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]

As mentioned before, there is no point in having a discussion with you since you reject the basic things that we use to formulate an understanding and explanation of reality. And I am a bit tired of your straw manning and obscurantism.

I don't see where it's even possible to have a meaningful conversation with you. All you've done thus far is constantly attack on a personal level with your continual straw manning and obscurantism. The very things that you attempt to slander me with.

As far as I can see, on the Topic of Consciousness, you have nothing to offer.

You are apparently in agreement with me and don't even realize it.

How can you simultaneously claim we are in agreement when you say I am attacking on a personal level with your continual straw manning and relying on obscurantism?

Either we are not in agreement, or you are admitting again that you are attacking me on a personal level, straw manning and still relying on obscurantism. Once can not have a cake and eat it.

I have offered my thoughts of this topic of consciousness. You may have missed them as I see you have not responded to some of my comments to your posts (e.g. page 22). Since you say that all facts in science is subjective, we can not offer you any facts as you reject it by your own fallacious pre-supposition.

As stated before, science has not solved all things about consciousness. It is an interesting problem, not a hard one, nor a deep one. Given the success track record of science I see not reason why they can not solve it. To offer 'experience' as substitute for 'consciousness' is not an answer, nor is offering philosorcery.

[Divine Insight]

How can you simultaneously claim we are in agreement when you say I am attacking on a personal level with your continual straw manning and relying on obscurantism?

Either we are not in agreement, or you are admitting again that you are attacking me on a personal level, straw manning and still relying on obscurantism. Once can not have a cake and eat it.

I was referring to the actual topic under discussion. Not to your continual personal attacks against me. That's not the topic of discussion, even though you have tried extremely hard to make it so.

Now as to the actual subject matter:

As stated before, science has not solved all things about consciousness.

As I stated, we are in agreement on the main topic.

It is an interesting problem, not a hard one, nor a deep one.

Well, we're not in complete agreement, obviously. I disagree that this is not a hard problem nor a deep one. In fact, until you can offer a solution to the problem how can you be sure how hard or deep it might be?

Given the success track record of science I see not reason why they can not solve it.

Ok, this is another area that we disagree on. The track record of science does not even come into play here. The only track record science even has is in explaining the physical world in terms of quantitative relationships. It even fails on that count when we enter the quantum world. So it stops dead in its track right there and therefore has a "Track Record" of running into a dead end even in terms of trying to explain the physical world in terms of quantitative relationships.

However, we have no reason to believe that conscious awareness is a physical phenomenon, or that it could be explained in terms of quantitative relationships. Or even in terms of logical relationships such as computer logic gates. In fact, we don't even have any physical reason to believe that it could be described via electromagnetic feedback loops, although in truth, that's probably the most promising physical explanation we currently have. Unfortunately we can't really explain scientifically why an electromagnetic feedback loop should be able to have an experience.

To offer 'experience' as substitute for 'consciousness' is not an answer, nor is offering philosorcery.

Ok, perhaps it's time to get out our dictionaries after all. Not to have a semantic war, but rather to simply compare notes with respect to some of these terms involved. That should help us shed some light on exactly what concept we are attempting to get at.

Here is one possible definition from Webster's dictionary:

Consciousness - the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.

The term consciousness depends upon an understanding of the meaning of awareness. So let's look up awareness:

Awareness - feeling, experiencing, or noticing something (such as a sound, sensation, or emotion)

Let's try the word feeling

Feeling - an awareness by your body of something in it or on it

This is kind of circular depending back on the concept of awareness. This also seems to be assuming that it is your body that is being aware. But are the authors of this dictionary justified in assuming that it is your body that is having an awareness?

Can we trust dictionary publishers to have already solved all of these deep philosophical problems?

Let's try the word experience.

Experience - the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you.

Again this is rather assumptive. The dictionary publishers simply accept that you are subjectively having an experience and they report this in terms of that subjective experience. They aren't even attempting to make any attempt to analyze just what it is that is actually having an experience. They simply assume that everyone is having a subjective experience just as they are and that the reason should then automatically know what this means via that self-same phenomenon of experience.

