[DonQuichotte (OP)]

...I think that the  exclusively  material side of evolution represented by the scientific Darwin's exclusively biological physical material theory of evolution , when Darwin's scientific   material (Do not confuse material with materialism ) theory of evolution thus does not cross the boundaries of the material realm and jurisdiction of science at leat , can tell us only about the material side of evolution though ....relatively speaking then , relatively speaking , simply because there is still a lot to be known and discovered about all those missing links and gaps Darwin's scientific exclusively biological material physical theory of evolution and all its scientific post-Darwin updates up untill now cannot yet answer yet ....

Second : Do not confuse the materialist version of evolution = the materialist belief assumption -misinterpretation of evolution , with Darwin's scientific exclusively biological physical theory of evolution ,

Well, if we are confused about the theory of evolution, apparently Darwin was as well. Too bad you weren't there to correct him.

I was afraid i would get these sort of answers , that's why i said to our friend here above that he should read carefully what i was saying ....

Darwin and his neo-Darwinian followers as well ,were / are materialists who do confuse the material realm and material jurisdiction of science , with their own subjective materialist belief assumptions , or rather with their own materialist subjective conception of nature , the latter in the sense that nature is exclusively material = a materialist subjective belief assumption that has nothing to do with science= science has never , so to speak, proved the materialist "fact " to be "true" , or rather the materialist belief assumption   to be "true " , that reality nature or the universe are exclusively ...material  .

Darwin's scientific   exclusively material physical biological theory of evolution is just that : material = confined within the material realm and material jurisdiction of science , but materialists like Darwin, Dawkins and the rest of those materialists thus , do extend Darwin's scientific exclusively material theory of evolution to the immaterial side of reality as well, simply because they do not not believe , per definition, in the existence of the immaterial side of nature , obviously , the latter they reduce to just matter ...

So, when Darwin's scientific exclusively material theory of evolution crosses the  "natural "  boundaries or material realm, material jurisdiction of science , including Darwin's own materialist belief assumptions regarding evolution  , Darwin's theory of evolution  becomes thus unscientific, when it crosses or goes beyond the natural material boundaries and jurisdiction of science , obviously  :
Example , when Dawkins , Darwin hismelf  or any other materialist scientist would say that evolution has debunked religions , they become unscientific, simply because they involve  their own subjective materialist belief assumptions in science  ...materialist belief assumptions that should be kept outside of science , as any belief assumptions for that matter should be , either religious or secular belief assumptions for that matter .....

[grizelda]

You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Excellent post, Cheryl!

As for the last part, I think there is a 'you' that decides, but it does so as a composite (i.e. I don't think there's a single conscious controller , it just often feels that way) .

Currently I lean towards the idea that consciousness, which seems to depend on the breadth of synchronised activity across the brain, and the number of regions involved, becomes increasingly active when there is no clear 'winner' among the possible solutions from competing processes, or when high-level deliberative thought is required, and so the cogitation is opened to a wider selection of contributing brain areas, e.g. those with less direct influence, to achieve a broader consensus.

When the areas involving planning, behavioural modelling, linguistic and high-level abstraction processing are all involved, we have a higher level of consciousness than when they are not. These features are important to sophisticated social coordination and interaction, and a sense of self is particularly useful here, both as a consistent representation or avatar for the individual in different contexts, and for what-if modelling of social interactions.

For me, the feeling that the verbal, deliberative, consciously aware self is the 'real' you, and in control, is the main illusion of consciousness; it seems quite reasonable that processing should be arranged to express relevant aspects of behaviour through the convenient & unitary representative 'avatar' of the concept of self. In other words, the conscious self is less a controller than an (apparently) integrated representative and spokesman for the underlying composite of processes.

