight. He bemoans the lack of potential explanations within the current paradigm or metaparadigm, and, tossing Ockham's Razor to one side, rushes in search of a 'new' metaparadigm. Did he even pause to consider obvious alternatives in the existing paradigm, such as emergence, the primary candidate? No; don't tell the audience, they might catch on.
 
And for a physicist to bring quantum mechanical observers into a talk about consciousness is also telling (hint an 'observation' in QM is any particle interaction - consciousness is irrelevant). Any neurobiologist could also tell him that not all knowledge is 'structured in consciousness', despite the Maharishi's pseudo-profundities; the vast majority of knowledge in the brain is not accessible to consciousness.

He makes a lot of our converting perceptual reality into a map of the world that doesn't represent what's really out there; but, of course, a map is a representation, and an evolutionary biologist could tell him why we represent the world the way we do (hint - it helps us survive).

He equivocates matter as experienced and in reality - matter is mostly empty space, and particles are not really particles, so he introduces solidity as if it's contradictory - but any physicist knows it isn't, knows that electrostatic forces explain why some matter is solid, why we don't fall through the 'empty space' of the floor and can't walk through or see through walls and, if nothing else, this point makes it clear that he's deliberately misleading to make his point fit his conclusion.

Having tried to build a case the that our experience doesn't represent reality because reality is different from our experience of it, he then claims that 'all the indications are that there may not be an objective reality' (so what does he think he was supposedly studying all those years as a physicist?), sawing away at the very branch he sits on and teetering on the edge of solipsism. He claims 'there is only consciousness... a consciousness field ... which we experience and translate in the mind into shape & form & matter...' but, one is tempted to ask, if there's only consciousness, where does this 'mind' come from to translate it into shape & form & matter? String theory consists of strings of consciousness? no, they are simply mathematical constructs. If you could travel at the speed of light? You can't. From light's point of view it doesn't exist in space & time? No; it doesn't have a 'point of view'  because it has no valid reference frame. Under the very theory of Special Relativity he uses to introduce these ideas, they are invalid by definition. It's total gibberish, and he must know it. But in his rush to use SR to undermine objectivity and external reality, he also conveniently forgets that SR is an explicitly objective theory that explains the subjective experience of the observer.

He quoted Kant - "Space & time are the framework within which the mind is constrained to construct its experience of reality" (my emphasis) in support of his suggestion that space & time are not 'part of the external world'; the complete opposite of what Kant was saying. If anyone noticed, they kept quiet. Next he gets applause for bamboozling them with the principle of least action and the emission & absorption of light. It's standard physics, folks. He laughs at the 'average scientist' for thinking that stuff is outside our mind when it's inside our mind. I suspect the average scientist know the difference between the map and the territory. That's what they do for a living.

He never gives a proper argument to support panpsychism, only the supposition from ignorance - we don't know how it arises so let's say it's universal - conveniently ignoring the evidence that it appears to involve brains (creatures without brains show no apparent consciousness), and the more complex the brain the greater the apparent degree of consciousness.

He prefers intuition to reason - 'we intuitively know jellyfish are conscious despite having no nervous system because we'd rather unplug a computer than throw a jellyfish on the fire'. Really - that's supposed to be an argument? Forgetting, for a moment, the millions who'd happily throw a jellyfish on the fire rather than unplug their computer, did he not consider that we perhaps identify more with a fragile living thing than a human-built machine? or that maybe we know that you can plug a computer back in but you can't unburn a jellyfish?

There are far better proponents of this kind of speculation than Russell, and at the end of it all, you still have the problem you're trying to solve - what is consciousness? but instead of narrowing it down, you've made it axiomatic, universal, unfalsifiable, impossible to solve, and as an explanation, it has no utility whatsoever, and no predictive power. Rather like the god explanation - which he introduces at the end.

It's full of holes (it's practically made of holes) and I don't buy it. I buy this though.

