[cheryl j]

First of all , thanks a lot for telling me about philosopher Thomas Nagel : he seems to be my kindda guy ,so to speak :

I was afraid you'd say that.

[cheryl j]

Anyway,  if sentience is defined as being able to sense something in the outside world and react to it in a way that increases survival, that was there from the get go.

True, although sentience is often defined as conscious awareness.

Yeah, Merriam Webster, I notice, includes both definitions. They probably had a big argument about it while writing the dictionary.

So at what point, I wonder, does an animal sense that it senses?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

First of all , thanks a lot for telling me about philosopher Thomas Nagel : he seems to be my kindda guy ,so to speak :

I was afraid you'd say that.

[/quote]

I was  also afraid you would say this    .
What do you think about his views and analyses by the way ?

[cheryl j]

I don't agree. I just read him to torture myself.

But if you are going to read Nagel, someone you already agree with, maybe you should also sample something like Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain by Antonio Damasio. Or maybe Patricia Churchland.
Before you say "There is absolutely no way you can derive A from B, you should at least be quite sure you know what B is and what it can do. I just feel you dismiss the brain as a bunch of cells and and chemical reactions in a way too nonchalant and incurious way without bothering to find out. Start with the cingulate gyrus.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I don't agree. I just read him to torture myself.

But if you are going to read Nagel, someone you already agree with, maybe you should also sample something like Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain by Antonio Damasio. Or maybe Patricia Churchland.
Before you say "There is absolutely no way you can derive A from B, you should at least be quite sure you know what B is and what it can do. I just feel you dismiss the brain as a bunch of cells and and chemical reactions in a way too nonchalant and incurious way without bothering to find out. Start with the cingulate gyrus.

I can understand that you would disagree with him, but why "torture yourself " by reading him,  or was that just sarcasm  ...  : is he that bad ?
....................I know i am no easy read either haha ......He ,himself,said in his above displayed introduction to his " Mind and cosmos ..." book , that he read the scientific popularized  literature extensively , and he expressed the potential possibility that that literature he read might be too simplistic ...

............................
Well, you got that wrong ,regarding what you said about me at least , and i do have that ebook of Antonio Damasio "Self comes to mind ..." , dlorde told me about it , so, i downloaded it from the net : i will read it whenever i can .

I do value the brain , i am marvelled and perplexed by its complexity and functioning we still know so little about , despite all those breakthroughs in that regard delivered by neuroscience ...: i did give you some links regarding just that earlier ,in the form of those videos, for example

I read relatively enough about the materialistic magical mainstream reductionism in science i am deeply appaled and outraged by its deceptive ideological dishonesty and hijacking of science , as i said many times and in different forms ,to be honest = we hear mostly only about the materialistic interpretations of science , of scienctific results and approaches  that get presented to people as science proper  = science is dominated by that  ..even the meta-paradigm of science is materialistic .
And there is no reason to say that A or the brain ,or what takes place in it , do cause  B or  consciousness : there is correlation and interaction between the 2 , materialists do confuse with causation ,for obvious ideological "reasons " , in order to make those scientific results fit into their materialistic ideology :

I will just let Nagel sum all that up , via the eloquent concise conclusion of his above mentioned book : Here you go :


Chapter 6
Conclusion:
Philosophy has to proceed comparatively. The best we can do is to develop the rival alternative
conceptions in each important domain as fully and carefully as possible, depending on our antecedent
sympathies, and see how they measure up. That is a more credible form of progress than decisive
proof or refutation.
In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism, heavily dependent on speculative
Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion,
I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives. Above all, I would like to extend the
boundaries of what is not regarded as unthinkable, in light of how little we really understand about the
world. It would be an advance if the secular theoretical establishment, and the contemporary
enlightened culture which it dominates, could wean itself of the materialism and Darwinism of the
gaps—to adapt one of its own pejorative tags. I have tried to show that this approach is incapable of
providing an adequate account, either constitutive or historical, of our universe.
However, I am certain that my own attempt to explore alternatives is far too unimaginative. An
understanding of the universe as basically prone to generate life and mind will probably require a
much more radical departure from the familiar forms of naturalistic explanation than I am at present
able to conceive. Specifically, in attempting to understand consciousness as a biological phenomenon,
it is too easy to forget how radical is the difference between the subjective and the objective, and to
fall into the error of thinking about the mental in terms taken from our ideas of physical events and
processes. Wittgenstein was sensitive to this error, though his way of avoiding it through an
exploration of the grammar of mental language seems to me plainly insufficient.
It is perfectly possible that the truth is beyond our reach, in virtue of our intrinsic cognitive
limitations, and not merely beyond our grasp in humanity’s present stage of intellectual development.
But I believe that we cannot know this, and that it makes sense to go on seeking a systematic
understanding of how we and other living things fit into the world. In this process, the ability to
generate and reject false hypotheses plays an essential role. I have argued patiently against the
prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through
its neo-Darwinian extension.

