[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why do you think it's not possible that the immaterial consciousness can interact and correlate with the brain via unknown immaterial ways , either way ?

Can't you see I'm questioning what you mean by immaterial if it can be influenced (informed) by the material and itself influence the material? in what sense can it then be non-material?

Even atoms are conscious ,their own atomic degree of consciousness .

How do you know that?

That's 1 of the reasons  why  i said that the immaterial side of reality ,including the immaterial consciousness of course , including the immaterial side of life in general , .....must be kept , as they actually should be , outside of the natural realm of science .....science that's only concerned with the material side of reality ...obviously .
To try to turn the immaterial side of reality to a material one ,as materialism has been doing  , via some magical materialist assumptions or via some dogmatic materialist irrational unscientific false beliefs  only  materialism  can perform ,to try to perform just that materialistic magical trick  is not only incorrect false , but also unscientific ,obviously ,so.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

How did you deduce from that silly reasoning of yours that consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain ?

If consciousness is not affected or influenced by what's happening in the brain, how does does it know what's happening?

Did you read the book or watched the movie concerning the extremely inspiring story of Helen Keller : The story of my life ?
She was born blind and deaf.....

And she used her other senses, especially touch, and proprioception.

Who said consciousness can be affected and influenced by the brain through our senses ? Why not say that consciousness gets somehow informed by the brain via the senses ,or something like that , instead of assuming that consciousness gets affected and influenced by the brain through the senses

Informed, affected, influenced - makes no difference to the point. If you are informed by something it affects and/or influences you - it gives you information that informs you.

Brain and consciousness do interact and correlate with each other , how ? = that's anyone's guess , once again ...

And that's the problem - the logical problem of material and immaterial interacting. I think you're deliberately ignoring it.

You're a stupid person, blinded by the irrational false materialist faith, despite your relative intelligence , scientific qualifications , ...in the same fashion Stephen Hawking , Dawkins and all the rest of those materialists are ..............

Insults

and ad-hominems don't address the arguments, they just make you look puerile.

Time up, sorry : I have already sacrificed a lots of time today here ,too much time than usual in fact ,  i can hardly afford , as you can see , on this page :
So,see my reply to you right here above on the subject :
It is a logical reasonable fact , no pueril insult , that materialism as an irrational unscientific- even  (Any belief for that matter is , per definition unscientific , but not necessarily false , as materialism actually is , obviously ),that materialist  false belief secular religion , has been turning you , guys , into unbelievable dummies-zombies  ,obviouly ....

Irrational unconditional blind false beliefs, either secular or religious , including materialism itself, obviously ,  do act as a deadly non-biological and non-physical virus infecting the minds hearts and souls of its hosts inevitably , for every truely intelligent reader or watcher here to see :
That's why and how those infected haha Dawkins and co. have been projecting and and have been so eager to spread that non-physical non -biological, ironically enough for materialists haha , virus of theirs they are , obviously , infected by to all .......religions- the true or false ones alike haha.

You know :
I cannot resist the following temptation, despite the fact that i am exhausted and running way  out  of time :

That non-physical non-biological virus represented and personified "reincarnated " by all irrational false religions, either the secular or religious ones, including materialism itself thus , have been reminding me of that 2013 -US movie i saw lately :

World War Z , i guess , featuring Brad Pit ............( The other similar one is :Warm bodies ,nice deep one also,  i can turn its core message or logic upside down as well , to fit my purpose ) .

I think the only way, that was "whispered" to me by world war z movie thus ,  to try to get rid of that immaterial irrational false belief virus , either religious or secular , that has been infecting many people on this planet , risking to infect the rest of humanity as a result and in the process , simply because it is so contagious , the only way to "fight " against it , is by deliberatly and voluntarily getting infected by it or by some similar-to-it irrational false belief-virus  that might make us, the healthy people among us at least ,  immune to the original former virus , either the religious or the secular one , once again , just to be able to win some time ....by becoming "invisible or undetectable " to that original former virus i have ben talking about : that of materialism of course + its religious fanatic twin or soul-mate .

Note : i do not regard my own belief as  being an  irrational  false belief immaterial-virus , otherwise , i would have rejected it immediatly , without mercy,without any remorse or regret whatsoever  haha ...

Cheers .

[dlorde]

Meh; just the same unsupported assertions. Arguments notably lacking as usual.

Disappointing but not unexpected.

