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.

[Divine Insight]

Consciousness is just a process of the mind (which is a function of the brain). We do not need to see it or test for its substance, we only have to observe it.

And who exactly is going to do the observing?

I think the problem here may very well be semantics. If you are defining "Consciousness" as brain activity, then it's no wonder you don't see it as being anything other than a process.

The problem with this definition of consciousness, is then how do you define what is conscious? Is your computer conscious? You can certainly observe the processes that go on in your computer. But is anyone 'home'? Is there anything there having an actual experience?

That is the real question.

This question cannot be answered by merely observing processes. It can only be answered subjectively, by the person who is experiencing conscious awareness.

The very nature of this experience is subjective and cannot be made objective.

This is the central issue that you are sweeping under the carpet.

It's like taking a picture with your digital camera. You do not see the process of recording or capturing the image, but we know the process.
Process:
Taking a picture, the shutter opens and each pixel on the image sensor records the brightness of the light that falls on it by accumulating an electrical charge. The charge from each pixel is measured and converted into a digital number when the shutter closes to end the exposure. You then see the picture on the camera screen because of the color and brightness of matching pixels on the screen that was set by a series of numbers that we used to reconstruct the image.

But you've just blown away your whole hypothesis right there. You've just described consciousness as being like a process of a digital camera taking a picture. Yet no one presumes that the digital camera itself is actually experience this visual image. Therefore no one believes that this process is like consciousness.

You would need to explain how the camera can actually have a visual experience.

Stating consciousness is a "thing" (material or immaterial) is as vitriolic as belief in magic beings that can exist outside existence.

But it is magic. Unlike a mere process, in conscious awareness something is actually having an experience. And that is the magic.

What exactly is it that is experiencing these processes?

In fact, by your reductionistic analysis we can break the brain down into a whole bunch of processes. So which one of these processes is actually having an experience?

Your very own camera analogy actually suggests that NONE of them should be having an experience. Because a camera doesn't visually experience the picture that it takes.

You haven't explained conscious awareness or experience at all. All you've done is state the obvious, there are indeed processes going on inside a brain. But that doesn't even remotely suggest that any of these processes should be having an experience. On the contrary, if this is all that they are then there should be no experience at all.

What is it that is having an experience?

When does a camera actually begin to have a visual experience?

That is the mystery. That is the magic.

[JohnA]

My point is that i don't care if we can imagine possibility because what we can imagine may or may not be actual possible. So any talk about "imagining a possibility" is pointless. So i don't care about imagining possibilities.

Surely we can imagine things that are not physically possible. My question was, can we imagine something that contradicts the laws of logic? Can you imagine a round square? Can you imagine a world where your kitchen table both exists and doesn't exist at the same time? I still don't know which side you are on here, since you gave a bunch of examples of how we can imagine something that merely contradicts the laws of physics, which is not the issue here. If you claim that we can conceive something that contradicts the laws of logic, please provide an example.

If I am just imagining the context then doesn't that kick the legs out from under ANY possibility argument? Because anytime you say "I can imagine X is possible!" I can just retort by saying "no, you are just conceiving the context in which you think X is possible."

I don't think so. Can you imagine an even integer greater than zero that is not a sum of two primes? I certainly can't, it seems just as inconceivable as a rock that is not a rock or something else that contradicts the laws of logic. That's why I suggested that perhaps you are not imagining the said integer, but just the context of what it would feel like to find one.

Does this undermine the conceivability argument for the mind? It don't see how. I am quite certain that we are able to actually imagine pain without any brain activity, for example, which would entail that it doesn't break any laws of logic.

I don't understand Noether's theorem. Its way over my pay grade as far as I can tell. I have a feeling the same goes for you.

We cannot personally verify each bit of information we use in our arguments. If a peer reviewed scientific article states that Noether's theorem can (1) be mathematically proven and (2) show that the law of conservation of energy holds with any given set of laws of physics, then I can use that information to make a plausible argument on a debate forum.

I would say you can't claim to know something if you don't actually understand it. You are just repeating some talking point you have about Noether's theorem when you don't know anything about it except superficially.

