On the Topic of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

Maybe we should break this out.....

This topic is an offshoot from another thread which was on another topic altogether.

This thread is "On the Topic of Consciousness"

I wouldn't pass judgements. My biggest question is why you have a brain type that is willing to jump into the unknown with some assurance, while I seem to have a brain type that doesn't. If I don't know, I leave it at not knowing.

I don't think it comes down to just the brain alone. I think there are many other factors involved. Clearly even from a secular point of view it is recognize that the brain "evolves" as we grow as individuals based much on how we experience life, etc.

For example the very concept of the "unknown" may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. I mean, sure we could get out a dictionary and look up the term, but that really wouldn't help much because what you believe you know and what I believe I know are going to clearly be two different things. Especially considering my last sentence of the above paragraph. Our knowledge and beliefs evolve in our own brains based upon our own experiences, which clearly are not going to be the same experiences.

Consciousness: I don't know of any scientist that makes his or her living studying it who declares they know what it is.

This is true, but there may be quite a few scientists who feel like Daniel Dennett. Even though he is just a philosopher.

[youtube][/youtube]

I don't disagree with much of what Dennett says about how the brain functions. I don't disagree at all. But he doesn't touch on the real issues as far as I'm concerned. Near the very end of the above video he state a kind of Deepity of his own, "It's not that the Emperor has no clothes, but rather the clothes have no Emperor". The idea intended to imply that we are attempting to push too much onto consciousness that doesn't need to be there.

But for me none of this is satisfying.

I don't disagree with the fact that the brain is indeed a functional portal for the experiences that we have in this incarnated life. Therefore everything he observes and states about how the brain functions and how it "creates" much of our experience, is not in question for me.

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

I've watched several of his lectures, and thus far I haven't been convinced of his conclusions.

To say it is supernatural vs natural seems a leap.

This is statement here goes back to what I had mentioned above, concerning how you and I may very well think differently due to our different experiences in life.

You speak of the term "supernatural" as though that's a meaningful term.

I have been a scientist my entire life. Isaac Newton, and certain Greek philosophies like Zeno and others were my childhood heroes. Albert Einstein was my next hero as I grew in my scientific knowledge. And today I hold many scientists in high regard and marvel at what they were able to discover and prove.

Just the same, in all of this, I have come to the profound realization that to date we cannot say what the true nature of reality genuinely is. Therefore does it even make any sense to speak of the supernatural, when we can't even say with certain what is natural?

So I'm not prepared to accept the insinuation that I'm "jumping off to assume something supernatural". All I'm doing is recognizing that we can't say where the boundaries of the natural world truly are.

So I don't feel that I'm actually leaping anywhere. I'm just recognizing that we can't know that things need to be restricted to what we believe to be a finite physical existence.

In fact, if you go back to Dennett's very argument perhaps you can see an irony there. He is proclaiming that we can't know nearly what we think we can know, yet he seems to think that he can make very clear conclusions from this evidence that our brains clearly trick us.

That's almost an oxymoron right there. If what Dennett says is true, that our brains can fool us considerably, then perhaps the entirety of physical reality is itself an illusion that we are being tricked into believing. What we believe to be "brains" may not be physical entities at all.

My position is that we know consciousness is affected by natural events, and we know nature exists... seems a very small slide to presume consciousness is a natural phenomenon. But not knowing, sure, I can't say it's not - but I haven't been offered ONE example of the supernatural. So, I simply can't presume it's supernatural. I can't even think of why I'd consider the supernatural when the supernatural has such a horrible track record.

Well, our difference of views here may indeed amount to the extremely different way we view the "supernatural". For you to say that the supernatural has a bad track record implies that you associate the term with just about any guess that anyone might come up with (and especially specific claims that have indeed been shown to be false).

Whilst those do indeed qualify as "supernatural", they may not qualify as the type of "supernatural" that I consider. In fact, the type of "supernatural" that I consider is actually quite natural. It simply amounts to nature that we haven't yet discovered or understood, so it's only in that sense that it seems to be supernatural to us, when in reality it may be perfectly natural.

Given this, there only seems to be the natural. Just because we don't know how consciouness works doesn't means it's because of the gods, or the supernatural or something else, or even "natural vs. I don't know".

Nature exists.
Consciousness exists.

Given these two facts, why presume we can't explain consciousness eventually?

I already gave my answer to this earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for clarity.

Copy and pasted from earlier in this very same post:

But none of that even begins to address the issue of exactly what it is that is actually having this experience. In other words, if the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having an experience? The brain itself?

This becomes a problem for me, because insofar as we know, the brain itself is made of nothing more than matter and energy. If neither matter, nor energy are capable of having an experience, they why should a brain that is made of nothing more than matter and energy become an "Emperor" in its own right?