[cheryl j]

Science can approach the immaterial side of reality though ,indirectly , via approaching the material side of reality , by shedding light on the brain as the "receiver " of consciousness ...

I'm surprised to hear you say that. If materialism is false, not just incomplete or limited, but as you say, false, and cannot even provide reliable information about the material world, how can it be used to understand anything about the immaterial, or the link between the material or immaterial? Surely you can see the contradiction there. You will probably say, once again, that I am confusing materialism with real science but like it or not, science investigates things with material processes, observing either directly or with instruments, measuring, counting, controlling variables, while changing one. Give me some examples of science experiments that don't. Thought experiments might be one, but even Einstein's were eventually backed up with empirical data. And Einstein's also had a mathematical support, which your theories or Sheldrake's do not have.

If materialism is false, and we've been doing everything wrong all along, how should we have investigated diabetes, if not by dissecting the body, finding the pancreas, discovering beta cells, figuring out what the hormone insulin does, identifying the receptors on tissue cells, etc. ?

Or is materialism "not false"  for some things, but "false" for others, and are you sure you know where to draw that line?

[cheryl j]

You're confusing the purely physical biological true emergence phenomena with that materialist "emergence " magical trick performance regarding consciousness , or rather you're extending those purely biological physical emergence phenomena to non-physical non -biological phenomena such as consciousness, as materialists do :
So, David Cooper was right about what he said : bird's flight is just a purely physical biological emergence property that arose from  the evolutionary complexity of  its purely physical biological components = the immaterial consciousness is totally unlike any of its complex alleged purely physical biological so-called evolved brain "components" that allegedly "gave rise " to it  .

So are you saying that there can be emergent properties in biological systems? That is what I take to mean by "purely physical biological true emergence phenomena". You at least agree to that much? 

[dlorde]

... science investigates things with material processes, observing either directly or with instruments, measuring, counting, controlling variables, while changing one. Give me some examples of science experiments that don't. Thought experiments might be one, but even Einstein's were eventually backed up with empirical data. And Einstein's also had a mathematical support, which your theories or Sheldrake's do not have.

Thought experiments are generally a means for generating testable hypotheses, directly or indirectly inspired by observation, so they are only part of the process; the observations involve the material (i.e. what can be observed), and, as you say, the hypotheses must be tested, which is a material process also involving observation.

[alancalverd]

The only reasonable logical answer to the existential question is ...God .

OK, I'm intrigued. What is the existential question and how do you know this is the answer?

[David Cooper]

God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You're confusing the purely physical biological true emergence phenomena with that materialist "emergence " magical trick performance regarding consciousness , or rather you're extending those purely biological physical emergence phenomena to non-physical non -biological phenomena such as consciousness, as materialists do :
So, David Cooper was right about what he said : bird's flight is just a purely physical biological emergence property that arose from  the evolutionary complexity of  its purely physical biological components = the immaterial consciousness is totally unlike any of its complex alleged purely physical biological so-called evolved brain "components" that allegedly "gave rise " to it  .

So are you saying that there can be emergent properties in biological systems? That is what I take to mean by "purely physical biological true emergence phenomena". You at least agree to that much?

Of course i do  agree  : that goes without saying .
Of course there are emergent properties at the physical and biological levels ....
But , that magical materialist "emergence " trick regarding the immaterial consciousness is obviously false : the immaterial consciousness cannot , obviously , rise from its totally different material physical biological alleged components ,as David Cooper was so right about saying .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The only reasonable logical answer to the existential question is ...God .

OK, I'm intrigued. What is the existential question and how do you know this is the answer?

Do not be lazy : take a dictionary and look for the word "existential " .

I will give you the following obvious hint :

In his "Selfish Gene " , lunatic Dawkins quotes some materialist scientist  saying :

or in words to that same effect at least :

"...Darwin's theory of evolution is the only valid answer to our existential question .All pre-Darwinian attempts to answer just that were /are not only worthless , but they must be totally dicarded as well "

That lunatic materialist scientist was not realising the fact that he was not stating a scientific fact , as he might have thought to have been  doing , he was just stating a materialist dogmatic belief= unscientific  .

Evolution itself is not only physical biological , not just physics and chemistry ,despite the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution was / is exclusively biological physical .

Darwin's purely  and exclusively  biological physical theory of evolution is indeed scientific , and only when it does not cross the boundaries of the realm of science = the material side of reality thus .

So, those materialists evolutionists can , logically only say the above .