We were debating about whether purely logical arguments can give us any information about the real world. I pointed out that logic and mathematics can show that the law of conservation of energy is true without feeding in any data from the real world. Now, you say that this fact, which is backed up by the scientific consensus, has to be left out of the debate, since neither of us fully understands the mathematical theorems behind it.

Seems like you have now amended your position into 'Any purely logical arguments that are not above your paygrade cannot give us information about the real world'. Now, here I am happy to agree with you.

If you claim that we can conceive something that contradicts the laws of logic, please provide an example.

Your claim that thought experiments outweigh sceintific physical experiments.
Your claim that you are certain that we are able to actually imagine pain without any brain activity [snip .....that it doesn't break any laws of logic.]

The above claims from you contradicts basic logic. Your claims are illogical, unjustified, drivel. I explain why I say so below:

Noether's theorem

Assuming you are referring to Emmy Noether's theorem, her first theorem.

No mathematical theorem will be accepted by the sceintific community when it is not backed up by falsifiable experimental observation. Even theoretical physicists adhere to this, hence the "theoretical in their title".
E.g. Higgs Boson was predicted by theory (using mathematics) in 1964, and this theory still have not been fully accepted as they are upgrading the Large Hadron Collider to test (experiment / observe) it more before science accepts they found the Higgs boson particle to compliment the standard model. Discoveries are made in science is when someone i) finds something completely unexpected, or ii) conjures up some theory which makes specific predictions. Until these predictions are confirmed by experiments, they are just unsubstantiated musings. Science is still not confident that they found THE Higgs boson, or just A Higgs boson (1 of 5 that the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model predicts). Having only mathematics does not magically result in accepting the predicted observations, or facts it predicts.

So, please, do not sate that theorems (not yet tested by experimental observation) are equivalent or similar to scientific fact. That is just a musing, or drivel.
Also, do not sate that theorems (e.g. e=m.c.c that has already been accepted via experimental observations), only need logic and mathematics to show that the theorem is sceintific fact, when indeed it has already been shown that the math is just part of the law. That is circular.

On your lack of understanding of Emmy Noether's theorem:

The theorem describes a conservation law (scientific principle) UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. It is not a sceintific law itself, it just tells you how to account for a conservation law (under some assumptions).

Note, her theorem answers a question of "When I have an object moving through a given environment, what quantities are conserved?" We know the quantities is conserved (due to the physics laws of conservation), what quantities (energy, momentum, and angular momentum, etc.) will be conserved, in a given environment. Think of it as "accounting" debit.credit of the quantities.
Sciecne has already defined the conservation laws, so her theorem is just the mathematical formulation of some of the conservation laws operating in certain environments. Neother's theorem says [more specifically] "For every continuous symmetry that an environment has, there is a corresponding conserved quantity." It gives a simple "recipe" for calculating what these conserved quantities are. A huge caveat (as I said under certain conditions) is that the forces involved have to be conservative. This means that there can’t be any energy-dissipating forces (e.g. friction) involved. Friction is a force and found almost everywhere, so that is why this Emmy Noether's theorem is just math, it is not real. It helps with calculations, and that is about it.

Scientific laws (principles) are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolution. Scientific laws are not mathematical theorems, however these laws can have theorems to translate words into mathematical equations.
A sceintific laws summarise a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement, can be formulated mathematically, is strongly supported by empirical evidence - scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified) and is quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts.



Now, when you say

logic and mathematics can show that the law of conservation of energy is true without feeding in any data from the real world. Now, you say that this fact, which is backed up by the scientific consensus

Based on the explanation above, shows that you are WRONG. You do not understand science when you utter that you do not need scientific experiments (observations) to derive scientific facts/laws/theories.


This is the same as your previous example of the Aristotelian gravity thought experiment. (Aristotelian physics is not physics at all, it belongs to antiquity whereas the modern physical sciences belong to modernity. Aristotelian 'physics' is philosophy, not science).
You clearly have a lack of understanding of science, but that does not stop you from grabbing instances of "thought experiments", "mathematical theorems" to make general sweeping statements that science is based on faith, does not require physical experiments (as thoughts experiments will do) and that logic & mathematics can show that the sceintific law is true without feeding in any data from the real world.