Regardless :

Since you do not seem to be qualified to have any degree of heart's intelligence ,sorry, heart's intelligence as the highest form of intellect ,as i  said before , then i will have to take you with me on this alternative unconventional factual-not emotional path :

I will take you back to basics in a moment , back to our core issue ...

Just bear with me , maybe you might see other perspectives , horizons ...outside of your dark suffocating key hole space without any windows within which boundaries you have been confining yourself  deliberately, just try to follow me on this path , just out of curiosity then , in order to be able to smell the outside fresh air under the bright sun .

So regardless of the man's natural inevitable and other alleged holes :
And that's not the point either : if you only focus on the errors or holes of others ,instead of on  the facts or good things they might say ,by confining yourself only within the boundaries of your own world view in the process as a result  , then you will never be able to grow or evolve as you should try to be or do  as a decent human being .

The point is : nobody is perfect indeed ,and nobody possesses the truth ...we can only try to approach, by also learning from other people's insights,even though we might disagree with them  ,especially when it comes to hard issues like  consciousness ,science can offer nothing valid about ...Halloo, wake up .

We can never learn anything really new if all what we would do is try to absolutely refute other world views than ours : I do learn a lot from Dawkins and co , as i told you before , even though i do despise them in fact , i must admit , to be honest , for the fact that they misuse science for their own ideological and other purposes and agendas (But i would never try to discard them totally ,simply because they also have some elements of the truth , let alone that i would even think of robbing them of their God given freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of belief in the broader sense ...) .

I do  learn from all cultures, religions,thoughtstreams .....in fact , even though i would not agree with some aspects of those currents of thought i do respect anyway , mostly then .

But the people or currents of thoughts i cannot respect are those who try to exclude other people  and other currents of thoughts, as your Dawkins and co.actually do , implicity or explicitly  .

I also  do not agree with all what Peter Russell said in that lecture of his ....Who said he or anyoneelse for that matter can be waterproof then ?

First this unconventional factual-not emotional necessary Prior note ,before going back to our core issue,if ever ,once again  :

I will have to take off my polite subtle ..gloves for a while , sorry : no pain, no gain indeed,no offense,simply because there is nothing more stimulating for human intelligence than shocks ...  .

First of all, who the hell do you think you are , pretending to possess the  golden  key to unveiling the secrets of the most greatest challenge to all humanity ever ?:  Human consciousness , even modern science itself considers it to be as  a hard problem , and rightly so , even modern science cannot say anything about ,despite all those materialistic make-believe phony claims on the issue ...

I am really stunned by your arrogance, self-projections  and self-righteousness ....as if you, somehow , happened to find the holy grail .

What knowledge do you possess , what qualifications do you have , what experiences , wisdom ...or career do you have to "justify" reducing Russell's to almost nothing this way ? just because he happens to hold a non-materialistc view
You tell me .

You do stick to your materialism also , what makes you better than he is ?

Even the so-called top thinkers or top scientists ever were /are and will always be relatively ignorant , together with  tons of their human shortcomings and flaws...they intrinsically inherently and inescapably inevitably have to carry around within and without themselves

So, why do you seem to think like you are some sort of exception to that rule then ?

I came to this site in order to have some human interactions with these people from different cultures ....simply because i think that all different people from different races, cultures, thoughtstreams....enrich all humanity and vice versa ,simply because we are 1 species that should be one  :

But i detect no "humanity " in you, i feel like talking to a cold robot .

See this "Global brain " vision of Peter Russell you were trying to ridicule by the way on the subject :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=the+global+brain&go=Go

Have you ever done things like that ?

Besides :

We all are inclined to prefer certain ideas , certain world views, certain beliefs ...to others , as Michael Schermer's "The believing brain " showed , relatively speaking,even though i disagree with most of what he had to say on the matter  :

You do go along with your materialistic world view  too,despite the existence of other more or less valid alternative world views .

What makes your world view better than his or better than mine then ? You tell me .