These ideas are all speculative and open to revision. Your mileage may vary

In short :
Despite all your above unscientific speculations , that do go beyond the scientific method , and beyond the material realm and jurisdiction of science thus :
The brain does not create consciousness, the brain is not consciousness, you are not your brain, so to speak, the latter makes most people's lives miserable by "generating " false negative deceptive messages....the uncontrolled mind does the latter in fact , not the brain : the physical brain is the wrong place where you should be looking for answers regarding consciousness at least ...the physical brain is just a kindda "receiver " and delegate regulator of instincts , reflexes , survival mechanisms ...
Those ideas of yours are just materialist belief assumptions = unscientific .
=The stubborn materialist unscientific magical belief assumption that " the brain creates consciousness " , via some magical materialist theology trick performance .
Tell me then , what the self is ? since you seem to have been so intimate with its alleged brain wiring or circuits and activity that you do seem to know what the self or consciousness exactly are .

I've read some parts of "The master mind ..." By Theron Q.Dumont , despite the fact that i do not agree with many of his allegations on the subject : he states there the fact that most people on this planet are not masters of their minds ,obviously , only a few minority of people are in fact : most people are driven by their sub- and conscious drives , reflexes , conditioning , instincts , feelings emotions ...= they are zombies in fact , despite the fact that most of them think , rationalize things , seem to analyze themselves and evaluate their "decisions " ...

So, it takes hard training , self-development , experience , knowledge , hard work ...to try to be the relative master of your own home- mind and body .

No knowledge of the functioning of the brain alone ,no matter how advanced or sophisticated it might ever be ,  can make you able to be the master of your mind , via your true self , not via your false ego ....

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.

Welcome , even though we have enough materialist magicians here already haha
What , on earth , are you talking about ?
Materialism and existeialism are just philosophies , world views , beliefs ....they do not belong in science , as all beliefs for that matter do not , obviously , either the religious or the secular beliefs ...

P.S.: We are trying here to talk ...science , pure science : the first thing to do is : purify science by distillating it haha , by rejecting the unscientific materialist belief assumptions in science that have been dominating science  for so long now :
Worse : those unscientific materialist belief assumptions or the materialist dogmatic belief system have been presented and sold to the people as ...science , ironically enough .

P.S.: All beliefs , either religious or secular , should be kept outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction , science whose realm is just the material side of reality , the immaterial side of reality is thus a matter of ...beliefs , not a matter of science , obviously :
Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in , as long as all beliefs are kept outside of science and outside of the jurisdiction of science as well, including materialism existentialism and all the rest of those beliefs and "isms " ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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.

Thoughts on Bias:

It does seem true that people rarely change their positions even with contradictory evidence. Bias is a tricky problem to control and creeps into experiments in unexpected ways. Pollsters, at least those ones sincerely interested in finding out what people think, and not collecting evidence to build a case, often rephrase the same question a dozen different ways in case the wording influences people to chose one answer over another.

I can think of times when I absolutely and completely changed my mind about something. When I was fifteen, I believed in astrology. The reason why I came to believe in it was because  there was a neighbor lady who was an astrologer, and I liked her, and astrology seemed to explain why people had different personalities. We had to write a paper in my freshman biology class and that was the topic I chose, carefully citing many references about the moon's effect on emergency room visits and the tides, etc. I don't remember the grade I got; I think it was a B- or something. But I do remember that Mr. Soldo did not laugh at me, or embarrass me, or throw a hundred statistics at me that proved I was wrong. He said it was thoughtful and well written, but mentioned a few things that planted a seed of doubt in my mind, and then I went on to learn about photosynthesis and glycolysis and evolution in that class, and that is really when my mind changed. I understood, on my own, that this old idea wasn't compatible with my new ones. They could not co-exist if they were contradictory.But I really liked photosynthesis and glycolysis better. I had a crush on science. 

I can think of examples of other people changing their beliefs. It is usually slowly, by qualifying a belief in some way, and making exceptions. This is sometimes true for racism, and although some people see others who harbor any racist beliefs as "closet racists," I see it as a transition from one concept to another. A racist begins believing "people of different races are different or inferior in important ways." But he meets a person of another race who violates his expectations. So, he concludes "People of that race are inferior, but Bob is an exception. Bob is special." Then perhaps he meets more people like Bob, and decides "There are two types of people of that race, good ones and bad ones." Finally it becomes, "Maybe race has nothing to do with the qualities I dislike in people."  That is the pattern most people follow.