I am asking you nicely, if you do not understand science, then learn it. Start with the basics. If it is too hard, then stay away from it. DO NOT make extraordinary claims about science using your ignorance of instances of antiquity and/or math (that you do not understand), if you do not understand science.

Mathematical Theorem's are fundamentally deductive, in contrast to scientific theories, which rely on empirical observations/tests.
The truth justification for a Theorem is its proof (mathematical proof).
The not false justification for a Scientific Theory is its body of facts/laws that was obtained via empirical evidence using falsification/verification/testability.
Philosophy can only ask questions and reflect on science and its findings. Its antiquity lingers.

These are different things. Please do not confuse mathematics with science, or science with philosophy.

[JohnA]

Consciousness is just a process of the mind (which is a function of the brain). We do not need to see it or test for its substance, we only have to observe it.

And who exactly is going to do the observing?

I think the problem here may very well be semantics. If you are defining "Consciousness" as brain activity, then it's no wonder you don't see it as being anything other than a process.

The problem with this definition of consciousness, is then how do you define what is conscious? Is your computer conscious? You can certainly observe the processes that go on in your computer. But is anyone 'home'? Is there anything there having an actual experience?

That is the real question.

This question cannot be answered by merely observing processes. It can only be answered subjectively, by the person who is experiencing conscious awareness.

The very nature of this experience is subjective and cannot be made objective.

This is the central issue that you are sweeping under the carpet.

It's like taking a picture with your digital camera. You do not see the process of recording or capturing the image, but we know the process.
Process:
Taking a picture, the shutter opens and each pixel on the image sensor records the brightness of the light that falls on it by accumulating an electrical charge. The charge from each pixel is measured and converted into a digital number when the shutter closes to end the exposure. You then see the picture on the camera screen because of the color and brightness of matching pixels on the screen that was set by a series of numbers that we used to reconstruct the image.

But you've just blown away your whole hypothesis right there. You've just described consciousness as being like a process of a digital camera taking a picture. Yet no one presumes that the digital camera itself is actually experience this visual image. Therefore no one believes that this process is like consciousness.

You would need to explain how the camera can actually have a visual experience.

Stating consciousness is a "thing" (material or immaterial) is as vitriolic as belief in magic beings that can exist outside existence.

But it is magic. Unlike a mere process, in conscious awareness something is actually having an experience. And that is the magic.

What exactly is it that is experiencing these processes?

In fact, by your reductionistic analysis we can break the brain down into a whole bunch of processes. So which one of these processes is actually having an experience?

Your very own camera analogy actually suggests that NONE of them should be having an experience. Because a camera doesn't visually experience the picture that it takes.

You haven't explained conscious awareness or experience at all. All you've done is state the obvious, there are indeed processes going on inside a brain. But that doesn't even remotely suggest that any of these processes should be having an experience. On the contrary, if this is all that they are then there should be no experience at all.

What is it that is having an experience?

When does a camera actually begin to have a visual experience?

That is the mystery. That is the magic.

You are taking my words and inserting your own definitions. That is called a straw man. It is a logical fallacy.

E.g. I said that consciousness is a process of the mind. You then took this and write it as if I said "Consciousness" is a brain activity and you proceed to beat your straw man.
You can look up the definition of consciousness yourself. Btw, my computer can not be conscious as it does not have a brain organ (with a functioning mind).

We can observe that others experiencing 'things'. We have even observed that certain animals are conscious and can feel pain / have empathy. Seems to me you have a lot of reading to do here. Suggest you start working on your logical fallacies and prevention of them, before you dig into neuroscience.

Yet no one presumes that the digital camera itself is actually experience this visual image. Therefore no one believes that this process is like consciousness.

I was describing the process of recording an image, I was not attempting to make a claim that my camera is experiencing the process; it is conscious. It is you that is making that assumption. I do not have to explain how a digital camera can actually have a visual experience since I never made that claim. Are you saying to me that your process of digestion (of food and / or knowledge) needs to be explained visually using a visual experience for you to digest/understand it? Oh well, that explains a lot then.


