[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

My irony meter just exploded

Haha : touche .
Well, i was just referring to the fact that he should quote the specific statements of people he wanna react to : that would make it easier for us all to react to his posts that way .

Besides, to try to tackle the multiple issues raised by consciousness in this thread , does require a lots of time i can hardly afford ;that's why i react so quickly to the posts i quote + English is no first language of mine ...
Try me in French, Dutch or in Arabic ...haha

[Skyli]

I must be very lucky! Not only have a couple of people been able to dig their way through my lack of organisation but you answered my question. My thanks for your perseverance.
As soon as I get an answer from administration I promise to use cut and paste for quotes; please bear with me for a while.

You and I have somewhat different definitions of consciousness. You are clearly more eloquent than a bat so I ask you, what does it feel like to be conscious of your soul?

Quote
"Reductionist naturalism and faith in God do certainly not go with each other = they are mutually exclusive ."

On the contrary, reductionist naturalism is new and a lot of "phenomena" have yet to emerge. I would not be at all surprised if it led us to a better understanding of God - what God is and what God isn't - over time, assuming that some otherwise inexplicable phenomena arise.
Maybe they have - the timing of social breakthroughs attributed to prophets is a particular interest of mine - but there are no answers to the origin of consciousness here, not by any definition that I know anyway.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... 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.

I haven't read the whole book yet either : i recommend strongly though that you try to read it : i would be interested in your potential comments regarding that book afterwards , to see if Nagel would make some effect on you ,via his interesting analysis : that book would help you understand most of what i was saying all along, much better than i can ever do .
Besides, you haven't addressed the core issue of that introduction i posted = the fact that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinism in science , is a bankrupt false impotent  ideology that should be rejected .

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.

The core poit was in fact : that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is false : a false view of the world that should be rejected by all sciences for that matter , simply because it  cannot explain the universe , just via matter and material or physical processes : the major anomaly that debunks naturalism is the hard problem of consciousness in science : see that book of Nagel on the subject .

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

'?
My opponents? who are my 'opponents?

Whoever might disagree with your axiomatic irrational magical reductionist naturalist belief or religion in science , you do confuse with science proper .

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'?)

Never mind , we're not gonna get stuck in this side irrelevant issue .

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.

Well, there we are again : let's get it over with once and for all then ,shall we ? You said earlier , for example ,to mention just that , that my presumed failure to understand your emergence magical assertions (any idiot can in fact understand that "emergence " magical trick  , that's not really a difficult magic to understand ,even though it's a materialist false assumption ) ...is the issue here , not those naturalist reductionist magical false interpretations of   science and science results: you did not say that this way at least , this is just my own expression  or interpretation of what you said, since you do seem to be oversensitive regarding the misquotations of your words .

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.

I saw none but reductionist naturalist views from you  so far , but i might be mistaken indeed , since i do not have time enough to investigate all your sayings thoroughly this way at least  .

But ,the core issue here is that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian dominance in science , that magical reductionist "emergence " trick is an extension of .
What non-reductionist views do you have then,on the subject  ?

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

I am not aware of any distortions of your views ,it is perfectly possible thought that i might have done so , if there were some , do tell me about them .

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.

It is a must indeed that any thinker , scientist ....must admit his/her  limitations= a matter of honesty and integrity  ,not to mention the fact that even science itself, our human knowledge in general ,our logic , reason,common sense ...our human epistemology for that matter ...do have limits , in the sense that we certainly cannot know all there is to know out there , despite those silly attempts of reductionists to try to come up with some sort of magical theory of everything ...no one for that matter can deliver , per definition,no way  .
(I , personally ,do think that God Himself is "the theory of everything" or THE Truth with a big T ,THE source of knowledge ,beauty, love , justice, goodness , ethics ... ,but that's no scientific statement of course  )

Read that Nagel's book , and then tell me whether  you think he is  reasonably well-informed or not .

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?

It is the quality of the arguments indeed that matters ,but you have already judged Nagel before reading that book of his , remember , and you used his integrity and honesty regarding his perfectly normal and logical relative ignorance on the subject he happened to have admitted as anyone should do in that regard ,you used that as "arguments" against him ,ironically enough .
Worse : you even explicitly uttered the  accusation that Nagel might be just looking for fame , for followers ...
Your selective amnesia is staggering .

Second, you contradict yourself in this regard , since you , personally , happen to believe in a ,sorry , stupid irrational unproved conception of nature or the universe = the naturalist reductionist world view ,while attacking people that might disagree with you , via accusing them of ignorance, incredulity , ...

Never mind , just read that book , because this silly side talk about allegedly denigrating one's intellect  is irrelevant .

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

.

Exactly : read the man before judging him or his assertions then .
Do you remember ,by the way, saying that any claims without evidence should be dismissed without evidence ? : the naturalist reductionist neo-Darwinian conception of nature or the universe is just that : a world view without any evidence whatsoever to support it ,that's why i dismiss it without any evidence .

Why do you believe in it without evidence then ? The burden of proof is yours to address and eventually deliver , don't you think ? : see the difference ?  haha

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.

That's exactly what i was talking about all along = that reductionist ideological  approach in science cannot explain the universe , not just via its materialist approach ,no way : see Nagel's book on the subject ,once again : he would explain just that to you , much better than i can ever do : even evolution itself cannot be exclusively physical or biological, otherwise it certainly cannot explain consciousness ...that was one of the reasons why i did open that thread concerning the presumed exclusive biological nature of evolution ...that cannot account for the existence of  consciousness in any living organism out there for that matter , or for the existence of the human thought process, feelings , emotions , love , ethics , currents of thought , cultures , religions ...it gets extended to materialistically  ,for obvious materialist reasons
But, nobody seemed to get the point back then, that's why i left that thread about evolution  .
Reductionist naturalist materialism cannot explain life ,for example,let alone consciousness in any living organism for that matter , not only in man ,  not via just material processes ,no way : otherwise , just explain to me how life emerged , so to speak , from organic matter , or how inorganic matter gave rise to the organic one ...
I am well aware of all those materialist speculations and unbelievable fairy tales regarding the origins of life .....in science .
All sciences must in fact reject that materialist reductionism ,simply because it is intenable, even at the level of matter itself ..
You do confuse that reductionist ideological approach with the effectiveness of the scientific method or with science = all those huge great achievements of science during at least the last 5 centuries.were the direct results of the unparalleled effectiveness of the scientific method or science ,materialism had / has nothing  to do with , materialism that's been hijacking science since , for obvious ideological "reasons " ,by trying to make the empirical evidence fit into that materialist reductionist key hole world view , in vain , in order to "validate " itself in the process, without ever being able to do just the latter ,for obvious reasons that had / have to do with the very false nature of reductionism as a false ideology itself.