Science ? Well, muslims "invented " science ,thanks to Islam mainly : science would be on our side then , so to speak, not on yours, not always then  :

You materialists have been hijacking science for so long now, exclusively , while excluding all non -materialistic world views in the process ........while early muslims who came up with science excluded none of those other world views ...

 Russell does not know everything , nobody does indeed : one would find holes in the arguments of every one of us : we are all full of holes by the way haha literally and figuratively .

We are all  full of sh1t fools, the one more or less than the other ,and therefore nobody can pretend to possess the "truth " : this is no incredulity ,emotional ,pleading  or apologetical "argument " = this  is an indeniable  fact .

Peter Russell admits, as he should do indeed ,  in 1 of his books " From science to God ..." that he only can come up with temporary (Most of our knowledge is by the way , simply because knowledge  or the truth are    dynamic concepts or processes ) explanations and speculations in accordance with the available data of this time we are living in,while getting inspired by other ancient wisdoms,by other alternative world views , by personal experiences ,by other people's experiences ... :

....
 So, some things here you said are a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact (Science is a matter of fact ,a fact  i must remind you of  , even though science  needs speculations, theories, hypotheses ,paradigms, meta-paradigms ...in order to progress ) :

Try  to prove those materialistic "facts " relating to human consciousness instead then :

Just respond to the core issue here :

How can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ?

How ? The emergent property theory does not explain just that , not convincingly,no way  .

Do you agree that human consciounsess is something immaterial like thoughts are ?

Do you agree that human consciousness is something subjective science cannot approach as such as a result ?

Do you agree that science can neither prove that we are conscious  ,nor prove that we have inner lives ?

Do you agree that even science itself cannot exist , let alone function  , without  human consciousness ? That's 1 of the reasons why human consciousness is way much more primordial and important than matter ever can be .

Can you tell me what matter is ? Can you prove that the  universe is exclusively material ?

Do you therefore agree that quantum physics do refute that materialistic view of the universe ?

............Try to respond to just that then, and we will try to go further from there ...if ever ...Who cares ....

Deal ?

You know what ?

Just spare me your exclusive intolerant handicaped half-blind narrow -minded reductionistic deterministic materialistic key hole world views ...

Ciao

[dlorde]

you do not seem to be qualified to have any degree of heart's intelligence...

First of all, who the hell do you think you are , pretending to possess the  golden  key to unveiling the secrets of the most greatest challenge to all humanity ever ?

I am really stunned by your arrogance, self-projections  and self-righteousness ...

What knowledge do you possess , what qualifications do you have , what experiences , wisdom ...or career do you have...
what makes you better than he is ?

why do you seem to think like you are some sort of exception to that rule then ?

...i detect no "humanity " in you, i feel like talking to a cold robot .

What makes your world view better than his or better than mine then ?

Just spare me your exclusive intolerant handicaped half-blind narrow -minded reductionistic deterministic materialistic key hole world views ...

Very nice...

A barrage of insults because I explained why I think the "brilliant cristal-clear" "awesome" lecture you urged me to watch is a bit rubbish.

Says it all, really.




[p.s. Forum rules: Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.]

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

you do not seem to be qualified to have any degree of heart's intelligence...

First of all, who the hell do you think you are , pretending to possess the  golden  key to unveiling the secrets of the most greatest challenge to all humanity ever ?

I am really stunned by your arrogance, self-projections  and self-righteousness ...

What knowledge do you possess , what qualifications do you have , what experiences , wisdom ...or career do you have...
what makes you better than he is ?

why do you seem to think like you are some sort of exception to that rule then ?

...i detect no "humanity " in you, i feel like talking to a cold robot .

What makes your world view better than his or better than mine then ?

Just spare me your exclusive intolerant handicaped half-blind narrow -minded reductionistic deterministic materialistic key hole world views ...

Very nice...

A barrage of insults because I explained why I think the "brilliant cristal-clear" "awesome" lecture you urged me to watch is a bit rubbish.

Says it all, really.

[p.s. Forum rules: Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.]