In other words, authors of dictionaries don't even need to concern themselves with the underlying philosophical questions of what is actually having an experience. It's sufficient for them to simply assume that their readers are having the same experience they are having. No need to go beyond that.

The only thing these dictionary definitions have shown us is that the concept of consciousness is indeed directly tied to the concept of having an experience.

We wouldn't say that a computer is "conscious" unless we were under the belief that is is actually having an experience.

So the real question of consciousness does indeed boil down to the question of asking precisely what it is that is actually having an experience?

And we can even take this back into the scientific realm. Since this is the question that needs to be answered.

If science is going to answer the question of consciousness in a meaningful way it must answer the question:

"What is it that is having an experience?"

That is the paramount question whether it is viewed from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

We must be able to point to something and say, "That is what is having an experience".

If it is an emergent property of some sort of electromagnetic feedback loop, then so be it. We can point to that feedback loop and say, "That feedback loop is having an experience".

That would be a scientific answer. But one that would be exceeding difficult to verify using experimental methods don't you think?

And in science, if we can't verified something experimentally do we have any justification for claiming that it's true?

What other scientific possibilities are there? Well, maybe we could point to a particular neural network (or logic gate configuration) and say, "That logic network is having an experience".

But again, how could we possibly verify this scientifically? How could we show that a logic network could have an experience?

You had claimed that this isn't a "Hard Problem". Well contrary to your views I don't think there's anything easy about it. How are you going to show that either of these things are actually having an experience?

Moreover, what if it is the first one? What if the thing that is actually having an experience is a feedback loop of electromagnetic fields? How could we say that it's not the electromagnetic field itself that is having the experience?

And if it is the electromagnetic field, how could we say that the mystics are wrong? Science could ultimately prove that mysticism is actually true. If energy is what is having an experience, then who's to say that it's fleeting?

On the contrary, science may need to go back to square one and start over with a brand new postulate that states that energy itself is capable of having an experience under certain circumstances. Otherwise, what justification is there for claiming that an electromagnetic feedback loop in a brain is "having an experience".

To begin with I don't see where this is anything but a "Hard Problem" in terms of science.

And secondly the scientific method may actually confirm the mystical view that energy itself is the underlying mystical entity that is "Having an experience".

In other words, BOTH science and mysticism could turn out to be TRUE without any conflict at all.

One doesn't necessarily need to rule out the other.

It may turn out that science and mysticism are allies who were never at war with each other to begin with.

[scourge99]

"What is it that is having an experience?"

That is the paramount question whether it is viewed from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

...

And secondly the scientific method may actually confirm the mystical view that energy itself is the underlying mystical entity that is "Having an experience".

In other words, BOTH science and mysticism could turn out to be TRUE without any conflict at all.

This is an argument from ignorance you continue to repeat all over the forum. Asking "what is having an experience?", pointing out that we don;t know exactly hwo consciouness arises from the brain, and not knowing the answer doesn't mean your answer or that your vacuous and obscure counter theory has ANY justification whatsoever.

What if I claim I have a million dollars in my pocket? I dare you to prove that I don't. You don't know where I live and you don't have the ability to search my pocket. Does that make me rich? By your "logic", it does. You're saying, "if you can't disprove X, then its reasonable to believe X is true". This is called an argument from ignorance and it's a well known logical fallacy. It's a bad argument, but that's par for the course with apologetics.




Here is Divine Insights argument in a nutshell in all its glory:

I don't understand how consciousness can arise from matter. Its a mystery. Therefore some vague, unspecific, obscurantist answer is the truth which i will not explain or elaborate upon because it would show my position is completely vacuous. PS - quantum mechanics is true therefore I'm right and here is a wall of text 10 pages long ....


-------

I agree that there are unsolved problems in science and we don't know how exactly consciousness arises from matter. But we know it does. We see it in animals, we see it in our selves. We see mental capabilities directly linked to brain damage. We see consciousness develop gradually with increased brain complexity in humans and animals. And we see it emerge as humans change from a glob of cells, to a fetus, to an adult.