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'?

Reductionism pretends to be scientific ,right ? ,in order to validate itself , as i explained above = the non-reductionist world views out there cannot claim to be scientific and therefore "validate " themselves , as reductionism tries to do at least :
Result ? Most people think reductionism is true , just because reductionism makes them believe it is scientific ...
Science is the most effective unparralleled tool to deliver any valid knowledge for that matter , so, most people genuinely trust it , and rightly so , to understand the universe and ourselves .
But when science is dominated by that false reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinian ideology ,as it is actually the case , that cannot explain life , consciousness, the universe ...,not via just material processes,  an ideology most people do confuse with science , an ideology which cripples the ability of science to help us understand ourselves and the universe , then , it's pretty logical to try to look for non-reductionist paradigms or for non-reductionist meta-paradigms in science , in order to refine science in its  path to explain the universe to us .

Hopeless discussion .

Probably.

We do not listen to each other , and every one is digging in , without trying to question one's views or interpretations of science or of the empirical evidence , so, that might result in a counter-productive hopeless discussion , logically .

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...

Thanks, this is exactly what i meant by : hopeless discussion : you do even deny the very real existence of the problematic  reductionist dominating ideology in science that had/has nothing to do with all those "miracles " achieved by science during the last 5 centuries at least : see that book of Nagel on the subject : he might be delusional as well regarding the real existence of reductionism in science as a false unproved  untrue promissory messianic religion that's been dominating and hijacking science , for ideological "reasons", during all those centuries up to this present date . 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I must be very lucky! Not only have a couple of people been able to dig their way through my lack of organisation but you answered my question. My thanks for your perseverance.

Thanks, you're welcome, don't mention it .
You're such a sweet polite guy that i would have fallen in love with you, if only i was  gay  haha , which i am not,thank God ,God forbids haha  .

As soon as I get an answer from administration I promise to use cut and paste for quotes; please bear with me for a while.

Ok, no problem : what seems to be the problem that needs attention from administration  ?

You and I have somewhat different definitions of consciousness.

Pretty normal fact  : what's your own definition of consciousness then ?

You are clearly more eloquent than a bat

Thanks, really ? How ?

so I ask you ,what does it feel like to be conscious of your soul?

It feels just like me being conscious of my soul or rather of myself ,whatever the latter might be ,  as you put it at least= a subjective unique -to-me experience , as a human being .

Quote
"Reductionist naturalism and faith in God do certainly not go with each other = they are mutually exclusive ."

On the contrary, reductionist naturalism is new and a lot of "phenomena" have yet to emerge

.

There is nothing new about reductionist naturalism in science : see that Nagel's book on the subject .

A lot of "phenomena " have yet to "emerge" from what or from where and how ? What "phenomena " exactly ? How do you know just that ? Is that a fact ? Can you predict the future ? 
Are you referring to 'emergent phenomena " like consciousness "was /is " , popping out suddenly from the biological physical evolutionary complexity of the brain, via some mysterious unexplained unexplicable magic ?
How can the unconscious matter ever give rise to such a totally different " thing " or rather process such as the immaterial consciousness ? Well, materialists just try to avoid that anomaly inescapable snare or lethal trap by reducing consciousness to just material or biological processes haha , an obviously false materialist ideological assumption they can never be able to "explain " ,per definition : they 're stuck in there as elsewhere : the last nails were already hemmed in in the coffin of that untrue materialistic deceptive scam ever in the history of mankind , whose already declared clinical death almost no one will ever regret or mourn = condolences though  .

I would not be at all surprised if it led us to a better understanding of God - what God is and what God isn't - over time, assuming that some otherwise inexplicable phenomena arise.

Once again,reductionist naturalism and the concept of God are 2 mutually exclusive "things " : reductionist naturalism that assumes the universe to be just exclusively material or physical = God as a non -material "being or process or whatever   has no place in this reductionist world view " .
Reductionism cannot even explain life itself, consciousness itself ...let alone other potential future inexplicable -via-materialism phenomena that might arise  .

Reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinism in science , as just a false untrue  ideology  in science ,the latter that has nothing to do with whatsoever (that reductionism in science just delivers its own ideological interpretation of evolution in fact , i might add , evolution might not be only physical biological , but might also be mental ..... ) has already been getting stuck in an inescapable unsolvable unavoidable- for- materialism dead-end street , it can neither escape from nor avoid .

Maybe they have - the timing of social breakthroughs attributed to prophets is a particular interest of mine - but there are no answers to the origin of consciousness here, not by any definition that I know anyway.

I am also interested in similar ,but different prophecies .
I will unveil a secret to you ,not really a secret though,  i never revealed here to anyoneelse = i think that humans will never be able to figure out what the nature of human consciousness might be  , ever , not in this temporary life at least , simply because human consciousness or soul, spirit ...is beyond humans' reach : neither science , nor human reason, logic ...or any world view,religion... out there for that matter ,can tell you what the nature of human consciousness might be  , ...and simply because human consciousness is 1 of those "things " we cannot , per definition, know , not in this life at least .
Some religions might tell you Who happened to make  human consciousness come to exist ,but they can never tell you how , why , when ....

