Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[JohnA]

.

Albert Einstein make great contributions to science using thought experiments. In fact, he was so confident in his theories before they had been experimentally proven that he said, "If God did not create the universe in this way then God is an idiot".

This does not sound like something that Einstein would say, can you tell me when he said it?

It's DI's ignorance of the historicity of Einstein as I pointed out before.

[keithprosser3]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels. Personally I am happy to go along with the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain AND NOTHING ELSE BUT A WORKING BRAIN. In fact I use that as my starting point or 'working hypothesis' whenever I think about consciousness. But 'consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain AND NOTHING ELSE BUT A WORKING BRAIN' is a hypothesis, not a proven fact as far as I can see.

All detractors can do is repeat that "you don't know exactly how neurons produce consciousness". That is true.

Not only is it true, that is the whole point - or rather lack thereof. The 'brain only' hypothesis is a sensible starting point, not a deep insight. But at least it is a suggestion - I haven't seen any positive statement about how conscious might actually work from anybody on DCR, beyond an appeal to magic - sorry - emergence!

If someone did say anything they think is a great insight, please direct me to it.

[Divine Insight]

So? Where did I ever say that ALL thought experiments must be true?

I rest my case.

Am glad you confirmed that it is just that: rubbish = thought experiments.
(btw, trying to show your historicity knowledge after exposing your ignorance is just affirming your historicity ignorance)

NEXT.

[Your ignorance of science shined. We have not solved it all, I admit, but to offer antiquity, thought experiments based on Aristotelian crap, to solve the remaining unanswered questions is an insult to current science. Current scientists are standing on the heads of giants in science, not religion/ignorance/philosophy/politics].

If that was your case, then you aren't even paying attention at all.

Also why do you keep accusing me of being ignorant of science? Where and when did I ever state that I can show scientifically any particular conclusion?

I haven't. So I don't claim to have any scientific conclusions. If I did I would be rushing off to collect my Nobel prize. I am totally aware of what is required to validate a scientific conclusion.

So you are creating totally unrelated strawman arguments because of your own inability to even carry on a meaningful conversation.

Moreover, can you prove your assertions scientifically?

No you cannot. Because if you could, you too would be rushing off to grab your Nobel prize which you clearly aren't doing.

So you're the one who is full of hot air.

You have nothing but speculation just like me. Precisely like me. So go look at yourself in the mirror right now and say to yourself, "I'm precisely the ignorant person that I have been accusing that very nice gentleman on the internet of being."

And then get over it.

[instantc]

So? Where did I ever say that ALL thought experiments must be true?

I rest my case.

Am glad you confirmed that it is just that: rubbish = thought experiments.
(btw, trying to show your historicity knowledge after exposing your ignorance is just affirming your historicity ignorance)

NEXT.

[Your ignorance of science shined. We have not solved it all, I admit, but to offer antiquity, thought experiments based on Aristotelian crap, to solve the remaining unanswered questions is an insult to current science. Current scientists are standing on the heads of giants in science, not religion/ignorance/philosophy/politics].

If that was your case, then you aren't even paying attention at all.

Also why do you keep accusing me of being ignorant of science? Where and when did I ever state that I can show scientifically any particular conclusion?

I haven't. So I don't claim to have any scientific conclusions. If I did I would be rushing off to collect my Nobel prize. I am totally aware of what is required to validate a scientific conclusion.

So you are creating totally unrelated strawman arguments because of your own inability to even carry on a meaningful conversation.

Moreover, can you prove your assertions scientifically?

No you cannot. Because if you could, you too would be rushing off to grab your Nobel prize which you clearly aren't doing.

So you're the one who is full of hot air.

You have nothing but speculation just like me. Precisely like me. So go look at yourself in the mirror right now and say to yourself, "I'm precisely the ignorant person that I have been accusing that very nice gentleman on the internet of being."

And then get over it.

This user has been here before and got banned quite quickly. His accusations don't usually stand to much reason. He seems to be here mainly to provoke, and he has got bunch of warnings already, don't bother yourself.