But to go back to my introductory remarks, I find this view antecedently
unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense.

The empirical evidence can
be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories, but in this case the cost in
conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive. I would be willing to bet that the present rightthinking
consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two—though of course it may be
replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid. The human will to believe is inexhaustible.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Nagel was a bit merciful or too kind in fact :

 He had to say that the reductionist materialistic world view was already laughable , antecedently unbelievable ,childish , ridiculous , magical ...and even stupid , sorry , from day 1 already .
Those huge advances or "miracles " of science were the results of the scientific method , materialism had nothing to do with .
The next generations will show no intellectual mercy for materialism  ...i guess ...simply because materialists   have been deliberately deceiving so many people ,during all those more than 5 centuries up to this present date , in the name of science ...
Ignorant people ,or even ignorant religious extremists might be pardoned for their ignorance , or for their crimes in the name of God ...but, i see not how materialists can be intellectually pardoned for the fact that they have been deceiving people , in the name of science , by deliberately and knowingly presenting their materialistic  world views or materialistic approaches to the peopel as scientific facts or as scientific approaches ...

materialism in science is the biggest scam , the ultimate con and fraud in the history of mankind : worse : and even more so in science....in science most people genuinely trust as a valid source of knowledge like no other .

[Skyli]

On meditation you won't find a much better book than "The Which Guide to Meditation". It's about 20 years old now but gives a great explanation of the "relaxation response". It is amazing. For many years I slept 4 hours per night, was never tired, and meditated - simple counting breaths until I hit the RR - for 30 minutes each morning and evening. I don't hit the relaxation response very often these days but, when I do, there is still a euphoric feeling when I return from the "poised awareness" state of the relaxation response to normal awareness. I do not know why there is a feeling of euphoria but I think the chances of it being a naturally evolved "reward" to a useful survival trait are good - it is, in some ways, like an orgasm. Mankinds tendency to assign spiritual significance to euphoria provides alternative causes.

DonQuihotte, you asked:
"Can you prove any of these romantic Cinderella stories of yours ?
What , on earth , are you talking about ?..........."

OK. To the first, no I can't - it's pure speculation, a possible explanation. The elements of this speculation - self esteem, conscience, intelligence - are observable as is Evolution. I just put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4, or near enough that I don't "need" any other explanation. Not to say that there isn't one and I'm all ears.

To the second, didn't I just ask you that? There is a reason why we say "the conscious mind". There are things going on in the mind that we are not "conscious" of. The question posed by this conversation asks what is consciousness? I just want to clarify what you mean by consciousness

But you're absolutely right, I am a newbie and, yes, I skimmed over a lot of entries; I'll go back and take a look.

In response to cheryl j, I would not define sentience like this; sensing the outside world and reacting to it is either instinct or consciousness. I would describe sentience as the ability to react, or choose to react, to stimuli in a way not conducive to survival - we don't need to know why stars explode yet we expend resources trying to find out. Such a behaviour change requires a lot more memory and reasoning ability simply because it offers such an expanded scope for choice - a bug can eat, sleep or reproduce, I can do all that or listen to some Led Zeppelin or do the washing up - no contest. Why would we want to do this and what sort of control mechanisms would be required for such a dangerous development in mental ability might be a good subject for another thread but I've referred to my own views regarding drives and reward mechanisms in a previous post. Sorry, but I think "conscious awareness" is just a symptom of sentience.

Thank you dlorde, that makes things clear, I think; The universe appears to function like a conveyor belt because it must, over time, function like a conveyor belt.