[Skyli]

We have been discussing different things. Consciousness, to me, is a subset of functions of the Mind. It includes handling senses, memories, intellect. However, there are many other areas of the mind, the sub-conscious is as good a name as any. You seem to mean the Mind in its entirety. Again, from my own personal viewpoint, I find a place in the Mind for God, I simply would not put it within the area of my "consciousness".

That being said, Minds have evolved and will continue to evolve. We will have ideas and develop proofs to things neither you nor I can imagine, and they will do it using tried-and-trusted methods that fit the facts. They are tools, and good ones. They are no more the only tool in the tool-box than religion is and it is a limitation to deny the usefulness of one or the other. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

We have been discussing different things. Consciousness, to me, is a subset of functions of the Mind. It includes handling senses, memories, intellect. However, there are many other areas of the mind, the sub-conscious is as good a name as any. You seem to mean the Mind in its entirety. Again, from my own personal viewpoint, I find a place in the Mind for God, I simply would not put it within the area of my "consciousness".

That being said, Minds have evolved and will continue to evolve. We will have ideas and develop proofs to things neither you nor I can imagine, and they will do it using tried-and-trusted methods that fit the facts. They are tools, and good ones. They are no more the only tool in the tool-box than religion is and it is a limitation to deny the usefulness of one or the other. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I see i did waste my time for nothing , unfortunately enough : thanks for just that .

What happened ? can't you handle ot rather deal with what i said ? that you just resorted to rhetorics, pleading , to that  promissory messianic materialism , to this psychological self-defense or retreat or denials ... as a result? .........Weird .

Just know that ideas are first opposed , then ridiculed , and only then accepted as such as obvious evidence afterwards : you, guys , do need to go through that process regarding the ideological nature of reductionism in science , the latter has nothing to do with : read that Nagel's book then , to figure all that out for yourself .

Good luck indeed .

I do mean the Mind in its entirety indeed when i say consciousness or soul , the "I'...the self ... .

Consciousness cannot be reduced to that definition of yours thus .

You are perfectly entiteld to your own opinions indeed .
Once again, just try not to confuse reductionism as an ideology in science with science proper : for example, the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian version of evolution or reductionist ideological interpretation of evolution has not much to do with the scientific empirical evidence regarding evolution ...the scientific empirical evidence regarding evolution that gets interpreted or rather misinterpreted by reductionism in a way that makes it fit into materialism as an ideology , as Nagel said in that book of his you should really try to read .

I love science so much to the point that i would love to see science proper get rid of that reductionist ideology and reductionist meta-paradigm dominating in science that do cripple the ability of science to deliver intelligible explanations of the universe and ourselves .....

Our consciousness does evolve indeed, religions too by the way , as the universe is still expanding , as the creation of the universe is still an ongoing dynamic process as well .

There is indeed nothing more important to human growth , progress , evolution, development , self-development , enlightenment ....than to try to figure out at least some secrets concerning the mysteries surrounding human consciousness reductionism in science cannot , per definition, deliver , ever .
I also think that the next level of human evolution will be occuring at the level of human consciousness : see what quantum physicist Peter Russell has to say on the subject as well  :

http://keentalks.com/primacy-consciousness/



Just try to read that Nagel's book , and you will understand what i was saying about reductionism as an ideology in science , and much more ...

The universe , life ....are not exclusively material as reductionism wanna make you believe in ,and therefore there is no way for materialism in science to deliver anything scientific regarding the immaterial side of life , the immaterial side of reality ...regarding the immaterial consciousness ...

Do not listen to me then,just read that book : you, guys , have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated by materialism for so long now that you cannot but confuse it with science proper : i do not really blame you for that fact : you are just yet another victim of reductionism .

P.S.: Reductionism, per definition, excludes any "ideas " regarding the immaterial or supernatural, including the "idea " of God , once again : God is in fact no "idea " ,they just use the word idea of God , in order to suggest that it was created by man via man's evolved brain ...

See in this regard reductionism at work , see how the mainstream reductionism  in science misinterprets the empirical evidence regarding the functioning of the human brain, for example, in order to make it fit into the materialist  world view :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-on-the-brain/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/phantoms-in-the-brain/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mystical-brain/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/michael-shermer-the-believing-brain/

Some scientists in those videos might tell you that those materialist interpretations of theirs regarding those scientific results do not debunk the "idea " of God (Science proper is not interested in or rather cannot prove-disprove the "idea " of God indeed ) , but they are just lying , simply because materialism , per definition, excludes any "idea " of the supernatural : do you see that subtle difference between what science says or rather can or cannot say on the subject of the supernatural or God , and what those hypocrit materialist scientists say, in total contrast with their own materialism on the same subject that excludes the supernatural  ? I think you are intelligent enough to grasp just that subtle difference .


Good luck with your own search and journey .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Just for the record : for those who might misunderstand or misinterpret my core points and motives :

I am no so-called evangelic missionary on a presumed or alleged mission to "convert " anyone here or elsewhere .

 I do despise all kinds of missionaries in fact, either religious or secular, (Reductionism in science is just a form of a secular missionary religion in science , unfortunately enough , we should all condemn as such )  :

I just try to make you, folks , try to differentiate science proper from missionary reductionism as an ideology in science : that's all .
I am in fact against any ideology for that matter in science ...
I do love science so much that i cannot but try to detect ,reveal ,   debunk or condemn any ideology for that matter in ...science proper .

[Skyli]

"What happened ? can't you handle ot rather deal with what i said ? that you just resorted to rhetorics, pleading , to that  promissory messianic materialism , to this psychological self-defense or retreat or denials ... as a result? .........Weird ."
Weird?

"Consciousness cannot be reduced to that definition of yours thus."
There are plenty of books describing the "conscious" mind - the stuff that you are aware of - and the sub-conscious, like core value systems and self-esteem. Of course, the activation of the relaxation response during meditation is an act outside of consciousness. Your expansion of the definition of consciousness to include elements that are clearly part of the sub-conscious mind makes no sense. I'm afraid that I will have to stick by my, admittedly plagiarised, definition.