[Divine Insight]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels. Personally I am happy to go along with the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain AND NOTHING ELSE BUT A WORKING BRAIN. In fact I use that as my starting point or 'working hypothesis' whenever I think about consciousness. But 'consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain AND NOTHING ELSE BUT A WORKING BRAIN' is a hypothesis, not a proven fact as far as I can see.

There is a huge problem with this analogy, and with the whole theory of consciousness being an 'emergent property'.

But before we even consider this we must first ask what we mean by consciousness? And this is an extremely important question:

Is your computer conscious? There is certainly electromagnetic activity going on when it is processing information. You could even do an MRI on the computer and notice that when it's running complex software that was designed to recognize and respond to various things that different areas of the computer memory and processing chips become active under different situations.

But is the computer actually experiencing any of this?

So if you merely view processing activity as "consciousness" then you'd have to conclude scientifically that a computer is 'conscious'. But not one believes that a computer is actually having an experience.

So the very term "consciousness" may be misleading. Maybe a far more revealing term is "experience". Is something having an "experience". That is the fundamental question we're really interested in. And if something is having an experience, then exactly what it is that is having an experience?

~~~~~

Now let's go back to the idea of emergent properties. You talk about a car, with an engine, transmission, gearbox, etc. But how does that make for an analogy of having an experience? Does the car have an experience? I don't think too many people believe that it does. Although many people do fall in love with their cars and even talk to them, but that's another issue altogether.

So let's talk about "emergent properties". What properties have emerged in a car? Well, let's think about this scientifically.

First let's ask, "What properties do atoms and subatomic particle actually have that we are aware of?"

Well, insofar as we know they are simply phenomenon that obey and react to the forces of nature in predicable ways.

Ok, now let's look at a car. What properties does a car have? Well, it is simply a collection of atoms that obey and react to the forces of nature in predicable ways.

Now let's ask. Is there any emergent property here? The answer is no, there isn't it. A car isn't doing anything that atoms don't already do. It's simply obeying the laws of nature and reacting to the forces of nature in predicable ways.

There is no 'emergent property'. Nothing had fundamentally changed. It's still just matter following the laws of and forces of nature. Nothing new has emerged.

So it's a very bad analogy. It also suggests that this is an example of an emergent property which is also false. It's not an example of and emergent property because no new properties have emerged. A car is just atoms doing what atoms have always done. They are just obeying the natural forces of nature.

So this does not constitute and example of an emergent property. That is a false claim that is being made all the time. There is no emergent properties in this scenario.

So this NOT a valid example of emergent properties.

~~~~~

Now for the sake of brevity let's move on to the human brain. Now we have an extremely complex network of physical neural activity. BUT, we have already recognized with our computers that this does not constitute an experience. All it constitutes is electromagnetic activity. Which is what atoms and electrons always do. Nothing new there. No emergent properties there. Just atoms and subatomic particles doing what they always do, following the laws of physics and the forces of nature. Nothing new has emerged. And nothing new can be seen to emerge in an MRI scan.

But what is new? What new property is so miraculous and magical?

The phenomenon of having an experience!

Now these large collections of atoms are actually doing something that we believe atoms cannot do. They are having an experience (or at least something is having an experience).

Suddenly we see a truly new "property" emerge. And this is the FIRST example of a truly new and unique property that atoms did not previously possess insofar as we are aware.

Remember the car was never truly an 'emergent property'. The car was just doing what atoms do. It was just blindly obeying the forces of nature. No new abilities had emerged.

But now in the human brain we have are FIRST example of a truly new and different property (ability) emerging. We now have the ability to have and experience. Something is having an experience.

What is it that is having an experience? It can't be the atoms (if we believe that atoms can't innately have an experience). And that means that it can't be the physical brain, because the physical brain is made entirely of atoms.

Well, that's not exactly true. The physical brain is also a vast network of highly organized electromagnetic fields as well as all the fields associated with whatever other scientific forces and quantum fields might be involved.

So if it's not the atoms that is having an experience, then what is having an experience?

