scourge99 wrote:
There are good reasons to believe that consciousness is an
emergent property of a brain even if we don't know exactly how
unconscious matter gives rise to consciousness. Some of those
reasons are:
The problem is that many of these reasons you give are also compatible with some spiritual philosophies. You seem to be ignoring this fact.
No one argues against the fact that physical reality "exists". That is not in dispute. The mystics suggest that physical reality is some sort of mysterious "Dream" that some spiritual mind is having. They have reasons for believing that this may be the case. They also believe in something they call "Karma" that influences the way the dream incarnates.
From a more modern scientific point of view, some modern scientists have proposed that reality could be some sort of "Computer simulation" (which is just a very technical way to say that life is a dream).
No one is saying that there is no "Physics" to reality at all.
So let's look at your reason to back up your conclusions"
1) we know that the state of the mind is directly linked to the state
of the brain.
That is not being contested at all. On the contrary the mystics would say it most certainly is. And this is how "Karma" works. So this observation would be true in both philosophies.
2) we know new consciousnesses only arise from unconscious
matter (reproduction).
Again, this would not be disputed by a mystic. A mystic also accepts and believes sin reincarnation of consciousness. And they also believe that consciousness in a physical world must be 'incarnated' (i.e. brought into the physical world via some process). So the fact of procreation does not favor one philosophy over the other.
On the contrary, if you can experience the consciousness you are currently experiencing in your current physical incarnation, why could it not be the same "you" that experiences yet another incarnation at another point in time?
What is the "you" that is having this experience of consciousness? Until you can say precisely what it is that is having this experience how can you be so sure that
3) Consciousness is constrained by the forces of physics we know
now. There are no new significant forces in nature that can exist
and operate at the level of the mind. That is, if there was some
unknown force or property of nature that is responsible for
consciousness then we would have observed it already.
This is just flat-out wrong. We already know of effects such as quantum entanglement that we can't explain. So for all we know there are indeed other forces that we are unaware of. In fact, we never knew about Dark Matter, or Dark Energy until very recently. So where is there any guarantee that we have the right to claim to know everything there is to know about the forces that govern reality on its deepest level.
You're just basically stating an assumption in #3.
scourge99 wrote:
It would only be Nobel prize worthy if i discovered exactly how the
billions of neurons in your brain produce consciousness. For now
we are left with many lines of converging evidence that strongly
support the idea that consciousnesses is the product of a brain. I
will briefly mention some below but lets try to stay on subject:
But that's the heart of the question right there. What exactly is it that is having the experience of conscious awareness?
1) Increasing brain capabilities are directly linked with increasing
brain complexity and brain structures. Evidence for this is available
in the many animals the exist on this planet.
No problem. This fact is also compatible with mysticism and the possibility that life is being experienced through a computer simulation. So this information isn't a deciding factor.
2) Mental capabilities are directly linked with the state of the brain.
Whether its the mentally retarded, medicine for schizophrenia, or
brain damage, we see a direct link between the brain and mental
abilities. Its not as though when someone gets brain damage that
there mind is floating out there in a perfect state and they just can't
operate their body correctly because their brain is damaged. We
would expect to see mental capabilities undiminished because of
brain damage if that were false. We don't. Its because your mind IS
a manifestation of your brain.
What you say here "could be true". No question about that. But it would also be true in the mystical philosophy as well as the computer simulation hypothesis too.
So again, this "evidence" is not a deciding factor.
3) The universe is casually closed at the level the brain. That is, the
brain/mind MUST be the result of complex interactions of matter
because if it wasn't then that implies there is some new mysterious
force in physics operating at the level of the brain that we haven't
detected. And we have detected all the relevant forces at that level.
And we know this to a very high degree of certainty.
This seems to be a potential issue of disagreement in general. I disagree that we can be as certain about this as you accept. I see where there are many scientifically plausible alternatives. I simply don't agree with your conclusion that we can be as certain about the completeness of our knowledge about nature.
Scientists themselves are proposing that reality may actually consist of possibly 6 or 7 more dimensions than we can even currently detect. They pet theory of String Theory demands that this must be the case. Well, duh. If there are potentially 6 or 7 more dimensions to reality that we can even detect, then there are plenty of hiding places for new forces to exist.
We already know of quantum entanglement which may indeed be a force beyond the four we already know and love. Who knows how many other forces might exist that we can't currently detect?
Obviously the scientists who are proposing that reality may be some sort of computer simulation are open to the idea that physics could exist to make that all possible.
There may even exist forces beyond which we could even detect if we wanted to. We would call them "magic" but for the simulators of this universe they would just be what is required to control the matrix that supports the simulation.
I just think you are assuming that science is far more complete than it truly may be. There are too many scientific hypotheses and proposals being offered to suggest that science is just about done save for a few details.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but Albert Einstein was once told by his profess back in the days of Classical physics not to bother going into the field of physics because it's "almost complete". Only a few my minor details need to be worked out. That was back when we believe that the universe was made from billiard-ball like particles and time and space were absolutes.
None of that turned out to be true. Time became mysteriously relative and linked to space as a single fabric that even modern scientists don't fully understand how it can work to this very day, even though they have equations that can describe it with great precision. A science totally lost its balls with the advent of Quantum Physics and hasn't regained any balls since. String Theorists are hoping to find some limp noodles instead. But even they haven't had any luck finding anything to actually put a finger on.
So for you to proclaim that physics is "almost done save for a few minor details" is to just repeat a previous mistake that has already been made once.
The very idea that we have reality that closely figured out already is actually quite naive.
But you're acting like we should accept that it's an open and shut case.
In light of previous historical events I'm not so prepared to jump to that conclusion. There is actually a LOT we don't yet know.
scourge99 wrote:
There is nothing obscure or vague or obfuscated with the above. I don't invent new terms, use non standard definitions, use strange metaphors, or try to confuse you with poetic language. I say what i mean, clearly, and straightforward.
Don't forget to mention also, "Highly presumptuous that we are almost done save for a few minor details."
Like I said above. We made that mistake before not very long ago. Let's not make that same mistake twice in a row.