"Once again, just try not to confuse reductionism as an ideology in science with science proper"
It could well be that I have misunderstood. I understand reductionism to suggest that everything can be explained according to science and will be, eventually, as our abilities increase. Have I missed the point here? If so please excuse me.

I am sure you hold your own spiritual views as closely as I hold my own, and I am always happy to find somebody who believes in God, regardless of how they came to that belief. From my viewpoint, you are a fortunate man. It is not that I find you an evangelist "for God" rather than I find you evangelising "against" a philosophy that attempts to disprove God, a philosophy that says, "we do not need God, Science has it all". I find this an excellent basis for acquiring knowledge of the Universe and do not understand why anybody would object. However, I may, as stated, have misunderstood the meaning of reductionism.

(By now you may have realised that I don't know how to use the "quote" feature, which is why I contacted Admin. There doesn't seem to be any info in the "help" on this site or the forum software providers site. All I can see is a general "quote" button on each post but no details on how to use it. No doubt I'll have an answer next week. Thank you for your concern; I didn't want to burden anybody.)

[dlorde]

.. you haven't addressed the core issue of that introduction i posted = the fact that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinism in science , is a bankrupt false impotent  ideology that should be rejected .

OK; I don't agree that it's 'a bankrupt false impotent  ideology that should be rejected'.

.. that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is false : a false view of the world that should be rejected by all sciences for that matter , simply because it  cannot explain the universe , just via matter and material or physical processes : the major anomaly that debunks naturalism is the hard problem of consciousness in science : see that book of Nagel on the subject .

If you reject all methodologies that cannot explain everything, you'll end up with none and miss out on a lot -  unless you know of an approach that can explain the universe and consciousness?

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

Care to quote an example of me denigrating or questioning someone's intellect?

Never mind , we're not gonna get stuck in this side irrelevant issue .

I thought not.

You said earlier , for example ,to mention just that , that my presumed failure to understand your emergence magical assertions (any idiot can in fact understand that "emergence " magical trick  , that's not really a difficult magic to understand ,even though it's a materialist false assumption ) ...is the issue here , not those naturalist reductionist magical false interpretations of   science and science results: you did not say that this way at least , this is just my own expression  or interpretation of what you said, since you do seem to be oversensitive regarding the misquotations of your words .

No indeed, I didn't say that. I said your failure to understand my viewpoint, despite repeated explanations of it, is telling.
I think it's reasonable to object to being misquoted or misrepresented. 

I saw none but reductionist naturalist views from you  so far , but i might be mistaken indeed , since i do not have time enough to investigate all your sayings thoroughly this way at least  .

Do you think the idea of emergence is reductionist?

What non-reductionist views do you have then,on the subject  ?

I already said, there are other useful approaches. I listed  some examples. These  approaches are all tools for gaining knowledge; they are useful in appropriate contexts. They're not mutually exclusive. You seem to think they're like religious belief systems; they're not.

I am not aware of any distortions of your views ,it is perfectly possible thought that i might have done so , if there were some , do tell me about them .

I already did; remember the man with a hammer?

Read that Nagel's book , and then tell me whether  you think he is  reasonably well-informed or not .

He may well be; that doesn't make him right.

... you have already judged Nagel before reading that book of his , remember , and you used his integrity and honesty regarding his perfectly normal and logical relative ignorance on the subject he happened to have admitted as anyone should do in that regard ,you used that as "arguments" against him ,ironically enough .

I've judged only the introduction you posted. I commended him for admitting his limitations, ironically enough.

you even explicitly uttered the  accusation that Nagel might be just looking for fame , for followers ...
Your selective amnesia is staggering .

No, I said "perhaps he feels he can attract more attention". You made up the bit about fame and followers. Selective amnesia?

Second, you contradict yourself in this regard , since you , personally , happen to believe in a ,sorry , stupid irrational unproved conception of nature or the universe = the naturalist reductionist world view ,while attacking people that might disagree with you , via accusing them of ignorance, incredulity , ...

I didn't have to make accusations of ignorance and incredulity - Nagel admitted them.

... this silly side talk about allegedly denigrating one's intellect  is irrelevant .

Quite, so why bring it up?

Incredulity  ....can be a valid argument.

Incredulity isn't a valid argument, it's a state of mind...

Exactly

Make up your mind - either incredulity is a valid argument or it isn't (hint: it isn't).

read the man before judging him or his assertions then .

I did. You posted some of his assertions, I read them, then judged them. Simples.

Do you remember ,by the way, saying that any claims without evidence should be dismissed without evidence ? : the naturalist reductionist neo-Darwinian conception of nature or the universe is just that : a world view without any evidence whatsoever to support it ,that's why i dismiss it without any evidence .

So do you dismiss the multiple lines of evidence for evolution by natural selection - or are you just unaware of them ?

The burden of proof is yours to address and eventually deliver , don't you think ? : see the difference ?  haha

You have it backwards. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to overturn, contradict, or correct the established body of knowledge. See the difference?

Reductionism pretends to be scientific ,right ?

Your question doesn't make sense to me. Reductionism is an approach commonly used in science.

see that book of Nagel on the subject : he might be delusional as well regarding the real existence of reductionism in science as a false unproved  untrue promissory messianic religion that's been dominating and hijacking science , for ideological "reasons", during all those centuries up to this present date .

You said it, not me

[dlorde]

It is not that I find you an evangelist "for God" rather than I find you evangelising "against" a philosophy that attempts to disprove God, a philosophy that says, "we do not need God, Science has it all".

It's not so much a philosophy that 'attempts to disprove God' (that's not possible), but one which ignores God as irrelevant. That probably annoys theists more than denying or attempting to disprove it

By now you may have realised that I don't know how to use the "quote" feature, which is why I contacted Admin. There doesn't seem to be any info in the "help" on this site or the forum software providers site. All I can see is a general "quote" button on each post but no details on how to use it.