God is in fact behind evolution itself , the laws of physics ....= this is no scientific statement of course  either  , that above mentioned materialist statement of that materialist scientist evolutionist neither .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.

Our dear friend David Cooper   here has been  so scared of risking his fingers to be burned by participating to this thread , that he just "hits and runs " , in order to avoid getting his fingers burned ,and in order to avoid the heat under his feet haha , via these kindda "hit and run " dances of his haha, dances like those alleged ones performed by  our neurons or ensemble of neurons  .

Since God has been creating all things and beings , including science , the laws of physics , evolution and the rest , obviously = occam's razor simplest "explanation "= no scientific one of course , but not necessarily false though  , God can be "anything or anyone or otherwise " He wants to be ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Meh; just the same unsupported assertions. Arguments notably lacking as usual.

Disappointing but not unexpected.

Meh : once again :
The immaterial side of reality , including the immaterial consciousness thus , including the immaterial side of life,including the immaterial side of evolution  ..........are outside of reach of science = outside of science's jurisdiction , simply because they cannot be tested empirically , cannot be falsifiable, verifiable, observable, reproducible, measurable ....obviously, and simply because the material side of reality only ,is the realm of science  = the immaterial side of reality is outside of that material realm of science ,once again .

Which parts of those statements of mine you cannot understand then ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Science can approach the immaterial side of reality though ,indirectly , via approaching the material side of reality , by shedding light on the brain as the "receiver " of consciousness ...

I'm surprised to hear you say that. If materialism is false, not just incomplete or limited, but as you say, false, and cannot even provide reliable information about the material world, how can it be used to understand anything about the immaterial, or the link between the material or immaterial? Surely you can see the contradiction there. You will probably say, once again, that I am confusing materialism with real science but like it or not, science investigates things with material processes, observing either directly or with instruments, measuring, counting, controlling variables, while changing one. Give me some examples of science experiments that don't. Thought experiments might be one, but even Einstein's were eventually backed up with empirical data. And Einstein's also had a mathematical support, which your theories or Sheldrake's do not have.

See ? This is exactly what i have been meaning by saying that you, guys , cannot but confuse materialism with science , obviously ,despite all my extensive attempts and my posted material's to explain just that obvious simple undeniable fact to you, guys = that's a purely western Eurocentric cultural historic thing i cannot really blame you for , that has been exported to the rest of the world, thanks to western domination , : but , westerners and others such as Sheldrake ,Nagel and many others were / are capable of  rising  above that Eurocentric materialist cultural historic thing , but you still cannot = unbelievable :
Materialism is just a dogmatic belief false assumption false conception of nature that assumes that reality nature or the universe are exclusively material .
Science 's natural realm is the material side of reality : so, do not confuse between science and materialism = they are totally different + materialism is obviously unscientific , as all beliefs are by the way , either the religious or the secular ones , but not all beliefs are necessarily false , once again .

Besides, science has been accomplishing all those  huge scientific achievements, thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method that's like no other = materialism as a false secular religion, as a misconception of nature ...you name it ....has absolutely nothing to do with science , obviously = materialism has just been taking a free ride , once again, on the unwilling back of science since the 19th century at least , in order to try to "validate " itself in the process  through science  , in vain of course .
Materialism is like a virus whose host has been ....science, but the latter's amazing rejuvenating capacity strength and power have  been enabling science to rise above the unscientific materialist belief in science , despite the fact that the majority of scientists are materialists , and that science 's wonderful intrinsic methodic inherent capacity and nature will of course enable science to reject and move beyond that virus = materialism in science , as all sciences have been superseding materialism in science istelf ...   

If materialism is false, and we've been doing everything wrong all along, how should we have investigated diabetes, if not by dissecting the body, finding the pancreas, discovering beta cells, figuring out what the hormone insulin does, identifying the receptors on tissue cells, etc. ?

...See above : well, science has been doing all that you mentioned and the rest , thanks only to its wonderful effective method that's like no other , once again = materialism as a false belief , that's obviously an unscientific one of course and per definition , as all beliefs for that matter are , whether they are religious or secular beliefs , ...materialism has thus nothing to do with science whatsoever ...
God ...

Many great achievements of science were  accomplished  / are  being accomplished  / have been accomplished / and will  be accomplished by many non-materialist scientists as well ,as many scientists today , yesterday , and tomorrow are / were / and will be non-materialists , as science does not , per definition, have to be materialistic , as it is the case today ...