Russell's lecture was rubbish ? All of it ? Not just some of it ? as one should normally expect in these particular cases at least ,when one tries to tackle such a huge , fundamental and almost impossible eternal challenge for humanity haha in the form of the nature of consciousness  .
 That's a matter of opinion indeed ,you are perfectly entiteld to .
self-projections again, i see  .
You do not get it yet , do you ?
The materialistic approach of consciousness is much worse than rubbish in fact = an understatement (This is a fact , no insult though ), it is a dishonest ideological cheap phony make-believe  in the name of science , science has nothing to do with, for the obvious above and below mentioned reasons .
The materialistic approach of consciousness is in fact just that : materialistic = relates only to materialism itself as a world view ,but materialists are dishonest enough to sell it to the people as a "fact " in the name of science ,while Russell made no such scientific claims in trying to explain consciousness , even though he involved physics , maths... in that approach of his .

Russell was honest enough to clearly admit ,from the beginning, that science cannot obviously approach our subjective consciousness, for obvious reasons, while materialists are dishonest enough to pretend the untrue opposite , via selling  their materialistic world view regarding consciousness as a scientific fact , to the people : see the difference ?
You did obviously understand nothing of the essence of what i was saying then : those were no insults either or provocative aggressive language as you put it,just facts ,or life facts instead .... .

You are so self-centered or egocentric ,as a materialist , no wonder, that you blame everything on others , and never on yourself : i presume you are not familiar with  self-reflection,self-criticism  or introspection = that's a matter of consciousness , ironically enough, or of self-awareness you seem to lack ,as a direct result of your materialistic view regarding consciousness or self-awareness, i guess .

I wonder whether you are really conscious or whether you do have some degree of consciousness in yourself or not , otherwise , you would not have adhered to that paradoxical materialistic view of consciousness absolutely and blindly , in the first place to begin with,while deliberately ignoring other alternative world views on the subject  , ironically enough  .
No wonder that you try to project all that on others .
That zombie philosophical concept can be applied to materialists perfectly ,thanks to the direct implications  of that materialistic view of consciousness in relation to materialists themselves thus .

I suggest you try to re-read what i said ,or not , who cares ,because you obviously missed the whole point of my words .
I was also stunned by your lack of integrity or dishonesty ,when instead of responding to the core issue of the discussion ( How can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness, the subjective nature of consciousness science cannot approach as a result , the fact that science cannot prove we are conscious , ...),instead of that , you have focused on less important issues regarding the inevitable mistakes anyone can make when one tries to address the highly hard problem of human consciousness ,the approach of which depends mainly on the world view of the speaker or researcher on the subject  ......which reveals the fact that you were just trying to refute Russell's world view .
Once again, the approach of consciousness is no exact-science , science cannot , per definition, even approach it even  .
The approach of consciousness is certainly no science .It's an art mainly.
The approach of consciousness depends mainly thus on the world view through which one tries to do just that .

So, in order to avoid the core issues of consciousness itself and its relationship or non-relationship instead with science , you just tried  to ridicule Russell and his world view ,that cheap dishonest way ...also by  claiming that the materialistic world view regarding consciousness is ..."scientific", while science has absolutely nothing to do with it = you were not only dishonest in that sense , but you were also lying by trying to present that materialistic phony make-believe regarding consciousness, as scientific facts ,or were you just deceiving yourself sub-consciously ,without even being aware of that ? = you were in fact just trying to validate your materialistic world view so desperately via science as all materialists were/are doing in fact ....Can't you realise just that ? My God ....

I have no problem with any world view for that matter , unless  it does  claim things that are untrue by deceiving people  ,especially when a certain world view pretends to be scientific, while science has nothing to do with it .

I have no problem with any other world view as long as it does not exclude other world views ,as long as it does not deliberately tries to exclude  other people ,simply because they hold different beliefs or different world views , in order to validate itself,at their expense mainly,  that cheap dishonest disgusting way .