If you click on the [ Quote] link at the top left of the post you want to quote, it will be inserted into your post between quote 'tags': [ quote] ...quoted text... [ /quote] tags (leave out the spaces inside the [] ). You can split up the quoted text into sections for individual response by inserting your own end-quote and start-quote tags. There is also a 'quote' icon button in the selection of editing buttons (next to the [#] button). Just ensure each start-quote tag has a matching end-quote tag and you'll be OK.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

.. you haven't addressed the core issue of that introduction i posted = the fact that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinism in science , is a bankrupt false impotent  ideology that should be rejected .

OK; I don't agree that it's 'a bankrupt false impotent  ideology that should be rejected'.

It should be rejected , simply because its reductionist exclusively physical or biological view of the universe is intenable : it cannot explain the emergence of life on earth from dead matter , it fails to explain the evolution of life via its exclusive physical or biological view of the world: it gives only an incomplete account of evolution  ,it fails to explain the irreducibility of consciousness to just physical or biological processes ,it fails to explain consciousness , the rise of cognition reason thought process ...
Nagel rejects both materialist reductionism and theism by the way  , and tries to replace them by a non-reductionist naturalism that would allegedly be able to explain the above , without any notion thus of the intervention of any higher power = an eventual naturalist non-reductionist conception of nature that's doomed to fail also : Nagel can't realise just that fact .

.. that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is false : a false view of the world that should be rejected by all sciences for that matter , simply because it  cannot explain the universe , just via matter and material or physical processes : the major anomaly that debunks naturalism is the hard problem of consciousness in science : see that book of Nagel on the subject .

If you reject all methodologies that cannot explain everything, you'll end up with none and miss out on a lot -  unless you know of an approach that can explain the universe and consciousness?

No, reductionism is a false conception of nature ,and therefore cannot explain life , consciousness , ...via just biological physical approaches .
The mainstream reductionist naturalism that tries to explain everything in the universe via the so-called fundamental underlying laws of physics, tries to come up with a theory of everything in that regard : a theory of everything in that sense that cannot explain anything in fact ,simply because the universe is not exclusively driven by the laws of physics , there is a fundamental mental side to it reductionism tries to reduce to just physical processes ,simply because reductionism  cannot explain consciousness otherwise .
Nagel proposes a naturalist non-reductionist approach ,that cannot , in its turn , explain the rise or emergence of life ,consciousness, human cognition reason  values  meaning ...

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

Care to quote an example of me denigrating or questioning someone's intellect?

Never mind , we're not gonna get stuck in this side irrelevant issue .

I thought not.

You said earlier , for example ,to mention just that , that my presumed failure to understand your emergence magical assertions (any idiot can in fact understand that "emergence " magical trick  , that's not really a difficult magic to understand ,even though it's a materialist false assumption ) ...is the issue here , not those naturalist reductionist magical false interpretations of   science and science results: you did not say that this way at least , this is just my own expression  or interpretation of what you said, since you do seem to be oversensitive regarding the misquotations of your words .

No indeed, I didn't say that. I said your failure to understand my viewpoint, despite repeated explanations of it, is telling.
I think it's reasonable to object to being misquoted or misrepresented.

Your reductionist view point is intenable : can't explain the universe ,can't explain life , consciousness, human cognition reason ...
It's not that i do not understand your view, i do, it just makes no sense= that's the mainstream reductionist view in science in fact  .
Otherwise , try to explain life , consciousness ...to me via your reductionist exclusive physical biological approaches : you cannot : your reductionist magical approaches of consciousness, life ...make no sense .

I saw none but reductionist naturalist views from you  so far , but i might be mistaken indeed , since i do not have time enough to investigate all your sayings thoroughly this way at least  .

Do you think the idea of emergence is reductionist?

Yes, indeed : that's the major example of reductionism : reducing consciousness to just physical biological processes that allegedly "emerged " from the evolutionary complexity of the brain = magical non-sense .
The phenomena of emergence does exist in fact indeed , but can be applied only to biological processes though , consciousness is not a biological process .

What non-reductionist views do you have then,on the subject  ?

I already said, there are other useful approaches. I listed  some examples. These  approaches are all tools for gaining knowledge; they are useful in appropriate contexts. They're not mutually exclusive. You seem to think they're like religious belief systems; they're not.

You seem to miss the whole point of what i am saying : materialism can only lead to reductionism : the only way to avoid reductionism is by trying to apply some sort of non-reductionist naturalism ,not to mention the anti-reductionism options represented by  theism or idealism that i eliminate from from  this "equation ", just for the sake of this discussion, ,  by acknowledging the non-biological and non-physical nature of mental states, consciousness, life , reason ... ...by acknowledging the non-biological and non-physical side of evolution....as Nagel proposes .
I see not how   that eventual  non-reductionist naturalism can do just  that  . .

I am not aware of any distortions of your views ,it is perfectly possible thought that i might have done so , if there were some , do tell me about them .

I already did; remember the man with a hammer?

haha : I do not see everything as nails to be nailed down : i am very specific about the actual reductionist nails that must be hammered in .

Read that Nagel's book , and then tell me whether  you think he is  reasonably well-informed or not .

He may well be; that doesn't make him right.

The same goes for you,for me , and for everyoneelse for tha matter  .

... you have already judged Nagel before reading that book of his , remember , and you used his integrity and honesty regarding his perfectly normal and logical relative ignorance on the subject he happened to have admitted as anyone should do in that regard ,you used that as "arguments" against him ,ironically enough .

I've judged only the introduction you posted. I commended him for admitting his limitations, ironically enough.

We already talked about that .

you even explicitly uttered the  accusation that Nagel might be just looking for fame , for followers ...
Your selective amnesia is staggering .

No, I said "perhaps he feels he can attract more attention". You made up the bit about fame and followers. Selective amnesia?

How can you say that without even reading the man then .

Second, you contradict yourself in this regard , since you , personally , happen to believe in a ,sorry , stupid irrational unproved conception of nature or the universe = the naturalist reductionist world view ,while attacking people that might disagree with you , via accusing them of ignorance, incredulity , ...