You can continue to ignore the converging evidence that the mind is product of the brain just as young earth creationists must ignore the converging evidence of dating techniques, DNA, and fossils. But it makes you look silly when you refuse to acknowledge these facts and can only respond with an argument from ignorance and obscurantist responses about what the "mystical/spiritual" answer actually is.


ps - Its got nothing to do with quantum mechanics anymore than hurricanes or reproduction has anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics in this discussion is a red-herring.

[scourge99]

In other words, BOTH science and mysticism could turn out to be TRUE without any conflict at all.

One doesn't necessarily need to rule out the other.

It may turn out that science and mysticism are allies who were never at war with each other to begin with.

You REFUSE to clearly explain what the "mystical" answer is. Its just a perpetually moving goalpost or a non-answer like "its a mystery".

When we discover exactly how consciousness arises from the brain, I'm sure you'll move the goalposts and claim that it was "compatible" with mysticism all along. You act just like a prophet and fortune teller who make extremely vague predictions that can apply to anyone/anything.

Its just intellectually vacuous (perhaps even intentionally deceitful) nonsense that fools the gullible and unwary. but those who actually pause to pay attention see right through it.

[Divine Insight]

Here is Divine Insights argument in a nutshell in all its glory:

I don't understand how consciousness can arise from matter. Its a mystery. Therefore some vague, unspecific, obscurantist answer is the truth which i will not explain or elaborate upon because it would show my position is completely vacuous. PS - quantum mechanics is true therefore I'm right and here is a wall of text 10 pages long ....

-------

No, that's not my argument at all.

To begin with it's not merely "I" who doesn't understand how matter can have an experience, but rather it is all of science. There is nothing in the fundamental postulates of science that allows for energy/matter to have an experience. So this is a fundamental problem with the discipline of science and physics. It's not a personal problem on my part.

Moreover, I disagree with your description that there must be some vague, unspecified, obscurantist answer. Those terms are of your choosing, not mine. Moreover, you have clearly chosen those terms specifically to belittle my position. I'm simply saying that perhaps the our fundamental premises in physics aren't complete to begin with. After all, what guarantee do we have that they are complete? What breathes fire into the equations of physics? Science has always taken that for granted.

As far as quantum mechanics is concerned I only bring that up for two very substantial reasons.

1. The mathematics of Quantum Theory demands an end to the normal scientific method of reductionism.

That, IMHO, is paramount in science. Any scientist should be very aware of the implications of this. If science has traditionally been entirely dependent upon reductionism to find answers, and Quantum Theory has revealed that reductionism necessarily must end at the quantum level because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or complementarity, then this is a significant scientific discovery. Why continue to pretend that science hasn't already predicted the end to its own strategy of investigation? Reductionism cannot go on forever, for Quantum Theory tells us so.

2. Other discoveries with in the field of Quantum Theory concerning entanglement and Bell's Theorem demand that local causality must break down at this level and some strange holism must replace it.

Couple this with the scientific fact that brain activity occurs mostly in the quantum realm. In other words, the vast bulk of brain activity has to do with the behavior of electrons and electromagnetic fields or photons. So brain activity takes place almost entirely within the quantum realm. To say that Quantum Theory cannot be applies to a macro brain is absurd. The brain may be viewed as a macro object in terms of the larger biological structures, but the brain activity remains quantum activity. So Quantum Theory applies to the brain as much as it applies to anything.

I agree that there are unsolved problems in science and we don't know how exactly consciousness arises from matter. But we know it does.

We don't even know what matter is. Einstein has shown us that matter and energy are the same thing. In fact, insofar as we can tell matter is nothing more than standing wave patterns of energy. And we have absolutely no clue what energy is.

We see it in animals, we see it in our selves. We see mental capabilities directly linked to brain damage. We see consciousness develop gradually with increased brain complexity in humans and animals. And we see it emerge as humans change from a glob of cells, to a fetus, to an adult.

The mystics are well-aware of all of this. This is not a problem for the mystics. The mystics do not reject the incarnated world. On the contrary they totally accept it. The question isn't concerned with how well we can think. The question is concerned with what is it that is having an experience?