Had a glance at Nagel; I agree with some of what he has to say. However, I have a problem with people who won't see what they don't want to. His denigration of "speculative Darwinian explanation" is almost fanatical. I don't believe that science has all the answers either, but I accept the possibility that it may only be a matter of time. I also accept the possibility that science will never have all the answers because there is a supernatural element involved. It's a case of I'll go back 2 million years and show you that my ancestor was an ape just as soon as you show me God.

[alancalverd]

Non-sentient life could populate the planet passively, from its puddle, by variations on the theme of splashing (caused by external agencies).

So why did sentient life evolve at all?

p.s. It seems unlikely that life evolved in a puddle

The transpiration of water is common to all the things we call life forms, and the hydrogen bond is the basis of DNA mitosis and replication. Whether selfreplicating molecules first appeared in a dirty rain puddle or a vent at the bottom of the ocean is only a matter of size - it's still a puddle!

[dlorde]

So why did sentient life evolve at all?

Because it gives highly complex organisms an advantage; e.g., in cooperation, creative problem-solving, forward planning, etc.

Whether selfreplicating molecules first appeared in a dirty rain puddle or a vent at the bottom of the ocean is only a matter of size - it's still a puddle!

Puddle < ocean by definition; but yeah, whatever

[dlorde]

@ dlorde : your reductionist magical neo-Darwinian views spring to the face of common sense as obviously false:

Well there's your problem. Common sense can be a very poor guide to how the world works - as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and is one of the reasons critical thinking and the scientific method were developed with such success.

I do not understand in fact how can such a relatively intelligent guy such as yourself believe in that materialistic reductionist obvious non-sense :

I certainly don't expect you to agree with my position, but given that I've explained the reasons that I take the position I do, in some detail, several times on this forum, your failure to understand is telling - particularly when your counter arguments appear to be the argument from incredulity and the 'spiritual' argument of indescribable private subjective experience.

See this introduction to this interesting book of philosopher Thomas Nagel i have been reading

Surprisingly, he explicitly admits his view is based on a degree of ignorance and incredulity:

This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas.
...
I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life.3 It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.

I suspect that if he'd experimented with evolutionary simulators such as Tierra and it's ilk, and seen for himself the complexity and variation that can arise in simple replicators within a few hundred thousand generations; if he'd looked at the results from labs where single-celled organisms like yeasts and bacteria are gaining novel traits and even speciating in vitro, studied the number and types of speciations that have been observed in the wild, and taken some time to appreciate the significance of deep time and climate & ecosystem variation in evolution, he'd have less untutored incredulity and less difficulty with probability.

It is commendable that a philosopher admits those limitations at the outset, but less commendable that he fails to address them before expounding his opinion.

It's perfectly valid and acceptable to point to areas of uncertainty in our current knowledge, if you're familiar with those areas - he admits he isn't; and it's fine to provide plausible alternatives to mainstream hypotheses and theories - he doesn't.

If he wants to cast doubt on the current mainstream view of the origins and development of life, all he needs is to find a single item of contrary evidence, or plausible contradictory argument. When all's said and done, "I find that hard to believe" is not, of itself, an argument.

I suspect he's just found himself a philosophical doubter's niche he can use to advantage; critical of the mainstream, sympathetic to, yet unsupportive of, theist & irrational alternatives. Sitting high on this intellectual fence, perhaps he feels he can attract more attention - because he must know there is no significant or substantive content to his exposition.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ dlorde : your reductionist magical neo-Darwinian views spring to the face of common sense as obviously false:

Well there's your problem. Common sense can be a very poor guide to how the world works - as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and is one of the reasons critical thinking and the scientific method were developed with such success.