There is no magic in consciousness. There is no hard problem of consciousness that can not be explained by solving the smaller ones. We have not explained all of it, but there is no need to postulate magic. If you do that, then everything is up for grabs, including everything we know about science and the natural world.

I never made a claim of reduction. Are you making a claim of irreducible complexity? If so, then you are too late, it has been shown false long ago.

Take normal table salt as an example. Salt = sodium chloride (NaCl).
1) Elemental sodium, Na, react with the water and is explosive. Ionic sodium, Na+, however, is safe to eat in certain amounts. (Table salt is mostly NaCl, and in water it dissociates into Na+ and Cl-)
2) Chlorine (the element is a yellow-green gas, Cl) is a toxic gas that irritates the respiratory system.

Humans are mostly made of water. We can eat salt, I actually enjoy it. Is that Magic too (the sum of the parts are bigger than the whole = 1+2 is not 3)?

[instantc]

My point is that i don't care if we can imagine possibility because what we can imagine may or may not be actual possible. So any talk about "imagining a possibility" is pointless. So i don't care about imagining possibilities.

Surely we can imagine things that are not physically possible. My question was, can we imagine something that contradicts the laws of logic? Can you imagine a round square? Can you imagine a world where your kitchen table both exists and doesn't exist at the same time? I still don't know which side you are on here, since you gave a bunch of examples of how we can imagine something that merely contradicts the laws of physics, which is not the issue here. If you claim that we can conceive something that contradicts the laws of logic, please provide an example.

If I am just imagining the context then doesn't that kick the legs out from under ANY possibility argument? Because anytime you say "I can imagine X is possible!" I can just retort by saying "no, you are just conceiving the context in which you think X is possible."

I don't think so. Can you imagine an even integer greater than zero that is not a sum of two primes? I certainly can't, it seems just as inconceivable as a rock that is not a rock or something else that contradicts the laws of logic. That's why I suggested that perhaps you are not imagining the said integer, but just the context of what it would feel like to find one.

Does this undermine the conceivability argument for the mind? It don't see how. I am quite certain that we are able to actually imagine pain without any brain activity, for example, which would entail that it doesn't break any laws of logic.

I don't understand Noether's theorem. Its way over my pay grade as far as I can tell. I have a feeling the same goes for you.

We cannot personally verify each bit of information we use in our arguments. If a peer reviewed scientific article states that Noether's theorem can (1) be mathematically proven and (2) show that the law of conservation of energy holds with any given set of laws of physics, then I can use that information to make a plausible argument on a debate forum.

I would say you can't claim to know something if you don't actually understand it. You are just repeating some talking point you have about Noether's theorem when you don't know anything about it except superficially.

We were debating about whether purely logical arguments can give us any information about the real world. I pointed out that logic and mathematics can show that the law of conservation of energy is true without feeding in any data from the real world. Now, you say that this fact, which is backed up by the scientific consensus, has to be left out of the debate, since neither of us fully understands the mathematical theorems behind it.

Seems like you have now amended your position into 'Any purely logical arguments that are not above your paygrade cannot give us information about the real world'. Now, here I am happy to agree with you.

If you claim that we can conceive something that contradicts the laws of logic, please provide an example.

Your claim that thought experiments outweigh sceintific physical experiments.
Your claim that you are certain that we are able to actually imagine pain without any brain activity [snip .....that it doesn't break any laws of logic.]

The above claims from you contradicts basic logic. Your claims are illogical, unjustified, drivel. I explain why I say so below:

I see nothing else but an unsupported claim.

Here's what you seem to be doing. You pick a random quote of someone you disagree with, and then type 'you contradict yourself logically!!!'. Your ninth grade science teacher must be so proud of your brilliant debating strategy.

You remind me of the user Religionslayer, whose posts were quite similar to yours until they got him banned, might this be a coincidence?

On your lack of understanding of Emmy Noether's theorem:

The theorem describes a conservation law (scientific principle) UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. It is not a sceintific law itself, it just tells you how to account for a conservation law (under some assumptions).

Yes, as a consequence of Nother's theorem, the law of conservation of energy holds with any set of laws of physics that are invariant through time. That's the point I wanted to make, and in my view it counts as information about the real world.