Or is materialism "not false"  for some things, but "false" for others, and are you sure you know where to draw that line?

Materialism assumes that reality nature or the universe the world ...are just exclusively material , that's why materialism has been dominating and misusing science whose realm is the material side of reality , in order to "validate " itself through science , in vain .
Materialism as a belief , a secular one , is thus , per definition , unscientific , as all beliefs are , but not all beliefs are necessarily false , as materialism is :
All beliefs , secular or religious beliefs , do have some elements of truth , relatively speaking , but that does not mean they are all true , no , as they are not necessarily false , as materialism actually is .

Which particular belief is the one and only completely true one ,simply because there can only be 1 and only true belief out there of course , not 7473893939393,  that 's something any given individual should find out for himself/herself .
Materialism is obviously undeniably false , simply because reality nature the universe ...are not exclusively material ..........= the hard problems such as life , consciousness, feelings emotions, human love , human cognition, memory , human conscience .....their evolution emergence and origins have been proving just that fact ...that materialism is false = reality is not exclusively material,= reality is not exclusively material , obviously and undeniably .....God ...give me some more patience  haha  , compassion , wisdom , kindness ....,generosity ..., so, i can remain relatively polite haha in relation to  these  poor lost  ignorant creatures of yours  ....May God have mercy on you all ...= The God parts of my statements here are unscientific of course though= they are outside of the material realm  of science ,  or rather outside the jurisdiction of science indeed  , but not necessarily ...false . .

[cheryl j]

God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.

Our dear friend David Cooper   here has been  so scared of risking his fingers to be burned by participating to this thread , that he just "hits and runs " , in order to avoid getting his fingers burned ,

I hardly think he is afraid of getting burned. Probably just realizes that this discussion is a pointless waste of time.

[cheryl j]

The immaterial side of reality , including the immaterial consciousness thus , including the immaterial side of life,including the immaterial side of evolution  ..........are outside of reach of science = outside of science's jurisdiction , simply because they cannot be tested empirically , cannot be falsifiable, verifiable, observable, reproducible, measurable ....obviously, and simply because the material side of reality only ,is the realm of science  = the immaterial side of reality is outside of that material realm of science ,once again .

I'm just shocked that you finally came out and said this, which illustrates perfectly why this discussion is pointless.  The above comment demonstrates perfectly that your position really has nothing to do with science at all - its about belief vs non-belief in God. It belongs on a religious forum.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

God, when he puts his scientist's hat on, recognises that he cannot qualify as God.

Our dear friend David Cooper   here has been  so scared of risking his fingers to be burned by participating to this thread , that he just "hits and runs " , in order to avoid getting his fingers burned ,

I hardly think he is afraid of getting burned. Probably just realizes that this discussion is a pointless waste of time.

Haha
Speak for yourself , "ungrateful " lady ,kidding, ( I have just been trying to deliver you , folks, from that materialist darkness you have been confined to , you have been confusing with the bright lights of science ) ,  not on behalf of others :  why do you keep on coming back to this thread then ? ,  i am not sure Cooper would find this discussion a waste of time though, since he , himself , cannot buy that materialist magical "emergence " trick regarding consciousness , feelings , emotions , human cognition ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The immaterial side of reality , including the immaterial consciousness thus , including the immaterial side of life,including the immaterial side of evolution  ..........are outside of reach of science = outside of science's jurisdiction , simply because they cannot be tested empirically , cannot be falsifiable, verifiable, observable, reproducible, measurable ....obviously, and simply because the material side of reality only ,is the realm of science  = the immaterial side of reality is outside of that material realm of science ,once again .

I'm just shocked that you finally came out and said this, which illustrates perfectly why this discussion is pointless.  The above comment demonstrates perfectly that your position really has nothing to do with science at all - its about belief vs non-belief in God. It belongs on a religious forum.

Yeah, right : just keep on projecting , instead of dealing with facts :

What do you mean i came out ? Is the immaterial the realm of science then ? come on .

Just "accuse and judge others , in order to avoid getting accused and judged yourself ", my disappointing lady :
It is in fact materialism in science , materialism as a belief , as a secular religion in science , that's obviously unscientific,that does not belong in either science or in any science forum for that matter in fact , materialism that's obviously unscientific  as all beliefs for that matter are ,once again  = i was just reminding you, guys , of the obvious realm and boundaries of science = the material side of reality .