You have yourself gone through the process of emerging from a glob of cells, from a fetus to an adult. If you are inflicted with brain damage, or even a momentary brain malfunction, it is still YOU that is having this experience at all times.

If you come down with a fever and become delirious, or if you become obnoxiously drunk and pass out. You are the one who experiences all of this. You even experience the hang-over when you wake back up.

If you have amnesia you are the one who experiences having forgotten everything. You are not what you "know". You are not the sum knowledge of your brain. This is why this approach to trying to discover the true self through science can never work. Science merely looks at the experiences being produced at any given moment. But you are the entity that experiences everything. You are not the experiences themselves, but rather you are the entity that is having an experience.

So the fact that you brain changes over time doesn't change who you ultimately are in the end. You are the entity that is having the experience.

You can continue to ignore the converging evidence that the mind is product of the brain just as young earth creationists must ignore the converging evidence of dating techniques, DNA, and fossils. But it makes you look silly when you refuse to acknowledge these facts and can only respond with an argument from ignorance and obscurantist responses about what the "mystical/spiritual" answer actually is.

But that isn't my response. You are making false accusations about my position in your claim that my position has anything at all to do with ignorance or obscurantism.

I'm being very specific. I'm saying that they entity that is having an experience is the entity in question. You are looking at the cause of experiences and pointing to that as being the basis of consciousness. But the causes of experience cannot be the entity that is having the experience.

So the things you point to as the foundation of consciousness don't even make any sense.

ps - Its got nothing to do with quantum mechanics anymore than hurricanes or reproduction has anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics in this discussion is a red-herring.

Brain activity is almost entirely in the realm of electromagnetic phenomenon. That would be electrons and photos. Clearly denizens of the quantum world.

Hurricanes are macro phenomenon consisting of the motions of gas molecules and high and low pressure systems on a macro scale.

So your comparison of brain activity to hurricanes is an unscientific comparison and and a very bad analogy actually.

You can't treat the brain as a hurricane. It's a totally different beast.

[Divine Insight]

You REFUSE to clearly explain what the "mystical" answer is. Its just a perpetually moving goalpost or a non-answer like "its a mystery".

The mystical answer is simple. You are the thing that is having an experience. You are NOT the experiences that science can measure.

You should be able to understand this easily. Imagine that at one point in your life you were a great mathematician who understand all manner of deep mathematics and even won a Nobel Prize for you discoveries. Imagine also that you were great at reciting poems and you could recite many poems off the top of your hand.

Is this then "Who" you are? No it is not.

Imagine now that you have a terrible stroke and brain damage. Now you are laying in a hospital bed unable to even understand why 2+2=4. You can no longer even remember the poems you used to recite flawlessly.

Is this the same person? Sure it is. It's still YOU, having brand new experiences.

You haven't changed one iota.

When we discover exactly how consciousness arises from the brain, I'm sure you'll move the goalposts and claim that it was "compatible" with mysticism all along. You act just like a prophet and fortune teller who make extremely vague predictions that can apply to anyone/anything.

I don't think I'll need to worry about science discovering exactly how conscious awareness arises from the brain in my lifetime.

Its just intellectually vacuous (perhaps even intentionally deceitful) nonsense that fools the gullible and unwary. but those who actually pause to pay attention see right through it.

See right through what?

You seem to be already convinced of a purely secular picture of reality. But what you don't seem to be aware of is just how much your views are actually faith-based. You apparently have complete faith in the scientific method to come up with a completely secular explanation of reality.

But where is there any grounds for that?

Science doesn't even know what energy is, of what breathes fire into the quantitative equations that describe the physical world.

Science has already discovered that the quantum realm behaves in truly strange and weird ways compared with the macro world. Yet you seem to want to push that scientific discovery under the carpet as though it doesn't hold any merit at all.

[scourge99]

I ask readers to note that Divine Insight once again fails to give a clear and unambiguous description of what the "mystical/spiritual" answer is to how consciousness arises and what it is. Its just more evidence of the obscurantism he engages in.