This is not an easy question, and I wouldn't hesitate to put this question to Dennett himself. In fact, I would like to hear his thoughts on this. Maybe he does address this sort of issue in one of his many lectures. If you find a lecture where he addressed this heart of the matter please share and I'll be glad to take a gander at it.

End of copy and paste

Yes, consciousness exists. And something is having an experience.

But what is it that is having an experience?

Energy and matter?

Electromagnetic fields?

Something else? Many people have suggested that the thing that is having an experience is some sort of "emergent property of complexity".

I suppose this is a valid philosophical idea, but it seems pretty strange to me that an abstract idea of an emergent property could have an experience.

So I'm still left with a deeper mystery.

To simply say that "consciousness" is a natural result of nature, still leaves me asking, "Who is the Emperor that is having this experience?"

If the clothes have no Emperor, then what is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness? The clothes?

It just seems strange to me that the clothes (i.e. matter and energy) should be able to have an experience.

So this simply leaves the door to the "supernatural" (i.e. nature that we simply don't yet understand) wide open.

I'm not saying that the secular view is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying that the purely secular view seems every bit as strange to me as the supernatural view.

In other words, that view doesn't "hit the spot" as being an obvious conclusion to accept either.

I'm not going to automatically accept Dennetts "Deepity" that "The clothes have no Emperor" as being the profound answer to this question. That's just as absurd as any other Deepity, IMHO.

So this is where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that the supernatural necessarily has to exist. But I am claiming that, insofar as I can see, it's on precisely equal footing with any other conclusions at this point.

Seeing that they are on the same footing, I don't mind using intuition and gut feelings to consider one over the other. So with that in mind, I confess that I lean toward the mystical view. But clearly I could be wrong.

[JohnA]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

[instantc]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

[JohnA]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

[instantc]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

Correct, good job!

[JohnA]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

Correct, good job!

Yet you argue that thought experiment outweighs scientific experiment (observation) here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 593#594593

Can you please explain this dichotomy you find yourself in.

[instantc]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

Correct, good job!

Yet you argue that thought experiment outweighs scientific experiment (observation) here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 593#594593

Can you please explain this dichotomy you find yourself in.

You don't make any sense to me. Yes, a thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in this context. No, I haven't argued that science is faith based. Stop throwing random accusations around and try making a coherent argument.

[JohnA]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

Correct, good job!

Yet you argue that thought experiment outweighs scientific experiment (observation) here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 593#594593

Can you please explain this dichotomy you find yourself in.

You don't make any sense to me. Yes, a thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in this context. No, I haven't argued that science is faith based. Stop throwing random accusations around and try making a coherent argument.

At this stage your dichotomy is lingering.

So you are arguing that thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in "this" context!
And your "this" context seem to refer to a blanket "All" context, due to your comment:

It seems your argument from authority (It's the physical experiment that has an inductive nature and can never be 100% reliable, as David Hume) is the context you use to denote that "many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else". And you go further to say that user Goat's position is one of faith as he wrote that Aristotelian gravity theory (thought experiment) MIGHT be flawed and it wasn't until they had physical confirmation via an actual experiment that we showed that it WAS flawed.

Once again, you are running from criticism by attempting to redefine the content of your comment so vaguely that nobody can question any of your assertions.

It seems quite clear that you are arguing that thought experiment is superior to physical experiment in ALL context since you claim that science is based on faith.

Can you now clarify this?

Thank you.

[instantc]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

Correct, good job!

Yet you argue that thought experiment outweighs scientific experiment (observation) here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 593#594593

Can you please explain this dichotomy you find yourself in.

You don't make any sense to me. Yes, a thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in this context. No, I haven't argued that science is faith based. Stop throwing random accusations around and try making a coherent argument.

At this stage your dichotomy is lingering.

So you are arguing that thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in "this" context!
And your "this" context seem to refer to a blanket "All" context, due to your comment:

It seems your argument from authority (It's the physical experiment that has an inductive nature and can never be 100% reliable, as David Hume) is the context you use to denote that "many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else". And you go further to say that user Goat's position is one of faith as he wrote that Aristotelian gravity theory (thought experiment) MIGHT be flawed and it wasn't until they had physical confirmation via an actual experiment that we showed that it WAS flawed.

Once again, you are running from criticism by attempting to redefine the content of your comment so vaguely that nobody can question any of your assertions.

It seems quite clear that you are arguing that thought experiment is superior to physical experiment in ALL context since you claim that science is based on faith.

Can you now clarify this?

Thank you.

The thought experiment shows that there is a logical contradiction in Aristotelian gravity theory, which means that it cannot possibly be valid.

A scientific experiment shows that at the time of the experiment, Aristotelian gravity theory did not hold. However, it cannot show for certainty that Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't hold tomorrow.