And i was just reminding you of the fact that the immaterial side of reality is , per definition, unscientific = outside of the jurisdiction of science , but not necessarily false , that's all .


Try to get science rid of that materialist false secular religion virus then in science , instead of accusing me falsely ...

I did say what was scientific and what was not regarding  my statements , so .

But you, guys , keep on believing that materialism = science , ironically enough , implicitly, if not explicitly :

Who's the one to blame here of being "religious " here on a science forum ? you or i ? :

Note that there are religious and there are also secular beliefs , the latter such as ...materialism in science of course = materialism as a secular false religion in science ...Who's using then religion or a materialist belief in science , me or you , the rest of the other materialists ...that's obviously no ...question .

Very disappointing developments : i have been  accusing materialism all along ,and rightly obviously undeniably so,  for being a secular religion in science , and this Cheryl turns the table on me , by accusing me falsely of using religion in a science forum , ironically enough , while in fact i did myself clearly stated that my religious statements were not scientific ,obviously , but not necessarily false = outside of the jurisdiction of science ...
Unbelievable  non-sensical turn of events  ...

I am the one here who would be and should be completely right to say , i have been wasting my time here from day 1 , as i have been realising   and knowing just that fact all along , from day 1 ....

Unbelievable ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ Cheryl :
Why Materialism is False ? :

Source : http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?15753-Why-Materialism-is-False

Prior Note :

The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject :

The critique of materialism goes way beyond what the following article tries to approach ,summarize or tackle  :
-I-I do not agree with the author's allegations that materialism has succeeded in "solving " the challenge or hard problem of life , design, thought , morality ...
0_Materialism is just a dogmatic belief system or rather a false secular religion ideology  in science , a misconsception of nature in science , that has absolutely nothing to do with science thus , and that just tries to "validate " itself through science , in vain of course , logically and per-definition .
I_Those so-called neurocomputation mechanisms cannot account for such  non-physical non-biological  processes such as thought either .
II-Darwin's theory of evolution is only and exclusively biological physical , so, it tackles only the physical biological side of evolution, but materialists , per definition, just try to extend it to non-physical non-biological processes ,for obvious materialist ideological "reasons " that have ,obviously , nothing to do with science  .
III- That life can be approached via physics and chemistry does not mean that life is just that .
IV_ Materialism cannot , per definition, succeed in "refuting " the existence of God, design ................behind all those laws of physics ............

V-Neither the materialist version or rather the materialist misinterpretation of Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution , nor Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution can account for human morality, cognition,  life or of consciousness "fully" ........let alone their  evolution .
VI-Materialism can, per definition , not account for consciousness, life ,feelings , emotions,  human cognition , human conscience , human morality , ...."fully" , let alone their origins evolution or emergence .
_VII-The brain does not cause consciousness : that alleged causality that's ,obviously , just a materialist misinterpretation of that   mutual actual factual correlation or interaction between the brain and consciousness thus  , was never proven to be true, ever , that's just a materialist belief assumption : causation is no explanation either .
VIII-There is a lot more to say on the subject , so, i will just leave it at that ,for the time being at least .


Quote :

" Why Materialism is False:

    In short, I think materialism is false. Below is why, with a detour through the reasons why Materialism isn't false.

    I don't mind if you read this or not, just thought I'd share for anyone remotely interested. No, it's not particularly well written or well structured, and there is so much more that could be said on this topic, but ... meh.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Materalism, I define as follows:
    'The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.' - Answers.com
    First, there is an important distinction to be made. Materialism and Science are not the same thing. Science is the study of the natural world, so Science has no jurisdiction over any theory regarding that which cannot be empirically tested.

    For example, suppose a Theist were to conjecture that God is the law enforcer of the universe, ensuring that at every moment, at every place, all physical occurrences obeyed the laws that God has decreed. This conjecture is impossible to test scientifically, since all possible experimental observations are consistent with its predictions. However, the unscientific character of our Theist's conjecture does not mean that it is false; the answer to the question is simply outside of the jurisdiction of the Scientific method.

    The philosophy of Materialism goes beyond the Scientific Method, postulating that only the material exists. This would place the Materialist in disagreement with our Theist. If it is true that only the material exists, then the Theist's law enforcer God does not exist, since that God would qualify as immaterial.

    The above constitutes the important distinction between Materialism and Science, whilst also explaining why Materialists are always Scientists. However the philosophy of Materialism should not be conflated with that of Science, as it is possible to both be a Scientist and not be a Materialist.