Here is Divine Insights argument in a nutshell in all its glory:

I don't understand how consciousness can arise from matter. Its a mystery. Therefore some vague, unspecific, obscurantist answer is the truth which i will not explain or elaborate upon because it would show my position is completely vacuous. PS - quantum mechanics is true therefore I'm right and here is a wall of text 10 pages long ....

-------

No, that's not my argument at all.

To begin with it's not merely "I" who doesn't understand how matter can have an experience, but rather it is all of science.

You are playing word games. Applying high level descriptions to things which don;t belong.

Your argument is jut as silly as this one: science doesn't understand slipperiness. Things that are slippery are just made of atoms but atoms aren't slippery. So how can things that are made of atoms be slippery! Science doesn't know!!

When you figure out why the above is silly and misguided then you'll understand why your question "how can matter be having an experience"is also silly and misguided .

There is nothing in the fundamental postulates of science that allows for energy/matter to have an experience. So this is a fundamental problem with the discipline of science and physics. It's not a personal problem on my part.

Even if i agreed with you. That doesn't mean some other idea is justified or believable. That is what you try to do. You say "science hasn't explained X therefore my answer is believable" Its an argument from ignorance and you seem completely oblivious to it.

Moreover, I disagree with your description that there must be some vague, unspecified, obscurantist answer. Those terms are of your choosing, not mine. Moreover, you have clearly chosen those terms specifically to belittle my position. I'm simply saying that perhaps the our fundamental premises in physics aren't complete to begin with. After all, what guarantee do we have that they are complete? What breathes fire into the equations of physics? Science has always taken that for granted.

Notice that Divine Insight whines about my description, and instead of presenting an unobscure and direct explanation of what the "spiritual/mystical" answer is, he avoids the challenge altogether.

Further proof of obscurantism despite all of his completely hollow assurances to the opposite. I suppose we are just supposed to take it on "faith".

As far as quantum mechanics is concerned I only bring that up for two very substantial reasons.

1. The mathematics of Quantum Theory demands an end to the normal scientific method of reductionism.

That, IMHO, is paramount in science. Any scientist should be very aware of the implications of this. If science has traditionally been entirely dependent upon reductionism to find answers, and Quantum Theory has revealed that reductionism necessarily must end at the quantum level because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or complementarity, then this is a significant scientific discovery. Why continue to pretend that science hasn't already predicted the end to its own strategy of investigation? Reductionism cannot go on forever, for Quantum Theory tells us so.

Please quote mainstream physicists saying that "reductionism is at an end" or something UNAMBIGUOUSLY close to that.

I agree that we have to proceed research in new ways because of the uncertainty principle. But nowhere have i seen anyone say "reductionism is at an end".


Furthermore this is once again another example of obscurantism. A vague claim that "reductionism" is at an end. I'm sure Divine insight can find any number of ways to repackage that to mean just about ANYTHING and later claim that is what he was saying all along.

Couple this with the scientific fact that brain activity occurs mostly in the quantum realm. In other words, the vast bulk of brain activity has to do with the behavior of electrons and electromagnetic fields or photons. So brain activity takes place almost entirely within the quantum realm. To say that Quantum Theory cannot be applies to a macro brain is absurd. The brain may be viewed as a macro object in terms of the larger biological structures, but the brain activity remains quantum activity. So Quantum Theory applies to the brain as much as it applies to anything.

This sort of argument can be said of anything. Observe:

Hurricanes are comprised of matter which is made of atoms and interact with photons and electromagnetic fields therefore quantum mechanics applies to hurricanes!! To say that Quantum Theory cannot be applied to a hurricanes is absurd. A hurricane may be viewed as a macro object in terms of the larger weather patterns , but the hurricane activity remains quantum activity. So Quantum Theory applies to hurricanes as much as it applies to anything.

What a load of bullpoop.

I agree that there are unsolved problems in science and we don't know how exactly consciousness arises from matter. But we know it does.

We don't even know what matter is. Einstein has shown us that matter and energy are the same thing. In fact, insofar as we can tell matter is nothing more than standing wave patterns of energy. And we have absolutely no clue what energy is.

Another argument form ignorance:

We don't know what matter is therefore the spiritual/mystical answer is believable and justified!!!