I would never wanna be in your shoes , that's for sure : your self-deceit , lies and dishonesty in the name of science , science has nothing to with , are simply appaling and pathetic ,in the same fashion those of Dawkins and co.are :

you are just imitating them in fact,by just repeating what they say  : that's 1 of the reasons why i said  earlier that Dawkins and co. are the real threat to science and to the truth , not religious extremists who do clash with science out of ignorance only:

Dawkins and co. are much worse than those ignorant religious extremists ,simply because they deceive the people in the name of science , by promoting their own exclusive intolerant  world view as scientific facts ,despite their indeniable and purely scientific works , i must repeat .

It's even childish even to try to ridicule other world views or other people who happen to believe in different world views ,while pretending that your view is scientific at the same time ,in order to validate your own materialistic belief ,that cheap immature tragic-hilarious way : in the sense :

 oh, look how scientific , rational logical i am , in comparison to my irrational illogical unscientific stupid opponents who seem to know nothing about what they pretend to talk about :
 they do not even deserve my time to explain my scientifc truth haha to them (Science , logic, reason have in fact nothing to do with all those extraordinary claims of materialists in relation to consciousness or in relation to other issues as well ,despite the magnificent achievements in science ,thanks to materialism :

 i think those great materialistic scientific achievements  had turned materialists into arrogant intolerant exclusive ignorant conservative fanatic ....fools as a result afterwards , i guess :

 that might explain their implicit or explicit current fascist attitude in relation to other world views, i assume, especially in relation to religion by projecting their own irrational illogic unscientifc materialistic beliefs on religion ...despite some elements of truth materialism has in that and other regard ...   )

In other words  and in short  :

I am very disappointed in you ...as i expected you to be , unfortunately enough ,despite my optimism regarding the human nature ...

People are mostly very predictable indeed, while they should not be in fact .

I do have no respect for exclusive people  or exclusive intolerant thoughtstreams ,as i explained above, the more when they try to validate themselves and their world views ,in the name of science , science has absolutely nothing to do with , those deceptive cheap immature disgusting exclusive ways  .

Those exclusive world views are in fact , per definition, self-refuting and self-defeating : they do not even need enemies to try to do just that against  them ,simply because they are their own worst enemies .

Their very exclusive and intolerant nature is an argument enough against them .and against their "rational logical scientific" claims ,simply because true beliefs or true world views cannot be neither exclusive nor intolerant ,let alone fanatic : their truth speak for themselves ....

See my point or not yet ?

You are perfectly entiteld to  believe in whatever you wish to believe in , as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on me , via misusing science , that deceptive dishonest appaling outrageous way .

I am afraid you are not conscious, self-aware , or mature enough to acknowledge the obvious logics of what i have been saying , despite your intelligence and fancy talk,which brings me back to the fact that cognitive intelligence is by far way below the level of heart's intelligence as the highest form of intelligence :

no wonder that highly intelligent and highly knowledgeable people such as Stephen Hawking,for example  (He was once the supervisor of Russell by the way at the university ) are such existential pathetic idiots  = existential or spiritual or heart's intelligence they pathetically lack ,is the highest form of intellect they can only dream of trying to approach  , let alone reach , not even remotely close , unfortunately enough .

It 's such a shame and waste that such intelligent people are just a bunch of existential idiots = a fact , no insults .


No wonder that despite all modern humanity's scientific technological material and other achievements , this world we live it , this tiny planet we all inhabit , are such a pathetic hopeless sad tragic intolerant violent  ...mess.

Take care

All the best of luck in your own short journey on this tiny planet , on this much much much ...less than a single sort of  drop of water amidst that huge huge huge ...ocean of billions of galaxies out there and beyond ....

Who the hell are we then to even think of pretending to know anything about the very nature , let alone about  the origin of consciousness , not to mention  about what is in fact much much much ...greater than just that ...

Sweet dreams in your own wonderland, mr. insensitive heartless unsubtle  immature cold mechanic Alice.