    _______________________________________________________________


    Materialism has always been an unpopular philosophy, with critics branding it as cold, uncaring and fundamentally amoral. The philosophy has had its most bitter rivals in that of Theism, as Materialism denies the truth of religious scripture, denying the existence of God, the afterlife and the immortal soul. Despite this, Materialism has stumbled on, with proponents offering Materialistic solutions to many of the long standing problems in philosophy. The problems listed below have stood as criticisms to the Materialistic philosophy now and in the past. The list is not comprehensive, but does reflect what I believe to have been the key problems that Materialism has overcome.

    1) The problem of life
    2) The problem of design
    3) The problem of thought
    4) The problem of morality
    Here I will sketch a brief overview of what each problem is and how I believe the Materialist can solve it.

    The first and easiest is the problem of life. The problem arises from the unique properties and capabilities of living organisms; it had seemed incomprehensible that the mechanical world of physics could explain the biological. Something else was needed, so it was postulated that a vital force animated living matter, imbuing it with lifelike qualities. The doctrine held that life was inexplicable in terms of physicochemical interactions. If the Materialist could not explain life, then Materialism must be false.

    The Materialist did not get his answer to this problem in one sweeping theory, but rather a cumulation of experimental findings, from William Harvey's discovery that the circularitory system was a cleverly engineered mechanism to pump blood around the body, to Fracis Crick and James Watson's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The march of scientific progress has unveiled the fine structure of cellular machinery, all working impeccably from physicochemical laws without the need for a vital animating force.

    Here the Materialist can explain how life works without appealing to any immaterial vital essence, but there still remains another problem to be solved. This is the problem of design. How is it that this incredible arrangement of organised matter came into being? The odds that such organisation would occur by chance are astronomically low, but life is bustling all around us in a multitude of forms. If the Materialist cannot explain this design, then Materialism must be false.

    In 1859, in a joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace that explanation was provided. The Materialist now had The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection i.e. The gradual accumulation of adaptive organisation by selective advantage. This elegant theory has provided the Materialist with an answer to the problem of design, which has in time been corroborated by a vast amount of evidence, from practically every field of scientific study.

    The problem of design had been solved, but an interesting disagreement between Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin persisted. The problem of thought presented itself. To Wallace, the human capacity for reasoned thought was beyond the reach of evolution, a feat which could simply not have been achieved by anything other than supernatural intervention, or in other words: God given. How could it be that a physical system could possibly think? If Materialism cannot explain how it is that we think, then Materialism must be false.

    The answer to the problem today is all around us, in front of anyone reading this at this very moment, i.e. computation. Alan Turing's Turing machine and the advent of modern electronics are a vivid illustration that complex computational architecture, obeying only the laws of physics can perform intelligent operations. The Materialist can now look to neurobiology, where cognition is explained as the consequent of neurocomputations occurring in parallel throughout the central nervous system. The Materialist now has his answer to Wallace's conjecture that the capacity for reason is unevolvable and must be God given.

    So the Materialist has provided powerful arguments to solve the problem of life, the problem of design and the problem thought. Unlike these three problems, the final problem on my list cannot refute Materialism. If Materialism is indeed amoral, it would be a nonsequitor to conclude from Materialism's amorality that it is false. For this reason, the problem of morality is a special case, but nonetheless very powerful. Briefly, the argument claims that if we are nothing but an unintentional consequence of natural selection, nothing but elaborate machines and built by selfish genes, then there is no reason to work for a higher purpose. For what reason should we treat our fellow man with compassion? What becomes of right and wrong with no God?

    The answer to this problem is the combined product of evolutionary biology, neurobiology and philosophy. The combined solutions to the previous three problems set the stage for solving the problem of morality. First, evolutionary biology, far from undermining the basis of morality, can explain why we have a moral sense in the first place. Second, neurobiology has provided scientists with evidence of how the human brain computes moral decisions. Finally, philosophers have raised objections to the accusation that Materialism is inherently amoral, refuting the accusations with powerful solutions and counterarguments.

    Note: I am sure many reading this may object to the solutions I have presented to the 'four problems,' such objections are welcome and I encourage further criticism.