Wao, your denials ,blindness ...are staggering : even though common sense is not always reliable, it is in this case ,in the sense that reductionism makes no sense whatsoever , the more when we see it as just an ideology in science ,you seem not yet to be able to differentiate from science proper .
Worse : reductionism in science interprets scientific results or empirical evidence and scientific experiments , scientific approaches its own reductionist way that has nothing to do with science ,obviously, but it has more to do with reductionistic naturalism as an ideology :
Why didn't you try to address that core point of Nagel, instead of circling around it , you're just  addressing the other more or less minor issues of Nagel's analysis = very predictable indeed : you either ignore the core issues related to magical ideological reductionism in science , or you just resort to denigrating or at least questioning your opponents' intellect : did it ever occur to you that that reductionist world view is in fact even stupid, to say the least : you pretend to possess a higher intellect than your opponents via all that fancy talk , while you do believe in the most stupid world view ever ,in the history of mankind : reductionist magical materialistic naturalist neo-Darwinian world view ,the latter as just a reductionist ideological interpretation of the empirical evidence ...
I read extensively concerning the general lines ,specualtions, hypotheises ...of reductionism in science , i think i can say i understand most of  that , relatively speaking then , as i understand your magical "emergence " tricks and their implications + their intrinsic paradoxes you do not even see yourself,to say just that  : you just continue to confuse your reductionistic naturalist religion with science proper .

I do not understand in fact how can such a relatively intelligent guy such as yourself believe in that materialistic reductionist obvious non-sense .

I certainly don't expect you to agree with my position, but given that I've explained the reasons that I take the position I do, in some detail, several times on this forum, your failure to understand is telling - particularly when your counter arguments appear to be the argument from incredulity and the 'spiritual' argument of indescribable private subjective experience.

See above :

You're confusing isues here with each other :
You did present no evidence or arguments that might support your magical claims , you just presented the mainstream ideological reductionist naturalist neo-darwinian interpretations of some empirical evidence , see the difference ? = I think you cannot , simply because you do confuse science with the reductionist  naturalist  ideology to the point where you equate between them .
So, do not change the subject or project it on your opponents , simply because the burden of proof must be addresserd by you and by the mainstream reductionist naturalism in science ,that pretends to be scientific .

See this introduction to this interesting book of philosopher Thomas Nagel i have been reading

Surprisingly, he explicitly admits his view is based on a degree of ignorance and incredulity

[/quote]

Are you using his integrity and honesty as arguments against him ?
Who can say that anyone for that matter  knows everything concerning all sciences ,let alone that one  can know all that  ? You're no exception to that rule.

This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas.
...
I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life.3 It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents tofrom labs where single-celled organisms like yeasts and bacteria are gaining novel traits and even speciating in vitro, studied the number and types of speciations that have been observed in the wild, and taken some time to appreciate the significance of deep time and climate & ecosystem variation in evolution, he'd have less untutored incredulity and less difficulty with probability.

[/quote]

Despite your fancy talk, you are no better than he is , in the sense that you are just reflecting the opinions or interpretations of the empirical evidence by the mainstream reductionists : he's in fact in a better position than you could ever be , simply because he dares to utter his own radical bold anti-mainstream opinions,while you are just repeating those of mainstream reductionism in science : see the difference ?
Incredulity regarding the incredible unbelievable unrealistic obvious ideological reductionist naturalist non-sense in science regarding the very nature of the universe , life , evolution, man ....can be a valid argument : you do not remember saying on this thread yourself that any claims  without evidence should be dismissed without evidence , didn't you ?
I just add to that that abscence of evidence is not always evidence of abscence .
In the case of reductionist naturalism in science : i dare to say that it is certainly a false ideology , simply because the obvious abscence of evidence regarding the extraordinary unbelievable incredible obvious phony claims of reductionist naturalist world view is evidence of abscence .

It is commendable that a philosopher admits those limitations at the outset, but less commendable that he fails to address them before expounding his opinion. gether with the mechanism of natural selection.

I suspect that if he'd experimented with evolutionary simulators such as Tierra and it's ilk, and seen for himself the complexity and variation that can arise in simple replicators within a few hundred thousand generations; if he'd looked at the results

[/quote]

The scientific results , empirical evidence can be interpreted via a million ways ,sometimes ..cannot even exclude the fact that there is a higher power behind all of the universe processes and their origins as well  ...for example .
You might argue that some would say that Saint Claus might be behind all those processes as well haha , but that's a lesser serious "argument " : there might be some so-called morphic underlying fields as well underneath those universal processes , who knows ...

So, why  should one  try to reduce everything to just matter and material processes,as reductionist naturalists do indeed in  fact =  certainly without any evidence supporting that magical claim either as well ?
You tell me ..