I can think of times, when I  very quickly changed my opinion, when it was easy, with out shifting gradually. This summer I worked for an elderly couple. She seemed like a very nice old lady, sweet, talkative, baked cookies, but kind of "simple minded.". After about nine weeks, she casually mentioned that she used to be a computer programmer in aeronautics. She worked with Univac. My impression of her, who she was and her interests,  wasn't just a little off, it was way, way,  almost a 100%, wrong.

So why is it so easy to radically changes ones mind in some cases but not others? Because the beliefs were only held for a short time? Because it doesn't threaten the ego or self worth? Because one has nothing to gain or lose either way? Because the evidence seems more factual and not fuzzy or interpretable in multiple ways?

When choosing his cabinet members, Abraham Lincoln picked adversaries like William Seward and Salmon Chase. (They weren't adversaries to him, they were adversaries to one another.) Likewise, in 2009, Chinese president Hu Jintao picked two opposing faction leaders, Xi Jimping and Li Keqiang, to make decisions about Chinese economic policy. As long as one still has control, it's an advantage to let a team of rivals present their best arguments, and fight it out. It saves you a lot of work. And even if you have a bias towards one position or another, somehow ones ego is less threatened when that position is being presented, and attacked by someone else. You can just sit back and listen, and see how it plays out.

Some neuroscientists suggest that that is how the brain works - separate components that are like a team of rivals, each trying to interpret information or solve a problem in their own way, each vying for attention and control. Is there a "you" that decides? Is there an Abraham Lincoln of the brain? Or is the "you" whomever presents the best argument at that moment to the body? Whether you are a materialist like me, or a mystic like Don, that really is the big question, the essence of the hard problem of consciousness.

(Prior note :
Science just covers a tiny piece of the material side of reality , the known one at least , there is way a lot more to man , life , the universe out there , than just what our poor science  can ever reveal or approach  , no matter how wonderful effective and unparalleled successful the latter has ever been and will ever be .)

That said :
You are confusing many things with each other , dear lady :

Human consciousness is THE key to approach mot of all the above , and much more , is THE key to most , if not all, mysteries of the universe and of ourselves :

Human consciousness that's an immaterial process = outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction  as well , obviously .

You're also confusing the human sub-consciousness with consciousness , not to mention that you are confusing purely survival instinctual reflexory drives with consciousness ...
Oh , dear , i would not rely much on neurologists ,or on materialism in science or elsewhere in general , i would not even rely much on pure science itself ,including psychology as a pseudo-science , or on any human sciences for that matter , under materialist or under non-materialist supremacy ,  to fully explain how beliefs settle in , how ignorance , greed , power lust ,machiavellism, opportunism,  political and other intrigues ,social interactions, ambitions,  cunning , malice ,   how prejudice stereotypes, how cultural and other beliefs , either secular or religious , and their inherent indoctrinations , how people's likes and dislikes , how nurture the environment, propaganda , how the cultural right-thinking consenus such as that of materialism in science  and elsewhere ....do relatively shape our thought and behaviour , simply because the poor neurologists are just confined to the material brain that's not as fundamental as consciousness is , not even remotely close thus .
Beliefs in general, for example , do  lay outside of science and of its jurisdiction, per definition ...

There are many factors that do shape our thought and thus behaviour : cultural psychological social biological environmental nurtural.............

The major fact concerning the chronic pathological domination of the materialist dogmatic belief system , and its meta-paradigm  in all sciences and elsewhere as well  , is reason enough to conclude that objectivity does not exist ,not even at the level of  the exact sciences , let alone elswhere : objectivity is a myth .

Not to mention the fact that man as a whole being cannot be divided into  separate 'entities " or rather processes such as cognition feelings emotions intuitions, instincts drives reflexes, brain mind body  ....= man functions via his / her whole being , including in science = proof ? : the dogmatic materialist belief system dominating in science ....
a subjective materialist belief taken as , and imposed on people as ..."objective " science .