The world would just look and sound like you , as it does actually indeed .

Ciao

[dlorde]

You are so self-centered or egocentric ,as a materialist , no wonder, that you blame everything on others , and never on yourself : i presume you are not familiar with  self-reflection,self-criticism  or introspection.

I was also stunned by your lack of integrity or dishonesty

you were not only dishonest in that sense , but you were also lying

your self-deceit , lies and dishonesty in the name of science ... , are simply appaling and pathetic

you are not conscious, self-aware , or mature enough to acknowledge the obvious logics of what i have been saying

Sweet dreams in your own wonderland, mr. insensitive heartless unsubtle  immature cold mechanic Alice.

OK. Feel better now?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You are so self-centered or egocentric ,as a materialist , no wonder, that you blame everything on others , and never on yourself : i presume you are not familiar with  self-reflection,self-criticism  or introspection.

I was also stunned by your lack of integrity or dishonesty

you were not only dishonest in that sense , but you were also lying

your self-deceit , lies and dishonesty in the name of science ... , are simply appaling and pathetic

you are not conscious, self-aware , or mature enough to acknowledge the obvious logics of what i have been saying

Sweet dreams in your own wonderland, mr. insensitive heartless unsubtle  immature cold mechanic Alice.

OK. Feel better now?

haha

You got that right indeed : i do indeed ,i must admit , to be honest, while having some regrets and guilt feelings at the same time afterwards , in the process  .

I am only human, too human, as Nietzsche used to say .

I do realise afterwards i did go too far indeed , relatively speaking then, and i let myself get carried out by emotions also  as well ,relatively speaking also  ...

The following will help you relatively understand my previous behavior :

I was in fact extremely horrified depressed shocked traumatised ... by what 's been going on in both Egypt (the deliberate cold inhumane barbaric massacre of thousands of unarmed and innocent civilians protesters in the streets of Egypt by the Egyptian security forces and army + by gangs of criminals supported by the Egyptian "government "  ...)and in Syria (Those horrific graphic pictures of dead kids,women, old people ... displayed on tv that horrific unethical way ...) did play some role in triggering my relative anger displayed above ,sub-consciously , i presume : i did some introspection afterwards indeed .

All the hope was suddenly gone those horrific ways, displayed on tv for everybody to see , all that hope which was triggered by the so-called Arab spring was gone ( even though the so-called Arab spring  was certainly orchestrated by the US mainly , in order to regain control of North_Africa and the M-East from the economic "invasion" of China mainly , Russia ...as many overwhelming convincing data proved it to be , the US department could neither deny nor confirm as such , for obvious reasons).

The civil war in Syria ,for example, was the direct effect of the fact (From the US western israeli point of view at least ) that Iran Syria Hizbollah Hamas alliance  as an active  resistance to the US israeli new M-East ,had to be broken and defeated ,taking advantage of and playing the legetimate grievances of the Syrian people that had to addressed of course ,  something the 2006 israeli war on Hizbollah and Lebanon ,which was actively backed up by the US, failed  to achieve ...

All that played some role, sub-consciously, once again, in my response to you: that relative anger and relative despair  at least , as a result .

My sincere and genuine apologies for some of what i said thus ,i should not have said that ,really ,but nevertheless, there is some truth in what i was saying to you also , so .

I watched a nice movie yesterday + did other creative things as well ...which inspired me , chilled me , cheered me, and brought back hope to my heart though .

"The majestic " was the title of that movie ,which almost brought me to tears , even though, i am not an oversensitive guy : normally , it takes a very good movie or some other things to almost bring me to tears ,combined with some other special circumstances , like the ones occurring in Egypt, Syria, Irak, Tunesia, Libya, Pakistan,Lebanon  ...like the ones occuring in our societies thus ...

The decline of muslims has been taking worse and worse shapes , and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel as well, unfortunately enough : it seems that things will only get worse , before they can eventually get any better , if ever .