It's perfectly valid and acceptable to point to areas of uncertainty in our current knowledge, if you're familiar with those areas - he admits he isn't; and it's fine to provide plausible alternatives to mainstream hypotheses and theories - he doesn't.

He points to more interesting facts : such as the fact that science or our human knowledge or epistemology in general have limits: we cannot know "everything " there is to know , no matter how those lunatics reductionists would try to come up with some so-called theory of everything no one can deliver ,per definition,  not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow or beyond.
Besides, he said also that reductionism in science has really no viable concurrents today ,in the sense that there is no non-materialist world view out there that can pretend to be scientific as that phony reductionist naturalistic ideology in science pretends to be at least ,and that should be no reason to assume that reductionism is true ,is there ?.
His study was comparative , he talked about the disease and its sympthoms as well, while expressing the wish that humanity might be able, in the future , to adopt non-reductionist views, but he fears  that the potential latter might turn out to be as invalid as reductionism today is ...The human will or rather urge  to believe is indeed staggering .

If he wants to cast doubt on the current mainstream view of the origins and development of life, all he needs is to find a single item of contrary evidence, or plausible contradictory argument. When all's said and done, "I find that hard to believe" is not, of itself, an argument.

Oh, man , the mainstream approach of the origin of life is so full of specualations and unbelievable fairytales that they  can be hardly taken as ...'evidence ", not even remotely close ,come on , be serious .
Even evolution itself is dominated by the mainstream reductionist interpretations of evolution, despite all the evidence regarding evolution : see how reductionist fanatic neo-darwinism of fanatic scientists such as Dawkins and co has been doing to evolution , by interpreting it its  own ideological ways , in order to make the data fit into their ideology ,or in order to  twist  the empirical evidence to the point where it can be squeezed into the reductionist key hole view of life ...as you certainly do as well .

I suspect he's just found himself a philosophical doubter's niche he can use to advantage; critical of the mainstream, sympathetic to, yet unsupportive of, theist & irrational alternatives. Sitting high on this intellectual fence, perhaps he feels he can attract more attention - because he must know there is no significant or substantive content to his exposition.

Maybe , but he makes sense : we shouldn't try to judge his possible probable intentions, motives ...we cannot know ,come on, we should address just what he says .
You were just being predictably selective in doing just the latter , by ignoring the obvious ideological nature of reductionist naturalism through its neo-darwinism extension you cannot but confuse with science or with the empirical evidence ...

Hopeless discussion .
It's almost impossible to make any believer for that matter see , recognize or acknowledge the obvious holes and paradoxes, bullshit , of his /her own belief , you are no exception to that rule ,neithet am i : the human urge , i would say , to believe is unbelievably puzzling .
When are you gonna realise the fact , if ever , that reductionist naturalism has already reached a dead-end street it cannot find any  way to avoid  ,dude ?
Well, maybe only when man will be able to replace it by a more or less valid world view, i guess, not earlier : why should you wait for just that to happen ? Why don't you use your so-called critical thinking , the scientific method itself , and your bombastic alleged higher intellect to do just that ,during your own lifetime ?,especially when we might consider the possible probable fact that that potential future or futuristic more or less valid non-reductionist world view that might replace that bankrupt false reductionism in science , might be applied when you will be dead :
You would take your reductionist lie to the grave with you , as a result , without ever realising that fact before just that ...
The only comfort or consolation that i can give you is that you will , as we all will also for that matter , know THE Truth with a big T , only after death =that only Certainty out there , in that double sense then .

Good luck indeed .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

On meditation you won't find a much better book than "The Which Guide to Meditation". It's about 20 years old now but gives a great explanation of the "relaxation response". It is amazing. For many years I slept 4 hours per night, was never tired, and meditated - simple counting breaths until I hit the RR - for 30 minutes each morning and evening. I don't hit the relaxation response very often these days but, when I do, there is still a euphoric feeling when I return from the "poised awareness" state of the relaxation response to normal awareness. I do not know why there is a feeling of euphoria but I think the chances of it being a naturally evolved "reward" to a useful survival trait are good - it is, in some ways, like an orgasm. Mankinds tendency to assign spiritual significance to euphoria provides alternative causes.

DonQuihotte, you asked:
"Can you prove any of these romantic Cinderella stories of yours ?
What , on earth , are you talking about ?..........."