I didn't have to make accusations of ignorance and incredulity - Nagel admitted them.

He admitted that ,as everyoneelse should for that matter .

... this silly side talk about allegedly denigrating one's intellect  is irrelevant .

Quite, so why bring it up?

Intellect is no physical biological product of evolution: the exclusively physical biological reductionist interpretation or rather reductionist misinterpretation of evolution cannot explain the rise of intellect that reductionist way, no way .
Just try to tell me instead how can man explain the whole universe , consciousness, life ...just via the underlying laws of physics that seem to govern everything , including evolution ...:

 There might be some  more fundamental principles  underlying  the laws of physics  themselves : How can life rise from the dead matter , how can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness : to reduce all that to just material physical biological processes would make no sense ,and that can therefore explain nothing .
If our consciousness  thought process reason  cognition ...were the products of accidental evolution ,then they are not reliable : see the implications of that for all our knowledge , including the scientific one, including that regarding evolution itself ?

Incredulity  ....can be a valid argument.

Incredulity isn't a valid argument, it's a state of mind...

Exactly

Make up your mind - either incredulity is a valid argument or it isn't (hint: it isn't).

Never mind : reductionism makes no sense ,and  can't explain life , consciousness , ...

read the man before judging him or his assertions then .

I did. You posted some of his assertions, I read them, then judged them. Simples

.

What i posted from the man is no sufficient data regarding  his views or analyses , not sufficient to "judge " him .

Do you remember ,by the way, saying that any claims without evidence should be dismissed without evidence ? : the naturalist reductionist neo-Darwinian conception of nature or the universe is just that : a world view without any evidence whatsoever to support it ,that's why i dismiss it without any evidence .

So do you dismiss the multiple lines of evidence for evolution by natural selection - or are you just unaware of them ?

I am the one who should say that your obvious  failure to understand my views i repeated here extensively is more than telling .
You're even misquoting , misunderstanding and misinterpretaing those views of mine .
Who said i reject evolution ? Be serious : i just said i do reject the reductionist interpretation or rather reductionist misinterpretation of evolution : see the difference ? ,in the sense that if evolution is exclusively physical biological , as reductionism assumes it to be , then is that reductionist version of evolution incapable of explaining life , consciousness ...

The burden of proof is yours to address and eventually deliver , don't you think ? : see the difference ?  haha

You have it backwards. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to overturn, contradict, or correct the established body of knowledge. See the difference?

Reductionism pretends to be scientific ,right ?

Your question doesn't make sense to me. Reductionism is an approach commonly used in science.

Reductionism is rather a false conception of nature , a world view that has nothing to do with science proper .

see that book of Nagel on the subject : he might be delusional as well regarding the real existence of reductionism in science as a false unproved  untrue promissory messianic religion that's been dominating and hijacking science , for ideological "reasons", during all those centuries up to this present date .

You said it, not me

I was just being ironic .
How can't you see that reductionism is just an ideology in science ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

"What happened ? can't you handle ot rather deal with what i said ? that you just resorted to rhetorics, pleading , to that  promissory messianic materialism , to this psychological self-defense or retreat or denials ... as a result? .........Weird ."
Weird?

"Consciousness cannot be reduced to that definition of yours thus."
There are plenty of books describing the "conscious" mind - the stuff that you are aware of - and the sub-conscious, like core value systems and self-esteem. Of course, the activation of the relaxation response during meditation is an act outside of consciousness. Your expansion of the definition of consciousness to include elements that are clearly part of the sub-conscious mind makes no sense. I'm afraid that I will have to stick by my, admittedly plagiarised, definition.

I should have used the word Mind with a big T , instead of consciousness then.

Never mind : the core point is : naturalist reductionism fails to explain life , consciousness ...the universe ...simply because it is a false conception of nature and the universe that must be rejected , and replaced by a more or less valid conception of nature .
The mainstream reductionist view of the universe as just a matter of the underlying so-called fundamental physical laws, is incomplete and incorrect , and therefore fails to explain life , consciousness ...or just tries to reduce them to just a matter of the underlying laws of physics : there gotta be some more fundamental principles out there governing the universe, more fundamental than and underlying the laws of physics . .

"Once again, just try not to confuse reductionism as an ideology in science with science proper"
It could well be that I have misunderstood. I understand reductionism to suggest that everything can be explained according to science and will be, eventually, as our abilities increase. Have I missed the point here? If so please excuse me.

No problem : reductionist naturalism in science sees the universe , including life on earth thus , consciousness,evolution  ...as just a matter of physical or biological processes governed by the so-called fundamental underlying laws of physics = the major hard problem of life , consciousness ... in science disprove that reductionist physical biological world view in science thus .
Besides, neither science ,nor reason logic , or any human epistemology ,method or approach for that matter can ever be able to explain "everything " : we cannot know everything there is to know out there via our human limited faculties ,despite the fact that reductionism tries to come up with some sort of underlying theory of everything,reductionism  cannot , per definition, deliver either  .

I am sure you hold your own spiritual views as closely as I hold my own, and I am always happy to find somebody who believes in God, regardless of how they came to that belief. From my viewpoint, you are a fortunate man. It is not that I find you an evangelist "for God" rather than I find you evangelising "against" a philosophy that attempts to disprove God, a philosophy that says, "we do not need God, Science has it all". I find this an excellent basis for acquiring knowledge of the Universe and do not understand why anybody would object. However, I may, as stated, have misunderstood the meaning of reductionism

.

Science proper "is not interested in God that's not its field of inquiry ,that's the domain of religion ", and therefore science proper can ,per definition , neither pretend to prove nor disprove the existence of God: it also can do neither  : I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case : God is not the field of science , basta : but , God is irrelevant to reductionism in science,for obvious reductionist ideological "reasons " that have to do with reductionism itself as a secular world view : see the difference ?  .

Once again , i do love science so much that i would love to see it get rid of that false untrue intenable incorrect reductionism in science , reductionism as an ideology and view of the world universe .