Did you have anything to add to the conversation, other than the fact that everybody except you contradicts themselves logically?

[JohnA]

My point is that i don't care if we can imagine possibility because what we can imagine may or may not be actual possible. So any talk about "imagining a possibility" is pointless. So i don't care about imagining possibilities.

Surely we can imagine things that are not physically possible. My question was, can we imagine something that contradicts the laws of logic? Can you imagine a round square? Can you imagine a world where your kitchen table both exists and doesn't exist at the same time? I still don't know which side you are on here, since you gave a bunch of examples of how we can imagine something that merely contradicts the laws of physics, which is not the issue here. If you claim that we can conceive something that contradicts the laws of logic, please provide an example.

If I am just imagining the context then doesn't that kick the legs out from under ANY possibility argument? Because anytime you say "I can imagine X is possible!" I can just retort by saying "no, you are just conceiving the context in which you think X is possible."

I don't think so. Can you imagine an even integer greater than zero that is not a sum of two primes? I certainly can't, it seems just as inconceivable as a rock that is not a rock or something else that contradicts the laws of logic. That's why I suggested that perhaps you are not imagining the said integer, but just the context of what it would feel like to find one.

Does this undermine the conceivability argument for the mind? It don't see how. I am quite certain that we are able to actually imagine pain without any brain activity, for example, which would entail that it doesn't break any laws of logic.

I don't understand Noether's theorem. Its way over my pay grade as far as I can tell. I have a feeling the same goes for you.

We cannot personally verify each bit of information we use in our arguments. If a peer reviewed scientific article states that Noether's theorem can (1) be mathematically proven and (2) show that the law of conservation of energy holds with any given set of laws of physics, then I can use that information to make a plausible argument on a debate forum.

I would say you can't claim to know something if you don't actually understand it. You are just repeating some talking point you have about Noether's theorem when you don't know anything about it except superficially.

We were debating about whether purely logical arguments can give us any information about the real world. I pointed out that logic and mathematics can show that the law of conservation of energy is true without feeding in any data from the real world. Now, you say that this fact, which is backed up by the scientific consensus, has to be left out of the debate, since neither of us fully understands the mathematical theorems behind it.

Seems like you have now amended your position into 'Any purely logical arguments that are not above your paygrade cannot give us information about the real world'. Now, here I am happy to agree with you.

If you claim that we can conceive something that contradicts the laws of logic, please provide an example.

Your claim that thought experiments outweigh sceintific physical experiments.
Your claim that you are certain that we are able to actually imagine pain without any brain activity [snip .....that it doesn't break any laws of logic.]

The above claims from you contradicts basic logic. Your claims are illogical, unjustified, drivel. I explain why I say so below:

I see nothing else but an unsupported claim.

Here's what you are doing. You pick a random quote of someone you disagree with, and then type 'you contradict yourself logically!!!'. Your fifth grade science teacher must be so proud of your brilliant debating strategy.

You remind me of the user Religionslayer, whose posts were quite similar to yours until they got him banned, might this be a coincidence?

On your lack of understanding of Emmy Noether's theorem:

The theorem describes a conservation law (scientific principle) UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. It is not a sceintific law itself, it just tells you how to account for a conservation law (under some assumptions).

Yes, as a consequence of Nother's theorem, the law of conservation of energy holds with any set of laws of physics that are invariant through time. That's the point I wanted to make, and in my view it counts as information about the real world.

Did you have anything to add to the conversation, other than the fact that everybody except you contradicts themselves logically?

Am glad you acknowledged that you have just unsupported claims. Well done!

Saying I am picking quotes? You did not make these claims then. OK, my mistake then.
You never made these the Aristotelian gravity thought experiment claims.
You never said that "logic and mathematics can show that the law of conservation of energy is true without feeding in any data from the real world. Now, you say that this fact, which is backed up by the scientific consensus " referring to Emmy Noether's theorem, her first theorem.

Oh. Must be that I am mistaken then. I must have quoted the wrong user or wrong post. edit: I realised my mistake, you were talking about some Nother's theorem, not some Emmy Noether's theorem.