OK. To the first, no I can't - it's pure speculation, a possible explanation. The elements of this speculation - self esteem, conscience, intelligence - are observable as is Evolution. I just put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4, or near enough that I don't "need" any other explanation. Not to say that there isn't one and I'm all ears.

To the second, didn't I just ask you that? There is a reason why we say "the conscious mind". There are things going on in the mind that we are not "conscious" of. The question posed by this conversation asks what is consciousness? I just want to clarify what you mean by consciousness

But you're absolutely right, I am a newbie and, yes, I skimmed over a lot of entries; I'll go back and take a look.

In response to cheryl j, I would not define sentience like this; sensing the outside world and reacting to it is either instinct or consciousness. I would describe sentience as the ability to react, or choose to react, to stimuli in a way not conducive to survival - we don't need to know why stars explode yet we expend resources trying to find out. Such a behaviour change requires a lot more memory and reasoning ability simply because it offers such an expanded scope for choice - a bug can eat, sleep or reproduce, I can do all that or listen to some Led Zeppelin or do the washing up - no contest. Why would we want to do this and what sort of control mechanisms would be required for such a dangerous development in mental ability might be a good subject for another thread but I've referred to my own views regarding drives and reward mechanisms in a previous post. Sorry, but I think "conscious awareness" is just a symptom of sentience.

Thank you dlorde, that makes things clear, I think; The universe appears to function like a conveyor belt because it must, over time, function like a conveyor belt.

Had a glance at Nagel; I agree with some of what he has to say. However, I have a problem with people who won't see what they don't want to. His denigration of "speculative Darwinian explanation" is almost fanatical. I don't believe that science has all the answers either, but I accept the possibility that it may only be a matter of time. I also accept the possibility that science will never have all the answers because there is a supernatural element involved. It's a case of I'll go back 2 million years and show you that my ancestor was an ape just as soon as you show me God.

Try to organize your post , please , so, we can address it .Thanks .
See what i said here above to our magical friend here dlorde on the subject :

You also happen to confuse,as all our other magical friends here also do by the way , you confuse that magical false reductionist naturalism as a world view or ideology in science , with science proper , while not being able, of course and obviously , to prove any of your magical reductionist claims on the subject as well .so .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The reductionist naturalist materialist neo-Darwinian world view or ideology in science , has been crippling objectiviy in science :
Congratulations, folks .
Way to go ...
We do really need a revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm in science , together with a revolutionary holistic approach of ...human consciousness, if we wanna ever be able to really know anything relatively objective regarding the secrets and mysteries surrounding the latter hard problem in science = human consciousness ...
Human consciousness as being in fact THE Key to trying to understand ourselves and the universe , to say just that ............

[cheryl j]

I can understand that you would disagree with him, but why "torture yourself " by reading him,  or was that just sarcasm  ...

Well, I was joking, in a way. I read things written by people even when I suspect I won't agree with them because it might change my views, or modify them. And because it seems to provoke more creative or clearer thinking than reading someone who just confirms what I already knew or believed.

I honestly don’t understand why you accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you of “magical” thinking. History overwhelming contradicts your assertion  that  scientific materialism in any way appeals to or relies on   “magical” processes. Innumerable natural phenomena once attributed to acts of Gods or angry spirits have been explained, from lightening to plagues, the changing seasons, the rising of the sun, birth defects, earthquakes, comets...or do you question the magical materialist explanation of those as well? Dlorde made the comment earlier: “Everything else we know about the universe exists and functions within the laws of physics, and as has been said here repeatedly, there's no good reason to make an exception for consciousness, and all the evidence suggests that it isn't an exception.” So why do you think human consciousness is a special exception?

Utility does not prove validity, but mysticism certainly has a dismal track record. You can’t wire a house or build computers or launch rockets with mysticism, you can’t understand photosynthesis or how the kidney works with mysticism, you can’t figure out the age of fossils with mysticism.  ( I honestly don’t know what else to call the immaterial forces or processes you believe are responsible for consciousness, since you won’t identify them either. I’m sorry if mysticism is the wrong word, but it’s the definition that seems to apply.  “Mysticism: Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism:the belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience such as intuition or insight ”)

This is what I think: In the end, even if it turns out there is some  mystical component of consciousness that I cannot test, identify, or understand, I suspect that I  will still know a lot more interesting and useful things about the mind/ brain, and people through materialistic science than you will through mysticism. What's more, these facts or theories can be shared, and are easily verifiable to other people, and their understanding does not depend on any special, subjective state of mystical insight in myself or them.