P.S.: See also , while you are at it , how all those Eurocentric "enlightenment  ideals  " , all isms , materialism secularism and their liberal marxist , communist , nazi , fascist ...and other extensions beliefs , have been doing to humanity and to this world environment , eco-systems....in the name of science , reason , logic ...........by imposing their own Eurocentric and other  cultural belief assumptions values norms principles , on the rest of humanity , just to steal their resources , by subjecting and enslaving them, during the last 3 centuries at least  ...in the name of science , reason , logic ............in ways way worse than those of any church out there in the name of God, during all the history of mankind  ...Come on .

See how the Eurocentric "enlightenment " movement had/has racist roots and core , even at the high levels represented by its intellectual prominent elite, from Descartes , Darwin, Voltaire , Kant , through and beyond the rest , including giants of literature such as  Charles Dickens ...including the "pioneers of the so-called scientific racism " ...

Powerful and extremely shocking and so-true a top docu :
Discretion is advised , contains shocking graphics ...
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/racism-history/

So much for the so-called scientific rational logical ...western "civilization "...

Final note : not to mention how the Eurocentric " Orientalism", anthropology ....were not only not scientific , but mainly racist and imperialist ...
.......................

[grizelda]

Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in

So your beliefs are material but your wants are existential. You've mixed up your frames of reference. No wonder you're confused.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

...
As a scientist , you should at leat try to be relatively objective fair honest unbiased , as much as possible though , even though objectivity is a myth , even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere .

I completely agree

.

No, you do not completely agree on that , otherwise you would not have been confusing the unscientific materialism with science , for example .
Otherwise , you would not have been believing in that  obviously and undeniably false materialist belief  in no-less than science  ...

Did science ever prove the "fact ", or rather the materialist belief assumption,  to be "true "  that the universe or reality are exclusively material ?
Absolutely not , never , ever

Of course not; the 'materialist belief assumption' is not verifiable or falsifiable. If the immaterial is undetectable to science, it is immaterial to science, which can deal only with the observable; and if you can observe something it's not immaterial - is it?

Materialism is undeniably and obviously false ( the very nature of consciousness, life , memory , feelings , emotions , human cognition, human conscience ....let alone their evolution emergence and origins , everyday's life ....the very nature of the universe... are reasons and evidence enough for that )  , as there are false and true beliefs ....there can be in fact only 1 true belief  in fact indeed , logically , despite the fact that all beliefs do have some elements of truth , to some extent at least .
Why do you keep on confusing the unscientific materialism with science , obviously , then ?
Why do you keep on believing in that materialist unscientific magical " emergent " belief assumption trick performance then ? You do even defend it as allegedly being the one and only hypothesis that's supported by the evidence or scientific data to date , come on .
Besides, religions do encourage stimulate and rely on the individual and collective religious active experiences of their followers ,both on the material , moral ethical and spiritual reality grounds = they are another kind of science , so to speak , simply put .
No wonder that science itself originated from Islam mainly, in order to deal with the practical pragmatic social and other material side of reality  , material side of reality religion or , just Islam, in this case also relies on, not just on the spiritual moral ethical one ...otherwise , there is no need purpose meaning function role ...of Islam on earth , if Islam cannot be rooted in the material side of reality also, on the reality ground on this earth   .

... how can science  ever  go beyond its material realm for that matter, science's material realm that's not what all there is out there , obviously  .

Agreed. Science is limited to the material realm, and I'm fine with that. We'll just carry on observing, learning, and explaining how palpable reality works, just as always. You're welcome to ponder the impalpable & immaterial in peace.

Just stop  confusing  science with that unscientific materialist belief in science  then .

All beliefs , the secular and the religious ones  alike , should be kept outside of science ,and outside of the jurisdiction of science ...
Is that so difficult to understand ?

I completely agree.  Science should continue to observe, make testable hypotheses, test the hypotheses, learn. It need only concern itself with the observable.

Just stop confusing  the unscientific  materialism with science then .

I hadn't realised we agree on so much!