But, there are always seeds of potential ,opportunity ,salvation, improvement, goodness, and hope in every crisis as well , no matter how worse it might be or get , as the Chinese wisdom used to say indeed.

That movie was all about doing the right thing ,courage, realistic ideals, justice,love,forgiveness,  democracy, freedom, beauty  ....which make our trivial , ambitions, careers...and everyday lives sound and look just that = trivial ,unimportant,worthless ... if they fail to have love , honesty , courage ,justice,forgiveness, creativity ,ideals,justice, beauty, freedom ,....in them.

Jim Carry (If i spelled his name right ) i like very much , was the main character of that movie .

I have been listening to that concert of Yanni i provided you, earlier , with a link for in youtube, while writing this to you ,by the way .
..........

I did read that link  of yours concerning that  materialistic alternative "explanation " of consciousness  and other things ,via that unnuanced  concept of computation that was extended to consciousness , for obvious materialistic "reasons " , instead of keeping it relatively confined to biological processes only,relatively speaking  :

 That computation mechanism, process  or concept applied to consciousness is just what i can call the materialistic zeitgeist of the moment= no scientific fact  ...which proves what i was saying all along  about materialism as an exclusive  world view in science,which tries to sell to the naive people its materialistic view regarding consciousness as a scientific fact , in order to validate itself...while excluding all non-materialistic views on the subject in the process as well,by calling them irrational superstitious magical , or worse  .

Fact is , biological and non-biological processes in man are 2 different categories of processes or of evolution, which occur at different levels and with different set of rules :

so, to apply those biological processes to the non-biological ones that materialistic absolute unnuanced way is simply fundamentally incorrect ,simply because man, the universe ,are not exclusively material entities or rather processes .

The non-materialistic approaches of consciousness are  therefore  no irrational "magical or superstitious " approaches  of it , they just try to come up with temporary approaches of consciousness ,considering the very subjective and elusive nature of human consciousness the approach of which does depend on the given world view trying to do just that , since science is , per definition, logically empirically rationally excluded from approaching the subjective human consciousness, as i said above in my latest post to you  .

The approach of human consciousness as certainly no science , but mainly an art which relies mainly on human experiences, wisdom, world views , philosophies ....an art which cannot  rely on science thus,relatively speaking, despite all those neurological scientific advances .

P.S.: The following has something to do with the subject of this thread also: the scientific method  ( I did raise the highly controversial issue of human consciousness in the same spirit,even though science cannot approach human consciousness , in my eyes at least, and mainly because science cannot do without consciousness .
Not to mention that the increased level of self-awareness and self-consciousness ,via certain world views, can bring about enormous changes within and without , in almost the same fashion the butterfly effect describes at the material level at least  ), even though , the following appears to be offtopic , at first sight , but appearances are deceptive, as you know :

Do you think that liberal democracy and its economic capitalist wing are the "highest" or best forms of culture, so to speak ? or that they succeeded in achieving their final victory ,after the fall of the Soviet -Union , as the current global developments at the political economic ethical social ....levels seem to prove ?

In other words :

Do you think that the western values, norms, principles ......of freedom, individual freedom, equality , democracy ,justice.....are the best developments  humanity  can ever come up with ?

Do you think that democracy is the best government system ever , the best philosophy ....or do you see some future developments beyond those western ideals ...? ,as one should expect , since man is still evolving ...

Thanks, appreciate indeed.

Take care

[dlorde]

Do you think that the western values, norms, principles ......of freedom, individual freedom, equality , democracy ,justice.....are the best developements  humanity  can ever come up with ?
Do you think that democracy is the best government system ever , the best philosophy ....or do you see some future developments beyond those western ideals ...? ,as one should expect , since man is still evolving ...[/b]