Well, if we say that it's the electromagnetic fields (or any other quantum fields associated with this process) that is actually having an experience, then what are we fundamentally saying? That the energetic fields of nature are capable of having an experience?

This is scientific evidence for the fundamental philosophy of mysticism. How so?

Well, it's the philosophy of mysticism (at least in some forms of it) that reality is actually a being that is this energy that manifests itself in physical form. It is this mysterious energy that it "having an experience". It has to be. What else could be having an experience? There's nothing else left.

And so the mystics conclude that it must be that energy itself that is having an experience and so they say, "Tat Tvam Asi", which simply means we are that.

We are the mysterious energy of this universe experiencing itself. We are the quantum field having an experience. And keep in mind that electromagnetism is indeed a quantum field. Electrons are quantum denizens.

And so that's the answer. The quantum field of energy must be the source and the thing that is having an experience. It's a mystery how this can work (thus the reason why this enlightenment is called mysticism). But it's the only conclusion that can be had.

Experience cannot "emerge" from stuff that is incapable of having an experience in the first place. Therefore we are forced to recognize that if we are having an experience that ability had to be innate to the stuff we are made of.

Because, in truth, we have no evidence of any "emergent properties". That's a false notion to begin with. There is no need to invent such a silly abstract idea. All that is required to understand reality is to realize that we are it.

All detractors can do is repeat that "you don't know exactly how neurons produce consciousness". That is true.

Not only is it true, that is the whole point - or rather lack thereof. The 'brain only' hypothesis is a sensible starting point, not a deep insight. But at least it is a suggestion - I haven't seen any positive statement about how conscious might actually work from anybody on DCR, beyond an appeal to magic - sorry - emergence!

If someone did say anything they think is a great insight, please direct me to it.

I don't see where the 'brain only' hypothesis is a sensible starting point. That would only be true if a person fully embraces reductionism. But reductionism could be a totally misguided view.

The brain doesn't exist in a vacuum. In fact, look at the overwhelming scientific evidence that we currently have that tells us that the brain is actually a very complex arrangement of quantum fields being guided by standing waves of energy we call 'atoms'.

If there is any conclusions we can draw from this scientific information it is that the brain is itself a manifestation of quantum fields of energy.