No, in fact , we do not agree that much with each other , as long as you keep on confusing the unscientific materialism with science, in lo less -than science , turning science into a belief , into magic ...in the process  .

Try to keep your own unscientific and false materialism outside of science and outside of the jurisdiction of science as well , then and only then , i can call you a true scientist , not earlier = you are not a true scientist , as the majority of scientists today are not , as long as you keep on confusing your own untrue and unscientific materialism with science , in no-less than ...science .

I think you cannot but agree with i have been saying ....if you strive to be a true scientist at least , a true scientist you , obviously and undeniably , are not at this point at least .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in

So your beliefs are material but your wants are existential. You've mixed up your frames of reference. No wonder you're confused.

I see that we are lucky and honored enough to have a new genius such as yourself in house :
A belief is not a "thing ", that was just a figure of speech , darling .
Are any beliefs for that matter material ?
Where are they then ? can you touch them, see them....capture them for us ...put them under the microscope , scanner ...can you measure them, observe them , test them , verify falsify them, reproduce them ... put them in the lab ...?
When you do , tell me then ...
I think that the Nobel prize is made for you ...
God ...

[cheryl j]

You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.

Welcome , even though we have enough materialist magicians here already haha
What , on earth , are you talking about ?
Materialism and existeialism are just philosophies , world views , beliefs ....they do not belong in science , as all beliefs for that matter do not , obviously , either the religious or the secular beliefs ...

P.S.: We are trying here to talk ...science , pure science : the first thing to do is : purify science by distillating it haha , by rejecting the unscientific materialist belief assumptions in science that have been dominating science  for so long now :
Worse : those unscientific materialist belief assumptions or the materialist dogmatic belief system have been presented and sold to the people as ...science , ironically enough .

P.S.: All beliefs , either religious or secular , should be kept outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction , science whose realm is just the material side of reality , the immaterial side of reality is thus a matter of ...beliefs , not a matter of science , obviously :
Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in , as long as all beliefs are kept outside of science and outside of the jurisdiction of science as well, including materialism existentialism and all the rest of those beliefs and "isms " ...

No need to be rude.

Anyway, Grizelda is right, and actually agreeing with you in a way. If something is, as you say, outside of the realm of science, then it's pointless to try to have a scientific discussion about it. It is like trying to prove scientifically that John Updike's last novel was better than Alice Munroe's. It is like attempting to write a business proposal in haiku poetry (although that might be amusing).

But you can't have it both ways - You can't say that something is outside the realm of science but also inside the realm of science.

[cheryl j]

In other words, the conscious self is less a controller than an (apparently) integrated representative and spokesman for the underlying composite of processes.

The idea of consciousness as more of a spokesperson than an initiator is an interesting one, and seems more compatible with fMRI experiments that show activity in the brain before some one is aware of their decision to act. It also is compatible with confabulation in split brain patients, in which they make up stories to explain movements or choices made by the other half of the brain that is no longer sharing information.

There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.

[grizelda]

Are any beliefs for that matter material ?
Where are they then ? can you touch them, see them....capture them for us ...put them under the microscope , scanner ...can you measure them, observe them , test them , verify falsify them, reproduce them ... put them in the lab ...?
When you do , tell me then ...

You have been invited many times to tell us what you believe, but never did: Were they too material? You've blown off half your brain cells deriding scientists' materialist beliefs, now you say beliefs aren't material. Tell us your beliefs and I'll show you your materialism.

[dlorde]

There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.

That's quite reasonable if thoughts are the patterns of activation of neurons across the brain. Each pattern of activation will trigger the next (although the patterns are dynamic, so the transitions are continuous). The difficulty many people have is in grasping that thoughts are these patterns of neural activation flowing across/through the brain, they're not something separate that causes neural activity, and they're only 'caused by' neural activity in the loose sense that a wave is 'caused by' water; waves are a patterns of water movement, and thoughts are patterns of neural activity. 

Douglas Hofstadter discusses recursion and consciousness at length in his book 'I am a Strange Loop', where one of his themes is the use of feedback to generate complexity (e.g. video feedback, where the camera points at the screen showing its own output).