I think both of these ways reasonably lead to the same conclusion. But, the thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty. Thus, Goat's opinion that scientific experiment would be superior to the thought experiment in this context, is faith based, since in reality it is the other way around.

[JohnA]

So many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else, and your stance here is a prime example of this faith.

Are you arguing that science is based on faith?

If that's what I was arguing, then that's what I would have said. Read a couple more times and try again.

So, you are NOT arguing that science is based on faith?

Correct, good job!

Yet you argue that thought experiment outweighs scientific experiment (observation) here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 593#594593

Can you please explain this dichotomy you find yourself in.

You don't make any sense to me. Yes, a thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in this context. No, I haven't argued that science is faith based. Stop throwing random accusations around and try making a coherent argument.

At this stage your dichotomy is lingering.

So you are arguing that thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in "this" context!
And your "this" context seem to refer to a blanket "All" context, due to your comment:

It seems your argument from authority (It's the physical experiment that has an inductive nature and can never be 100% reliable, as David Hume) is the context you use to denote that "many people seem to have unjustified faith in the scientific method being superior over everything else". And you go further to say that user Goat's position is one of faith as he wrote that Aristotelian gravity theory (thought experiment) MIGHT be flawed and it wasn't until they had physical confirmation via an actual experiment that we showed that it WAS flawed.

Once again, you are running from criticism by attempting to redefine the content of your comment so vaguely that nobody can question any of your assertions.

It seems quite clear that you are arguing that thought experiment is superior to physical experiment in ALL context since you claim that science is based on faith.

Can you now clarify this?

Thank you.

The thought experiment shows that there is a logical contradiction in Aristotelian gravity theory, which means that it cannot possibly be valid.

A scientific experiment shows that at the time of the experiment, Aristotelian gravity theory did not hold. However, it cannot show for certainty that Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't hold tomorrow.

I think both of these ways reasonably lead to the same conclusion. But, the thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty. Thus, Goat's opinion that scientific experiment would be superior to the thought experiment in this context, is faith based, since in reality it is the other way around.

At this stage your dichotomy is lingering.

Let me understand your argument:

You are offering premises:

1) Thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty because it is logical. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise. People use to think that the earth is flat as it was logical at the time...people use to argue that heavier objects logically will fall faster...)
2) Scientific experiment is not superior, as it shows that at the time of the experiment. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise, completely ignoring falsification and the fact that today we know )

Therefore you are now arguing that scientific experiments is faith based, but thought experiment is not faith based.

You are once again contradicting yourself. Not only that, you are offering a weak argument.

Why it is so hard for you to admit that you are offering ignorance? Or just simply admit that you claim science is based on faith? You clearly believe that!

[Mithrae]

Welcome to the forum JohnA. Not sure why (in the two threads I've looked at) you're picking on InstantC but as a bystander I've gotta say that you're coming off 2nd best For example:

1) Thought experiment is superior, as it provides 100% certainty because it is logical. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise. People use to think that the earth is flat as it was logical at the time...people use to argue that heavier objects logically will fall faster...)

InstantC explicitly said "Yes, a thought experiment outweighs the scientific experiment in this context" because "there is a logical contradiction in Aristotelian gravity theory."

Could you explain your decision to ignore context?
Could you provide your reasons for believing that a flat earth or faster-falling objects are concluded on the basis of avoiding logical contradiction?

Failing that, it seems you've misrepresented InstantC's views and provided an obviously faulty counter-example

2) Scientific experiment is not superior, as it shows that at the time of the experiment. (And you offer no evidence for this claim/premise, completely ignoring falsification and the fact that today we know )

Therefore you are now arguing that scientific experiments is faith based, but thought experiment is not faith based.

Again, InstantC explicitly denied saying that scientific experiments are faith-based. What he said was that believing "the scientific method being superior over everything else" is unjustified faith.

In the 17th century scientific experiment showed that objects of different mass fall at the same speed in the 17th century. It didn't show that objects of different mass fall at the same speed in the 18th century. Now that we're in the 21st century we can confirm by experiment that objects of different mass still fall at the same speed. But we can't confirm by experimentation that they'll fall at the same speed in the 22nd century.

This is known as the problem of induction. So is inductive extrapolation from scientific observations (ie, our belief that Newtonian/Einstinian gravity will remain the same in the 22nd century) superior to deductive proof that Aristotelian gravity always leads to logical contradiction? Maybe it's not, maybe it is - but I'd have to agree with InstantC that such an assertion does seem very similar to faith.

(Though, admittedly without having looked at it too closely, I'm not yet certain that Galileo's thought experiment did actually demonstrate a necessary logical contradiction.)



Good to have another enthusiastic poster in our little community here. Just thought you might appreciate a third perspective on your early contributions