Therefore, if something is having an experience, it must be these quantum fields of energy. The ability to have an experience must be a property that is innate to this mysterious energy.

~~~~~~

Finally, look at how silly the reductionist approach truly is:

Let's say that we accept that there is nothing having an experience other than an 'emergent configuration'. So we believe we have "solved" the problem of conscious awareness by proclaiming that a configuration is "having an experience".

Does this really make any sense?

Moreover, isn't it basically ignoring the fact that this configuration is indeed a configuration of quantum fields of energy?

And where did they come from? What are they? Why do they exist in the first place?

The the scientific approach is to try to reduce everything to totally separate and unrelated phenomenon. It's glorified reductionism. But it ultimate doesn't answer any of the deeper questions. So a configuration is having an experience?

Does that truly make any sense?

I would think it makes more sense to say that the thing that is becoming manifest in a particular configuration is what is having the experience of this configuration.

But this approach requires a holistic approach. Not a reductionistic approach.

And the holistic approach is the approach used by the mystics. They recognize that it is the fields of energy that are undergoing an manifestation (or incarnation if you like) into patterns that can be experienced by the underlying entity that is this field of mysterious energy.

This field of mysterious energy is then label 'God' (for lack of a better term), and we are recognized as fundamentally being this underlying entity that is having many experiences.

Every individual mind is God having an experience.

Whatever you do unto the least of your brethern you do unto me.

Why? Because we are all God. We are the essence of reality which is indeed the fields of energy, and we are not the temporary patterns that this energy becomes manifest as. We simply experience those patterns. We are the energy that is having an experience.

Otherwise we'd have to believe that the patterns themselves are actually having an experience. But what sense does it make to say that a pattern can have an experience?

We are logically forced to accept the truth of mysticism. Once we have removed everything that cannot be true, then whatever is left must be the truth. And mysticism is the only hypothesis left standing after the dust settles.

So it must be the truth.

[Divine Insight]

This user has been here before and got banned quite quickly. His accusations don't usually stand to much reason. He seems to be here mainly to provoke, and he has got bunch of warnings already, don't bother yourself.

Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware of this.

[keithprosser3]

DI, I struggle to find definite statement in your posts. Almost everything ends in a question which you pose without providing any answers. Are we supposed to be so impressed with your stuff we will go away and ponder its profundity? if so, I think you are being a tad hopeful. You would seem wiser - to me a least - if you answered rather than asked so many questions. But let me ask you one. what is the role of neurons in consciousness? As a reductionist, I am at least allowed to seek an answer to that question. I think you find such things beneath your dignity!

[Divine Insight]

But let me ask you one. what is the role of neurons in consciousness? As a reductionist, I am at least allowed to seek an answer to that question.

What do you mean by 'consciousness'?

You accuse me of asking questions yet here you are asking me a question concerning an ill-defined term.

I can't answer your question for you until you define precisely what you mean by the term consciousness. Neurons may or may not play a role in consciousness, depending on what you mean by that term.

Do electrons and logic gates play a role in computer processing? Sure, no question about it.

Do electrons and neurons play a role in the processing of information in a biological brain? Sure, no question about it.

Now my question to you, "Is a computer "conscious"?

If not, then clearly neurons don't play anymore role in consciousness than logic gates do in computer. Neurons are really nothing other than a biological logic gate.

So do logic gates produce consciousness? If not, then why would you assume that neurons produce consciousness?

This analogy seems pretty straightforward to me.

If define "consciousness" as the actual ability to have an experience then I can't say what role neuron play in consciousness. All I can say is that whatever it is that is having an experience is most likely experiencing the activity of neurons.

But if this experience itself is what we are calling "consciousness" then the neurons may not play any role in consciousness itself. They may simply play a role in what consciousness is experiencing.

So I can't state with any degree of certainty precisely what role neurons might play in conscious experience.

Can you?

If so, please describe this role in detail.

I would love to understand the role neurons play in terms of creating an ability for something to have an experience. And how does this differ from logic gates in a computer?

Thank you.

[scourge99]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels.

Analogies are useless unless you explain what each item is analogous to. That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail. They can't explain the analogy. Its just superficial but falls apart under scrutiny.

Personally I am happy to go along with the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain AND NOTHING ELSE BUT A WORKING BRAIN. In fact I use that as my starting point or 'working hypothesis' whenever I think about consciousness. But 'consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain AND NOTHING ELSE BUT A WORKING BRAIN' is a hypothesis, not a proven fact as far as I can see.

We can all be hyperskeptical about anything. For example, we can say evolution isn't a proven fact. Or that atomic theory isn't a proven fact.

All detractors can do is repeat that "you don't know exactly how neurons produce consciousness". That is true.

Not only is it true, that is the whole point - or rather lack thereof. The 'brain only' hypothesis is a sensible starting point, not a deep insight. But at least it is a suggestion - I haven't seen any positive statement about how conscious might actually work from anybody on DCR, beyond an appeal to magic - sorry - emergence!

That's because we don't have an exact answer. Its not magic. And the evidence has severely limited what the possibilities can be.

Notice that detractors don't offer any evidence or experiment in support of what they believe. They're just like young earth creationists. They don't actually have any reasonable evidence or arguments. All they do is try to poke holes in the theory they don't personally like. But they don't even have a plausible alternative. It's their dirty little secret.

And posters like DI will make grandiose claims that "my spiritual beliefs are fully compatible with the evidence" but will fail to actually explain how or they'll propose absurd and fantastical claims that they can't support with evidence or experiment.

If someone did say anything they think is a great insight, please direct me to it.

I explained how multiple lines of converging evidence limits the possible explanations for what consciousness can be.

[keithprosser3]

Indeed you did. I think Goat made the same point as well, which I think I can sum up as asserting consciousness is almost certainly tied in with the brain in some unspecified way.

The problem of consciousness is half solved solved already. We have the where, now we just need the how.