Oh no, you do not, as you (or someone else) claim again:

Yes, as a consequence of Nother's theorem, the law of conservation of energy holds with any set of laws of physics that are invariant through time.

I can see your mistake now. You are referring to Nother's theorem, when I was referring to Emmy Noether's theorem.

Are you saying that if we did not have the Nother's theorem (or as I thought Emmy Noether's theorem) we would not have the law of conservation of energy (to hold with any set of laws of physics that are invariant through time)? You agree then that Emmy Noether's theorem is not a scientific law, and was not conceived before we have Newtonian and Relativity? And you clearly reject the fact that the theorem does not cater for friction?
I see biased. I see you trying to be fair, but I see the bias. Accusing me, unfairly, ungrounded, evidence-less. You can't help it. You are human and this is how you learnt to think, what your education or lack of resulted in.

------------

I added many things to the conversation. It seems to me that you are the one here with a basic lack of understanding of science. I took time trying to explain this Theorem to you, but seems to me that you are not really a layman physicist as you claim. Or perhaps you are just stuck on the layman and can not get past it. You need to be a physicist first before you can be a "layman" physicist. I can understand your dilemma now: starting with conclusions and then trying to justify it. You conclude you are a physysist first, and then you justify (I call it blame) your ignorance on "layman". That is faulty reasoning instantc, antiquity to say the least.

Btw, I found your post to be arrogant and riddled in subtle insults. Am sure you did not do this intentionally, as this is normal when one is being shown so profoundly wrong in basic physics. Is this the loud mouth that has nothing to say, a promotion of circular self-promotion born in snide pejoratives which does not suite your cause? I spend time typing my response to your claims you hold that apparently logic excels/outstrips scientific observation/experiment. And this is what I get in return. You should turn around and say : "well thank you, you were bright enough to spot and appreciate the ignorance, since you took the time to address the logical fallacies". Instead, you are running from criticism, offering mere personal insults.
In matters of logic there needs to be a debate. Being open minded requires you to use the filter of reason. Incidentally, it is not uncommon for the scientific illiterate to deny the things that their filter of reason let through. But this ought to give you pause for some serious thought about the foundations of your belief.

Lastly, I responded quite some time ago to another quote of yours where you unsuccessfully argued that you presented that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 653#595653

I see you have not answered it. Am hoping you are pausing to examine your beliefs about science, or disbelief thereof.

The unwillingness to accept the outcome of logic is to me as fatally flawed as this is the very method of reasoning you claim to use, except, it seems, when it does no agree with your belief.

Good luck.

[keithprosser3]

Stating consciousness is a "thing" (material or immaterial) is as vitriolic as belief in magic beings that can exist outside existence.

I am 99% sure vitriolic is not the best word. But I most definitely did not say consciousness was a thing... what I wrote was "What we think of as our consciousness is like 'colour' - ie something that doesn't exist except as a perception."

To put the idea a slightly different way, consciousness is hard to explain because consciousness appears (or is perceived to be) one thing but is in fact something different, analogous to colour and wavelength. Rather in the way that brain process translate objective wavelengths into subjective colours, the same process when applied to itself translates an objective mechanistic process into subjective consciousness.

So as JohnA says, we don't need - or shouldn't try - to explain how consciousness appears to be works. We need to explain how a brain process can translate its own objective workings as so as to appear as subjective consciousness to itself.

I am suggesting that consciousness is mysterious because what we perceive as our consciousness does not exist except as how we perceive brain action as a result of that brain action being applied to itself. Consciousness (as we preceive it to be) may be impossible, but as that is only a perception then what actually exists can be something very possible.

[keithprosser3]

Stating consciousness is a "thing" (material or immaterial) is as vitriolic as belief in magic beings that can exist outside existence.

I am 99% sure vitriolic is not the best word. But I most definitely did not say consciousness was a thing... what I wrote was "What we think of as our consciousness is like 'colour' - ie something that doesn't exist except as a perception."

To put the idea a slightly different way, consciousness is hard to explain because consciousness appears (or is perceived to be) one thing but is in fact something different, analogous to colour and wavelength. Rather in the way that brain process translate objective wavelengths into subjective colors, the same process when applied to itself translates an objective mechanistic process into subjective consciousness.