See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Science and religion, or Islam in this case , are necessary to each other , need each other , complete each other , are the both sides of the same coin ...and thus do have different natures, functions and roles to play ...if only science would be able,as science will be in fact some day ,  to get rid of reductionism as an ideology in science .
I think i cannot be more clearer than this .

We should thus stop seeing religion, or Islam in this case ,  and science as concurrents or as opposite opponents .

(By now you may have realised that I don't know how to use the "quote" feature, which is why I contacted Admin. There doesn't seem to be any info in the "help" on this site or the forum software providers site. All I can see is a general "quote" button on each post but no details on how to use it. No doubt I'll have an answer next week. Thank you for your concern; I didn't want to burden anybody.)

Don't worry about it : dlorde here explained that to you .
I will continue answering your posts , as much as possible , even if you continue to post them this way : no problem = i have no problem with just that : my apologies for being somewhat or somehow a bit rude about it earlier , sorry ....
Just continue posting your replies this way then ,if you cannot otherwise ,  no worries .

P.S.: Just try to read Nagel's "Mind and cosmos ..." i did provide a free download link for previously , here above , and you would understand what i mean regarding that untrue reductionist naturalist materialism in science ...and much more ...
Nagel can make you understand just that , much better than i can ever do , even though he's some kindda "torturing read " , sometimes, as Cheryl put it .

Thanks, appreciate indeed .
All the best .
Kind regards .
The same for our friend dlorde here, and for the rest of our abscent friends here as well .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

.

Sorry, i missed this post of yours .
Indeed : agree : that  's 1 of the reasons why i am here .
Different views do enrich ours.

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?

Science has been able to achieve all those "miracles , thanks only to its efective and unparralled method that's like no other , reductionist naturalism had/ has nothing to do with all that : reductionism just takes a free ride on the unwilling back of science , in order to validate itself , by pretending to be scientific .

The reductionist assumption that everything in the universe is governed by those so-called fundamental laws of physics is an untrue one : the major hard problems in science , as Nagel and others proved , hard problems in science such as consciousness, life ....disprove that untrue reductionist assumption .
There gotta be some more fundamental underlying principles , more fundamental than those laws of physics , otherwise , neither the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of evolution , nor the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of the origin of life , to mention just that , can explain the emergence of life from dead or inanimate inorganic matter , or can explain consciousness ...

P.S. : Reductionism as an ideology in science  that should be , once again, not confused with science proper , reductionism  in the above mentioned sense thus , is  certainly magical  : its major  magical  "emergence " trick  regarding the origin of consciousness is 1 of those major examples concerning the magical untrue nature of reductionism .

Utility does not prove validity

Indeed : say that to those pragmatic utilitarianist materialist opportunnist machiavellistic reductionists .

, 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 ')

You're confusing oranges with carrots :
Mysticism and science are 2 totally different 'things "

I did myself talk about the extremely unreliabe mysticism , didn't i ?

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.

What had/ has reductionism in science to do with those scientific empirical evidences, scientific approaches, scientific facts or scientific results  ...?= absolutely nothing = 0,0000000000000

Once again , you are confusing science proper with reductionism as an ideology  in science , unfortunately enough : See in that regard Nagel's "Mind and cosmos ..." book on the subject i did provide a free download link for previously .

Take care

[dlorde]

Your reductionist view point is intenable : can't explain the universe ,can't explain life , consciousness, human cognition reason ...
It's not that i do not understand your view, i do, it just makes no sense= that's the mainstream reductionist view in science in fact  .

Appropriately enough, you're tilting at windmills; my view is that science is the best means we have for discovering and learning about the universe. A reductionist approach has proved very effective so far, and is likely to continue to do so. However, where it is inappropriate or unproductive, other approaches will be used. Your objections are like chaff in the wind.

BTW, it's 'untenable'.

Do you think the idea of emergence is reductionist?

Yes, indeed : that's the major example of reductionism : reducing consciousness to just physical biological processes that allegedly "emerged " from the evolutionary complexity of the brain = magical non-sense .
The phenomena of emergence does exist in fact indeed , but can be applied only to biological processes though , consciousness is not a biological process .

OK; you seem to have a radically different idea of what emergence is to the commonly held understanding. Try the wiki article to see if you can get back on the same page.

haha : I do not see everything as nails to be nailed down : i am very specific about the actual reductionist nails that must be hammered in .

There's a subtle difference between accuracy and precision.

Just try to tell me instead how can man explain the whole universe , consciousness, life ...just via the underlying laws of physics that seem to govern everything , including evolution ...:

The best chance we have is science.

If our consciousness  thought process reason  cognition ...were the products of accidental evolution ,then they are not reliable : see the implications of that for all our knowledge , including the scientific one, including that regarding evolution itself ?

Quite right - our mental processes are extremely unreliable; that's been one of the major discoveries of cognitive research in recent years. Fortunately, we have developed techniques to help account for and minimise the effects of this unreliability; simply becoming aware of it was an important step.

...the naturalist reductionist neo-Darwinian conception of nature or the universe is just that : a world view without any evidence whatsoever to support it...

So do you dismiss the multiple lines of evidence for evolution by natural selection - or are you just unaware of them ?

You're even misquoting , misunderstanding and misinterpretaing those views of mine .
Who said i reject evolution ?

Not misquoting, cut & paste sees to that. You claimed the neo-Darwinian conception of nature is 'a world view without any evidence whatsoever to support it'.  Since the the neo-Darwinian conception of nature is based on the theory of evolution by natural selection, it seems reasonable to question whether you reject the evidence that leads to it. But, whatever.

How can't you see that reductionism is just an ideology in science ?

The reductionist approach is just a tool science can use where appropriate. The vast majority of scientific progress and the technical developments that resulted have been achieved using that approach.

If you want to attack reductionism as an ideology, I'm sure there are philosophy forums where rabid reductionist ideologues hang out. Good luck with that.

[dlorde]

I should have used the word Mind with a big T...

I'm not even sure I want to hear the explanation for that!

...there gotta be some more fundamental principles out there governing the universe, more fundamental than and underlying the laws of physics . .