I see the emergence and interaction of patterns of neural activation in the brain as analogous to the emergence of interacting patterns in Conway's Game of Life, where the individual units are static, with binary states, but the emergent patterns of their composite activities have emergent structure and interaction (oscillators, spaceships, etc). As if to emphasize the potential of such emergent complexity, these GOL patterns can themselves be used to emulate the GOL itself and as a logic language to create construct universal Turing machines (programmable computers) and computer/constructors that can be programmed to replicate themselves.

If a system with such simple rules and limited degrees of freedom as GOL can generate multiple levels of emergent complexity, to the extent that it can generate replicators and emulate anything computable, it seems less surprising that a system with many more degrees of freedom and more complex rules can, given a suitable environment and couple of billion years of selection pressures,  evolve structures like mammalian brains.

[cheryl j]

A scientist named Marder isolated the entire pattern of the network of every single neuron in the lobster gut, and all of the neurotransmitters of every synapse. In theory that should tell you everything you need to predict what happens in a spiny lobster gut. The interesting thing is in her small system there are 20 million possible network combinations. There are 100,000 to 200,00 different ways to get the exact same behavior, which seems wildly redundant. In talking about the brain it is easy to lose sight of the huge numbers involved, the same way people forget about the vast amounts of time in evolution. More is sometimes different.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.

Welcome , even though we have enough materialist magicians here already haha
What , on earth , are you talking about ?
Materialism and existeialism are just philosophies , world views , beliefs ....they do not belong in science , as all beliefs for that matter do not , obviously , either the religious or the secular beliefs ...

P.S.: We are trying here to talk ...science , pure science : the first thing to do is : purify science by distillating it haha , by rejecting the unscientific materialist belief assumptions in science that have been dominating science  for so long now :
Worse : those unscientific materialist belief assumptions or the materialist dogmatic belief system have been presented and sold to the people as ...science , ironically enough .

P.S.: All beliefs , either religious or secular , should be kept outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction , science whose realm is just the material side of reality , the immaterial side of reality is thus a matter of ...beliefs , not a matter of science , obviously :
Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in , as long as all beliefs are kept outside of science and outside of the jurisdiction of science as well, including materialism existentialism and all the rest of those beliefs and "isms " ...

No need to be rude.

Anyway, Grizelda is right, and actually agreeing with you in a way. If something is, as you say, outside of the realm of science, then it's pointless to try to have a scientific discussion about it. It is like trying to prove scientifically that John Updike's last novel was better than Alice Munroe's. It is like attempting to write a business proposal in haiku poetry (although that might be amusing).

But you can't have it both ways - You can't say that something is outside the realm of science but also inside the realm of science.

I was not rude , i was just being sarcastic ironic in relation to that stupid statement of that member i responded to : can't you see the sifference ?

What , on earth , are you talking about again then ?
Please , do try to think before responding , appreciate indeed .
When then did i ever say that something that should be kept outside of science , and outside of the jurisdiction  of science as well , can be inside of science or inside of the jurisdiction of science ? = an unscientific illogic irrational  paradox i am  the one who has been accusing you , guys , of , ironically anough , and rightly so, simply because you are the ones who happen to confuse the materialist dogmatic belief ssystem in science , with science , together with all those  extensions of materialism in science , such as those  materialist magical 'emergence " and computational trick performances regarding consciousness, memory , human cognition , human language (I just did start a thread concerning the origins of the human language by the way ) ...
So, you are , obviously the ones , who have been not only introducing and invloving the materialist belief in science as science , but you also do confuse the materialist belief in science with the jurisdiction of science , the latter when all materialists for that matter think they have been debunking all non-materialist beliefs through science and through the jurisdiction of science , while science's realm and jurisdiction are just exclusively ...material .