[alancalverd]

We do really need a revolutionary shift of meta-paradigm in science

I gave up on Thomas Kuhn when I came across a page of his work that used the word "paradigm" over 20 times, with apparently a different meaning each time. I thought that was the ultimate in oforgawdsake lexicolalia until I saw this! 

[Skyli]

Unfortunately, DonQuichotte, I have limited time at the weekend and, since several interesting points had been made, I judged the intellect of the members on this forum as sufficient to let me address several points in a single post. Obviously this assumption was an error.

Still, the few comments you did make would indicate that you gave my post a reasonable glance over, thank you. And your answer to dlorde was interesting too, just as Nagel is. Mind you, I would still appreciate an answer to what you mean by "consciousness".

As for reductionist naturalism, indeed my faith in Darwin is as unshakeable as my faith in God, I just look in different places for indications of the latter.

[dlorde]

... reductionism in science interprets scientific results or empirical evidence and scientific experiments , scientific approaches its own reductionist way that has nothing to do with science ,obviously, but it has more to do with reductionistic naturalism as an ideology.
Why didn't you try to address that core point of Nagel, instead of circling around it , you're just  addressing the other more or less minor issues of Nagel's analysis = very predictable indeed

I addressed points of interest on Nagel's introduction that you posted. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on that.

If, by 'that core point of Nagel', you are referring to your first convoluted sentence (quoted above), all it seems to say is that reductionism is a has a reductionist approach to, and interpretation of, science; and that you feel it's an ideology that has nothing to do with science. The first part is an obvious tautology; the second, an unsupported assertion of opinion. It seems to me that reductionism is the basis of a number of areas of science, particularly the physical and biological sciences, but it is clearly not the be-all and end-all of science; for example: emergence, holism (e.g. of complex assemblies, ecosystems, etc.), top-down control, feedback loops, etc.

you just resort to denigrating or at least questioning your opponents' intellect

My opponents? who are my 'opponents'?

Care to quote an example of me denigrating or questioning someone's intellect? (or are you just miffed that I called you on your claim of telepathic powers and the mysterious 'other things as well'?)

you pretend to possess a higher intellect than your opponents via all that fancy talk

Opponents again?
Articulacy is not a pretence to higher intellect; you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this. I'm interested in the arguments people present, not their intellect, IQ, or qualifications.

while you do believe in the most stupid world view ever ,in the history of mankind : reductionist magical materialistic naturalist neo-Darwinian world view ,the latter as just a reductionist ideological interpretation of the empirical evidence ...

You seem determined to force those who differ from your non-materialist view of science into a reductionist idealogue pidgeon-hole. Who was it said, "To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail"?  If you put the hammer down for a moment, you might discover that some of us have already made clear that the reductionist approach is just part (although an important part) of the story.

Distorting someone's view then criticising it for that distortion is fallacious (the 'Straw Man' type of 'Red Herring' informal fallacy).

See this introduction to this interesting book of philosopher Thomas Nagel i have been reading

Surprisingly, he explicitly admits his view is based on a degree of ignorance and incredulity

Are you using his integrity and honesty as arguments against him ?

Evidently not:

It is commendable that a philosopher admits those limitations at the outset...

Who can say that anyone for that matter  knows everything concerning all sciences ,let alone that one  can know all that  ? You're no exception to that rule.

Quite true; one can only hope to be reasonably well-informed.

Despite your fancy talk, you are no better than he is , in the sense that you are just reflecting the opinions or interpretations of the empirical evidence by the mainstream reductionists : he's in fact in a better position than you could ever be , simply because he dares to utter his own radical bold anti-mainstream opinions,while you are just repeating those of mainstream reductionism in science : see the difference ?

Again, articulacy doesn't imply intellectual or moral superiority. Equally, uttering radical, bold anti-mainstream opinions is not necessarily 'better' than holding opinions close to the mainstream. It is the quality of the arguments underlying those opinions that matters. See the difference?