I'm no expert in socio-political systems, but it seems to me that those principles are desirable, although I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the way the democratic process is organised in the UK. I'm with Churchill on that question. Then again, having been raised in a Western democratic tradition, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Unfortunately, these principles are implemented by human beings, and so tend to be corrupted by human failings, which seriously degrades the system. Whether a different system would be more resistant to corruption, I don't know. Whether we can come up with anything better, that depends on your criteria, and who knows what the future will bring? 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Do you think that the western values, norms, principles ......of freedom, individual freedom, equality , democracy ,justice.....are the best developements  humanity  can ever come up with ?
Do you think that democracy is the best government system ever , the best philosophy ....or do you see some future developments beyond those western ideals ...? ,as one should expect , since man is still evolving ...[/b]

I'm no expert in socio-political systems, but it seems to me that those principles are desirable, although I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the way the democratic process is organised in the UK. I'm with Churchill on that question. Then again, having been raised in a Western democratic tradition, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Unfortunately, these principles are implemented by human beings, and so tend to be corrupted by human failings, which seriously degrades the system. Whether a different system would be more resistant to corruption, I don't know. Whether we can come up with anything better, that depends on your criteria, and who knows what the future will bring?

You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .

Try to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously,  if you want to at least ,while you are at it

Bye

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Do you think that the western values, norms, principles ......of freedom, individual freedom, equality , democracy ,justice.....are the best developements  humanity  can ever come up with ?
Do you think that democracy is the best government system ever , the best philosophy ....or do you see some future developments beyond those western ideals ...? ,as one should expect , since man is still evolving ...[/b]

I'm no expert in socio-political systems, but it seems to me that those principles are desirable, although I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the way the democratic process is organised in the UK. I'm with Churchill on that question. Then again, having been raised in a Western democratic tradition, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Unfortunately, these principles are implemented by human beings, and so tend to be corrupted by human failings, which seriously degrades the system. Whether a different system would be more resistant to corruption, I don't know. Whether we can come up with anything better, that depends on your criteria, and who knows what the future will bring?

Since almost all the philosophic ethical political intellectual social ,economic....goodies of western growth can be traced back to those fundamental previous Islamic influences ,  since western thought was / is just an extension of the Islamic original one ,western thought which had taken a materialistic U turn path since ,  as philosopher Muhammad Iqbal said , since there is no single aspect of western growth which cannot  be traced back to those fundamental Islamic influences, as Briffault said , and considering the very evolutionary  nature of Islam, i think that Islam is better suited to come up with better values, norms, principles, systems of governments , social systems ....in the future, if only the current muslims would wake up from their slumber , ignorance, backwardness, extremism ....and try to rise to or at least try to approach the level of islam in that regard ,but that's something for the far future , i am afraid .

Philosopher Muhammed Iqbal developed the notion of Islamic evolutionary democratic futuristic societies in that book of his ,so

I don't know what the future will bring ...I just assume that western modern thought will be surely surpassed : evolution of man does not stop at this modern western phase .

I do not know .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness, for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .

[dlorde]

You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .

I can't parse that sentence.

Try to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously,  if you want to at least ,while you are at it

I don't recall posting such a link - perhaps you could repost it. I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.

[dlorde]

The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness

Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.

... for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .

No idea what you mean by that.

[alancalverd]

The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness,

Would you care to define consciouness?

Having defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.

[dlorde]

An interesting coincidence - an article by Mustafa Akyol in the 'Hurriyet Daily News' (Istambul), quoted in 'The Week':

... Between the seventh and 13th centuries, Muslim scientists and thinkers were "the most erudite and productive ones in the world". ... So what went wrong? There are many complicated reasons behind the loss of influence, but one factor is the change in Muslim outlook. Back then, Muslims were part of a confident, cosmopolitan civilisation that was open to foreign cultures. Today, by contrast, the "common Muslim mind" is "insular", focused on protecting the "Islamic" sphere from the ideas of "the unbelievers".

Having been a target of the unpleasant side of this 'protective' attitude on this thread, I have to agree.

The article continues:

If Muslims want more Nobel Prizes, and the knowledge and success that goes with them, "we must begin by challenging this close-mindedness".

Quite; I wish them luck.