When and if they're discovered, those more fundamental principles will become the new 'laws of physics', replacing and subsuming the standard model of the time, just as General Relativity replaced and subsumed Newtonian physics. So it goes...

I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...

Care to explain how God is relevant to science?

[cheryl j]

There gotta be some more fundamental underlying principles , more fundamental than those laws of physics , otherwise , neither the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of evolution , nor the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of the origin of life , to mention just that , can explain the emergence of life from dead or inanimate inorganic matter , or can explain consciousness ...

Well, when you discover them and can identify them, and verify to others that they exist, let me know. So far this is all I could find in the past 12 pages of posts that you have offered as an alternative a means to understanding consciousness, and I quote:

"The real awareness or self awareness ,  the real consciousness or self-consciousness do exist only at the levels of some adult humans , and they can be improved as well = extended levels of awareness , self-awareness, consciousness, self-consciousness ...they can be extended via meditation , personal experiences , ....via prayers ...via hard work ...via certain world views ...
Action triggered by or in fact as equal to the human mind put in motion via Higgins' field that maybe , just maybe gets in its turn made in motion by a higher power that might hold everything existing together for that matter, our minds that depend on or tend to long for unity with that fundamental root capacity of that higher power or root  Self  , that action might be the core " building block element " of the  "structure "  of the universe , who knows ?
(Heart's intelligence as the highest form of intelligence or intellect , heart as no emotions feelings , or biological organ , once again. Heart as intuition or intuitive insights : informed experienced developed extended intuition, not the ordinary intuition that 's not really reliable though  )
...we can try to approach consciousness via trying to extend our levels of consciousness via personal experiences shaped by certain world views, by the personal experiences of others on the subject , by ancient wisdoms on the subject..
I think that human consciousness does not only hold THE  key to unveiling major mysteries in this universe , but also that  the most important and next level of human evolution at the level of consciousness  is yet to be undertaken by humanity as a whole  , while grasping its incredible implications for all humanity...
But, it takes hard work, life experiences, it takes flirting with death itself and looking it deep in the eye  ....it takes blood sweat and tears , joy , rise and fall ,setbacks and breakthroughs ....to just be able to develop that 6th sense that makes one sharp alert and awake sober lucid enough to know , not just believe in, there are   whole unimaginable dimentions and levels of reality out there our powerful developed mind can make us able to approach somehow , to some degree at least .
humans can be trained to develop those consciousness powers or skils in themselves, by developing their 'contacts " with their consciousness via some means
High levels of consciousness can also be experienced only under certain meditation and other spiritual circumstances where the body or the material world cease to "exist " or cease to be perceived as such for the given person under those meditation or under other spiritual states ,due to that extremely targeted attention or focuss of the given person at the level of the pure consciousness
Critical thinking might be a better word to approach what people claim to experience , but then again, critical thinking fails short at the level of "pure " consciousness  "beyond thought "
This might seem to you as just semantics , but i see no better way to put it to you , since "pure 'consciousness via meditation and via other spiritual means is , per definition, uncommunicable = words fail short to describe it .
The only way to figure out all that for yourself in that regard is by trying to experience those states of consciousness yourself via meditation or via other spiritual means : science or critical thinking alone cannot help you in that regard ,since "pure " consciousness is beyond thought , science .
But then again, you would say : there is nothing more tricky deceptive and elusive than spirituality ,i would say : that's the beauty of it : we gotta try to figure it out for ourselves = an endless restless dynamic journey = a journey far more exciting and challenging difficult ..than science can ever be ,even thou science can help us somehow on that spiritual path we gotta take as well
I see this natural reality as just a veil that deprives us from seeing  the underlying true real reality ,the latter we can only See above : the only way to figure that out for yourself is by trying to experience those states of consciousnsess, via meditation and via other spiritual means = that's beyond the territory of conventional science and thought . try to approach via spirituality,once again
Only real true mystics can experience the relatively full scale of human consciousness or pure consciousness and beyond
But , art , meditation, spirituality , creative work ....music ....love...do make me get in touch , sometimes , with incredible states of consciousness , awareness, self-awareness ...that are , per definition, uncommunicable as the mystics say , science can never be able to give me .
Words cannot describe those states of consciousness i do experience sometimes , and i can tell you with relative confidence= i am not really sure , who can be in that context ?,  that i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..
Did it ever occur to you that human consciousness might exist and function outside of the laws of physics ?"

End Quote

[dlorde]

... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..

Ouch - there goes another irony meter...

Thanks for that cheryl, I missed it first time round.

I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...

As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool".

[Skyli]

We should thus stop seeing religion, or Islam in this case ,  and science as concurrents or as opposite opponents .

*** Exactly my point!

You appear to be attacking science because it is not religious enough.

it is a false conception of nature and the universe

That cannot be. Science, by its very nature, is only a tool to "investigate" and "explain" the nature of the universe. This is like saying that a microscope is a conception of the nature of micro-biology.

we cannot know everything there is to know out there via our human limited faculties

Nobody on this forum would disagree with you there but, as you said, we have more to come. I am sure that this universe - Gods universe - hasn't finished with us yet - one day we may not even be able to call ourselves human by any yardstick we use today. Until then, and beyond, I hope with all my heart, that science continues on its mission, using whatever tools best fit the job, and tries to explain absolutely everything WITHOUT reference to God; better still, on the fundamental assumption that there is no God - it's ALL up to us. This is the best way to learn. Whether by chemistry or divine will we have been given the drive to classify and the tools with which to do it. My guess is, either way, that means that we are meant to use them

Gennlemen, if this works then thank you indeed!

[Europan Ocean]

The question with doctors is whether human consciousness is generated by the brain or received by the brain. It is a question of humanism or dualism.

[dlorde]

The question with doctors is whether human consciousness is generated by the brain or received by the brain. It is a question of humanism or dualism.

Which doctors are you referring to, specifically? It seems to me it isn't a question the majority of doctors are concerned with in their work.