So as JohnA says, we don't need - or shouldn't try - to explain how consciousness appears to be works. We need to explain how a brain process can translate its own objective workings as so as to appear as subjective consciousness to itself.

I am suggesting that consciousness is mysterios because what we perceive as our consciousness does not exist except as how we perceive brain action as a result of that brain action being applied to itself.

[JohnA]

Stating consciousness is a "thing" (material or immaterial) is as vitriolic as belief in magic beings that can exist outside existence.

I am 99% sure vitriolic is not the best word. But I most definitely did not say consciousness was a thing... what I wrote was "What we think of as our consciousness is like 'colour' - ie something that doesn't exist except as a perception."

To put the idea a slightly different way, consciousness is hard to explain because consciousness appears (or is perceived to be) one thing but is in fact something different, analogous to colour and wavelength. Rather in the way that brain process translate objective wavelengths into subjective colors, the same process when applied to itself translates an objective mechanistic process into subjective consciousness.

So as JohnA says, we don't need - or shouldn't try - to explain how consciousness appears to be works. We need to explain how a brain process can translate its own objective workings as so as to appear as subjective consciousness to itself.

I am suggesting that consciousness is mysterios because what we perceive as our consciousness does not exist except as how we perceive brain action as a result of that brain action being applied to itself.

I used the word "vitriolic" due to the people that think some magic deity (deist or personal) is the explanation for consciousness. Maybe I should have picked a better word. It is the anti-theist in me uttering those facts.

I know you never said it was a thing, but what else did you propose (given my lack of knowing your beliefs?). I actually think that consciousness is/are more than a perception. We test babies and they show conscious awareness at some 12-18 months. So it must be some perfection of themselves, what more??....

I find your colour/wavelengths plausible, but unsupported in science. All we need to do is put some more effort in neuroscience. It is not a hard problem, it is a problem that will be solved by solving the small problems.

There is no deity alert as some theist proponents offer.

[keithprosser3]

I certainly don't think consciousness is magical. But it is very odd. You say "It is not a hard problem, it is a problem that will be solved by solving the small problems."
but that isn't the way it looks to many people - consciousness baffles everybody who thinks about it seriously.

I don't think the piecemeal approach of "solving the small problems" would work. I think what is needed is a big idea, something totally radical. I wonder if the solution to the puzzle of consciousness would also be the solution to the problem of free-will (or vice-versa). It would be nice to solve the big problems of the mental sphere in one go. But there is a down side to explaining consciousness and free-will... we'd have less to debate about on boards like this.

[JohnA]

I certainly don't think consciousness is magical. But it is very odd. You say "It is not a hard problem, it is a problem that will be solved by solving the small problems."
but that isn't the way it looks to many people - consciousness baffles everybody who thinks about it seriously.

I don't think the piecemeal approach of "solving the small problems" would work. I think what is needed is a big idea, something totally radical. I wonder if the solution to the puzzle of consciousness would also be the solution to the problem of free-will (or vice-versa). It would be nice to solve the big problems of the mental sphere in one go. But there is a down side to explaining consciousness and free-will... we'd have less to debate about on boards like this.

I can tell you have not read up on this "hard problem" vs "small problem" in consciousness.

Some reading for you:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... sciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_probl ... sciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

It is not that "hard". The problem is that real scientists are not interested as it was grounded in philosophy which by its very nature has no acceptance in science (due to philosophy's fallacious reasoning, a self-refusing dilemma that it imposes). And the irony is that Daniel Dennett (a philosopher & atheist) rejects this notion of it being a "hard" problem.

The problem is not solved, but we know that it is not magical (as the theist and "non personal god" proponents utter).

Btw, do not confuse "free-will" with consciousness (even though I gave you a Sam Harris link - he is a scientist foremost, not just an ignorant philosopher, solving "free-will" issues using empirical evidence, not just thought experiments, math theorems, or philological conclusions using unscientific models).

Sciecne will solve this (based on their track record of success - not based on a faith based rubbish statement used by philosophers and theologians), but consciousness is hardly a deep questions, it is merely an interesting one, less interesting that the process that started life.

It keeps the philosophers employed. Nothing more.