    ________________________________________________________________

    I have taken this detour through the successes of Materialism to drive home that I have no political agenda against the philosophy, religiously motivated or otherwise. I now wish to draw attention to my fifth problem for Materialism:

    5) The problem of consciousness
    A single element of conscious experience is called a quale, a group of quale are known as qualia. A quale might be the subjective experience of red, cold or pain. All quale are symbolic representations of frequencies and angles. The problem for Materialism is explaining qualia, the subjective experience of life, the very subjective experience without which we cannot imagine life being worth living at all. How can a physical system such as the brain be responsible for consciousness?. This is no small problem, for if Materialism cannot explain consciousness, then Materialism is false.

    The problem of consciousness has puzzled philosophers for centuries. To clarify the problem, imagine opening up my brain whilst displaying a large red circle to my eyes. After some probing, you discover a cluster of neurons whose combined activity is responsible for my conscious experience of red. However, all you have is my word to go on, there is nothing special about that particular cluster of neurons, no telltale sign that these are responsible for my conscious experience. To the outside observer, the entire neurocomputational system would work exactly the same whether or not I was actually consciously experiencing the red circle. To make make matters more puzzling, even if I am consciously experiencing life, how do you know that what you call red is what I call red? So long as the frequencies and angles which these qualia represent maintain a constant relation to each other, then for all you know my conscious experience of red might be radically different to yours.

    No matter where you look in my brain, even if you are looking at that particular cluster of neurons responsible for my conscious experience of red, you cannot sensibly say that you are looking at the quale redness. The redness I see is qualitively independent of the neural substrate that is responsible for that quale. To put this another way, I would argue that qualia are ontologically irreducible to the neural substrate, that is, qualia have independent qualities which cannot be explained at the physical level. However, I also would argue that consciousness is entirely caused by the neural substrate, that consciousness has no informational content or cognitive ability above that which occurs on the neurocomputational level i.e. consciousness is causally reducible to the neural substrate.

    To clarify, we can play a thought experiment involving two billiard balls. Billiard ball 1 and billiard ball 2. First take these two examples:

    1) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity.
    2) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity.
    Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1. Now, take a third example:

    3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

    The problem for the Materialist is that consciousness itself is immaterial, the frequencies and angles that make up subjective experience may be caused by, but are not part of the Material world. Thus, I conclude that Materialism is false.

    ________________________________________________________________

    A possible criticism of my theory is that consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. This is a tempting view to take, analogous to the quality of wetness. A body of water is wet, even though no particular element of that body of water is wet. To clarify, a single molecule of H2O cannot be wet, because the quality of wetness is dependent upon the interactions of the constituent parts, without belong to any of those particular constituent parts. Wetness is an emergent property. A critic might conjecture that consciousness is also an emergent property of brain activity.

    I do not think that consciousness is an emergent product of brain activity. The difference between wetness and consciousness is that the quality of wetness follows from the physical laws governing the behavior of H2O, that is, given only the laws of physics I could predict that particular chemical substances would have the emergent property of wetness. The same cannot be said of consciousness. Given only the laws of physics, I could not predict the emergence of consciousness, it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be." End Quote.

[David Cooper]

The reality is that most people hardly ever change their mind about anything that matters to them because they're only interested in taking up those ideas that agree with what they already believe while they reject the rest. It doesn't matter how much you prove them wrong, they will resolutely refuse to see it. It happens in every field and at every level, and because this phenomenon is something I study (Natural General Intelligence and how it goes wrong), I'm still skim-reading this thread, but there's no way I'll be dragged back into wasting any more time writing long posts for it.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

This stubborn unbelievable irrational illogical unscientific -even denial of this obvious undeniable false materialist belief  issue in science  by these and other folks ,  is evidence enough to state the fact that cognitive intelligence is certainly way below the real human unparalleled intelligence : that of the heart , heart's intelligence as the highest form of intelligence , as the highest form of intellect ,even materialist apparent genuises such as Stephen Hawking, Dawkins and the rest of those materialists do, obviously , lack ....= they are obviously existentially spiritually intuitively ...stupid or under-developed in that regard at least ,despite their great cognitive intelligence , scientific qualifications  ....

Heart's intelligence = heart as no emotions, feelings or biological organ = informed developed experienced trained intuition....not the unreliable intuition ...

These folks here do have no sense of humor , no imagination, no creativity ....they are as dry as the desert sand , as inflexible uncompromissory and deaf as solid-rocks , even though water can even flow from the latter ...

Unbelievable how that irrational unscientific illogical inconsistent incoherent materialist  false  belief virus can turn  its voluntary hosts  to complete dummies zombies ,amazing ..............

A very interesting study case indeed .