P.S.: I think that beliefs or belief assumptions cannot be kept outside of science in fact , that's a human unavoidable thing : proof ? = materialism in science , the latter that will be just replaced by yet another false naturalist  non -reductionist conception of nature in science, as Nagel said in that book of his = the human will to believe is inexhaustible indeed 

[alancalverd]

DQ: you clearly didn't read or understand what I wrote, so I'll quote it again

The honest scientific answer to many questions is "I don't know - yet." Compare that with the dishonest religious answers "You can't possibly know" or "It was all done by a man with a beard in the sky, who you can't see but I know exists, for reasons that only he can comprehend. But because I know he exists, I have authority over your behaviour" and you will see why I have a deep disdain for mysticism, faith, and all that crap. 

If you had understood it, you wouldn't have wasted your time typing out a load of mysticism in response.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

A scientist named Marder isolated the entire pattern of the network of every single neuron in the lobster gut, and all of the neurotransmitters of every synapse. In theory that should tell you everything you need to predict what happens in a spiny lobster gut. The interesting thing is in her small system there are 20 million possible network combinations. There are 100,000 to 200,00 different ways to get the exact same behavior, which seems wildly redundant. In talking about the brain it is easy to lose sight of the huge numbers involved, the same way people forget about the vast amounts of time in evolution. More is sometimes different.

The whole is not the sum of its parts , silly :

This is yet another silly unscientific kind of mechanistic reductionism in science in relation to life or brain processes at least , in the sense that one can try to reverse -engineer the brain or life , in order to understand and explain how they might work : that mechanistic reductionist approach might and does work , sometimes , regarding machines , but not regarding living organisms that are , obviously, no machines ,as Sheldrake said in his "Science Set Free ..." book :

Living organisms that do inherently intrinsically possess self-organizing , self-replicating , self-sustaining ,self-maintaining ....flexible and adaptative creative qualities , no human- made machine ever can be able to match, not even remotely close thus , no matter how sophisticated or advanced it might ever be .

Have you ever seen any human-made machine for that matter that's capable of growing from its smallest and fundamental parts or cells genes , that's capable of replicating , reproducing itself , that's capable of flexibility, creativity , adaptation , evolution ....?  Come on .

Imagine trying to reverse -engineer a computer or a tv set , by dismanteling it all the way to its fundamental "particles " or components : you might learn how the computer or tv set is arranged , what is it made of ....but, you cannot possibly know that way alone how the computer or tv set might function or how they  really function as a whole .
Reducing everything to their parts is no scientific way to approach life , the brain , simply because you have wholes inside of  wholes inside of  wholes inside of  wholes ...all the way down to neurons cells , molecules , atoms , all the way to the sub-atoms "particules " ...that work all as one ...

Even mapping our whole human genome is no guarantee that we will understand how man  or life do  function fully , how man life do evolve fully , how man life do behave fully ...

You have whole living organisms that have whole organs inside of them , the latter have other wholes inside of them such as molecules composed of specific arragements of atoms , then you have atoms composed of a nucleus each and electrons "dancing " around it , the atomic nucleus is composed of arrrangements of protons and neutrons ,the latter are composed of hundred of quarks ...= wholes inside of wholes inside of wholes inside of wholes ....that do work together as a whole = the living organism as a whole that cannot be reduced to its parts = the whole is not the sum of its parts ...

Life or living organisms are a bit like the metaphoric mythical Pandora's box : many boxes inside of many boxes inside of many boxes ....
Isolating the specific boxes and therefore trying to explain the whole Pandora's box is a false assumption that explains nothing in fact , just some of Pandora"s  box parts , partly :
simply because the parts behave differently and become almost entirely different from their original components qua degree of difference , not qua kind or genre of difference though, when they interact with other parts (At the physical material biological levels at least : emergent property theory ) , not to mention that those parts all do have immaterial sides to them as well, science can , per definition and nature , not approach as such ......immaterial sides such as consciousness, such as memory , such as the immaterial side of life istelf, such as the immaterial side of evolution ................= that complicates the whole Pandora's box of life exponentially , whose extremely complex and limitless variables no advanced computer ever can cover ...as a whole, not even remotely close thus ....= an understatement .