Incredulity regarding the incredible unbelievable unrealistic obvious ideological reductionist naturalist non-sense in science regarding the very nature of the universe , life , evolution, man ....can be a valid argument...

Incredulity isn't a valid argument, it's a state of mind. An argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.

So, why  should one  try to reduce everything to just matter and material processes,as reductionist naturalists do indeed...
You tell me ..

A reductionist approach is generally taken because it has been found to be very effective. The objective is not reduction, but explanation and understanding. There are also situations where alternative approaches are more productive.

Besides, he said also that reductionism in science has really no viable concurrents today ,in the sense that there is no non-materialist world view out there that can pretend to be scientific as that phony reductionist naturalistic ideology in science pretends to be at least ,and that should be no reason to assume that reductionism is true ,is there ?.

Sorry Don, I can't make any sense of that. What are 'viable concurrents'? I agree there appear to be no non-materialist world views that can pretend to be scientific, but what has that to do with whether reductionism is 'true'?

Hopeless discussion .

Probably.

When are you gonna realise the fact , if ever , that reductionist naturalism has already reached a dead-end street it cannot find any  way to avoid  ,dude ?

Reductionist naturalism is still producing useful discoveries and knowledge; I don't see that ending any time soon. There are plenty of other approaches to tackle those areas where reductionism is unproductive. I'm wondering whether you've been ranting for so long against this straw-bogeyman reductionist idealogue movement you've invented, that you're beginning to believe it really exists...

[dlorde]

Try to organize your post , please , so, we can address it .Thanks .

My irony meter just exploded

[dlorde]

... Utility does not prove validity, but mysticism certainly has a dismal track record. You can’t wire a house or build computers or launch rockets with mysticism, you can’t understand photosynthesis or how the kidney works with mysticism, you can’t figure out the age of fossils with mysticism.  ( I honestly don’t know what else to call the immaterial forces or processes you believe are responsible for consciousness, since you won’t identify them either. I’m sorry if mysticism is the wrong word, but it’s the definition that seems to apply.  “Mysticism: Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism:the belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience such as intuition or insight ”)

This is what I think: In the end, even if it turns out there is some  mystical component of consciousness that I cannot test, identify, or understand, I suspect that I  will still know a lot more interesting and useful things about the mind/ brain, and people through materialistic science than you will through mysticism. What's more, these facts or theories can be shared, and are easily verifiable to other people, and their understanding does not depend on any special, subjective state of mystical insight in myself or them.

This ^

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Unfortunately, DonQuichotte, I have limited time at the weekend and, since several interesting points had been made, I judged the intellect of the members on this forum as sufficient to let me address several points in a single post. Obviously this assumption was an error.

Well, you cannot expect people to react to that unorganized post of yours i read : that has nothing to do with the intellect of any potential reader of your post : it was just a matter of organization your post obviously lacked : you can quote the people you wanna react to , as we all do .

Still, the few comments you did make would indicate that you gave my post a reasonable glance over, thank you. And your answer to dlorde was interesting too, just as Nagel is. Mind you, I would still appreciate an answer to what you mean by "consciousness".

I see human consciousness as the self , the soul, the spirit ...as an immaterial process that can ,obviously , not rise from  unconscious matter : that materialist reductionist neo-Darwinian magical "emergency " trick  is just a fantasy that can explain nothing : one cannot explain B as consciousness  by just assuming that it rises ,via some magic , from A as the brain : that's no explanation, just a presumed causation , presumed causation  is no explanation thus , not to mention the fact that there is only what we can call some sort of a mutual interaction or mutual correlation between brain and consciousness , materialists do deliberately confuse with causation, in order to make the data fit into their materialist key hole world view  .
How brain and consciousness interact with each other ? I dunno : beat me .

As for reductionist naturalism, indeed my faith in Darwin is as unshakeable as my faith in God, I just look in different places for indications of the latter.

Reductionist naturalism and faith in God do certainly not go with each other = they are mutually exclusive .
Second: the materialist reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian version of evolution should not be confused with the real evolution .
Furthermore,If evolution is exclusively physical or biological, then it cannot answer or account for the hard problem of consciousness in science ,not in a million years :
See Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos ..." interesting book on the subject  .