[cheryl j]

The whole is not the sum of its parts , silly :

yeah, that's the point.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

DQ: you clearly didn't read or understand what I wrote, so I'll quote it again

The honest scientific answer to many questions is "I don't know - yet." Compare that with the dishonest religious answers "You can't possibly know" or "It was all done by a man with a beard in the sky, who you can't see but I know exists, for reasons that only he can comprehend. But because I know he exists, I have authority over your behaviour" and you will see why I have a deep disdain for mysticism, faith, and all that crap. 

If you had understood it, you wouldn't have wasted your time typing out a load of mysticism in response.

You're the one who ,obviously , did not read or understand what i was saying so clearly :
Religion do not tell us everything there is to know = not even remotely close thus , logically and obviously :
That's 1 of the reasons , i guess, why God blessed us with minds hearts and souls , in order to make that endless dynamic restless journey-search for the "truth ", on earth , both via science reason logic ....and via personally individually and collectively socially spiritual quest , both on the material and immaterial reality grounds .

Religion does not tell us anything for that matter about cells, DNA , atoms , black holes or "white holes " haha out there , we have to find out about all that and much more via science mainly , the latter whose realm and jurisdiction are exculsively material , while the immaterial and spiritual moral ethical teleological side of reality are a matter of beliefs , each and every one of us should decide for himself / herself , in total freedom and safety security, not via coercion ...or via any kindda authority ...

"I do not know , i wanna know, how can i know ?  " are   core belief assumptions and facts as well at the heart of any religion for that matter as a result , obviously : religion just gives us some essential or fundamental hints or general threads paradigms to start our own journey from , a bit like true science whenever  it is guided by true or valid conceptions of nature , not when science  is guided by that false materialist conception of nature and therefore by its false materialist meta-paradigm....

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The whole is not the sum of its parts , silly :

yeah, that's the point.

Ensemble of neurons ' behaviour is mostly, if not completely ,unlike the behaviour of each of its individual isolated neurons and the latter's individual multiple sequences , synapses , interactions ....
You can isolate any single neuron or enesemble of neurons you like , map their sequences, synapses ... and behaviour , but you can never be able to predict  that way alone  , let alone know , how those single neurons or ensemble of neurons would behave in their real collective environment , not even via the emergent property ...

You can map the whole human genome , but you can never know that way  alone  , how the whole human genome functions  as a whole in its own natural environment  : you cannot just deduce the latter  from the former  , no way .

That would be  a bit  like studying some of your own specific personal behaviours in relation to just some limited people and events in society or by putting you alone in isolation , Cheryl, and then pretending to be able to deduce from that all your potential present past and future behaviours = ludicrous , let alone that it is "scientific" .

You cannot explain life , let alone its evolution emergence or origins , just via isolating neurons , genes, atoms , molecules ....as you cannot explain human societies just by isolating and trying to explain the behaviours of its isolated individuals .....or the world as a whole just by isolating its countries continents .....let alone via just physics and chemistry .
As you cannot explain the whole functioning of a car just by isolating  and studying  its fundamental components , let alone its atoms , ....

Can neurons explain politics , society , culture , creativity , consciousness, human language , memory , music , art , literature, economics  ...sex ...?

Incredibly unbelievably tragic -hilariously enough , that's exactly what physicists materialist think they can do by "developing creating inventing ,making -up , ...a potential eventual mathematical theory of everything " , that would ,obviously , explain nothing .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

In other words, the conscious self is less a controller than an (apparently) integrated representative and spokesman for the underlying composite of processes.

The idea of consciousness as more of a spokesperson than an initiator is an interesting one, and seems more compatible with fMRI experiments that show activity in the brain before some one is aware of their decision to act. It also is compatible with confabulation in split brain patients, in which they make up stories to explain movements or choices made by the other half of the brain that is no longer sharing information.

There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.

Just tell me how do you deduce "thiought processing " , behaviour , "decision -making " ...from the neurochemical activity of the brain , or how the physical brain allegedly generates immaterial thought , magically ...?

Is the eventual correlation or interaction between brain and consciousness = causation ? Even the alleged causation is no explanation

Just try to 'compare " what you were saying with the tv set and its "created " images then haha