We see it in animals, we see it in our selves. We see mental capabilities directly linked to brain damage. We see consciousness develop gradually with increased brain complexity in humans and animals. And we see it emerge as humans change from a glob of cells, to a fetus, to an adult.

The mystics are well-aware of all of this. This is not a problem for the mystics. The mystics do not reject the incarnated world. On the contrary they totally accept it. The question isn't concerned with how well we can think. The question is concerned with what is it that is having an experience?

Once again a non-answer. Just assurances that the mystical/spiritual answer has been "right all along".

Another example ofobscurantism.

You are not what you "know".

Correct. That is part of "me". not all of "me".

You are not the sum knowledge of your brain.

Correct. That is part of "me". not all of "me".

This is why this approach to trying to discover the true self through science can never work.

Your logic does not follow.

Logic FAIL.

Science merely looks at the experiences being produced at any given moment.

Strawman.

But you are the entity that experiences everything. You are not the experiences themselves, but rather you are the entity that is having an experience.

Incorrect. I agree i am not a brain. I am a manifestation of a working brain. Just as a hurricane is not just a bunch of atoms. Its atoms in motion, in a certain configuration, and in a certain environment.

So the fact that you brain changes over time doesn't change who you ultimately are in the end.

My consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain. My consciousness IS the result of the workings of my brain and the changes that occur to it both by external forces and internal feedback. Thus, changes to brain certainly do and can change who I ultimately am in the end. Just ask any lobotomized patient.

You are the entity that is having the experience.

THat "entioty" is nothing but a construct. A concept. it is no more real than numbers or harry potter is real. You are the manifestation of a working physical brain. Nothing more. Sam Harris says it best: "You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm."

I'm being very specific. I'm saying that they entity that is having an experience is the entity in question.

That isn't obscurantism!!!!!????

When I ask you what the spiritual/mystical answer to what exactly consciousness is and how it manifests from a brain and you reply with the above.

WOW! I think you are too far gone to even recognize the obscurity in your answers.

You are looking at the cause of experiences and pointing to that as being the basis of consciousness.

I've said nothing specific about the cause of experiences. If i could explain how experiences manifest from matter i'd have won a Nobel prize.
So your representation of my argument is so off-base its absurd.

So the things you point to as the foundation of consciousness don't even make any sense.

You can't even accurately represent my position.

ps - Its got nothing to do with quantum mechanics anymore than hurricanes or reproduction has anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics in this discussion is a red-herring.

Brain activity is almost entirely in the realm of electromagnetic phenomenon. That would be electrons and photos. Clearly denizens of the quantum world.

Hurricanes are macro phenomenon consisting of the motions of gas molecules and high and low pressure systems on a macro scale.

So your comparison of brain activity to hurricanes is an unscientific comparison and and a very bad analogy actually.

You can't treat the brain as a hurricane. It's a totally different beast.

There is NOTHING. Not ONE IOTA of evidence that suggests quantum mechanics has got anything to do with the brain and consciousness anymore than its got something to do with hurricanes or reproduction. Brains exist as macro objects. There are no relevant quantum events that don't decohere just as they do in hurricanes and reproduction. If they did, we would be able to detect them.

You're grasping at straws.

[Divine Insight]

I ask readers to note that Divine Insight once again fails to give a clear and unambiguous description of what the "mystical/spiritual" answer is to how consciousness arises and what it is. Its just more evidence of the obscurantism he engages in.

And I would ask the readers to note that scourge99 is seeking a precise scientific explanation. That is absurd. I just got done explaining why science itself may not be able to provide such a description.

The scientific method of reductionism fails at the quantum level, revealed to us via scientific observations and experiments themselves.

Scourge and others view this observation as an attack against the scientific method of inquiry. But it's not an attack at all. On the contrary it's simple the acceptance of what science has already shown to be truth.

Scourge apparently can't accept that science itself has lost its grip on reality. With the discovery of Quantum Mechanics, science has quite literally lost its balls. And that's a fitting phrase because this is precisely what has happened. Prior to the discovery of quantum behavior the universe was seen to be machine-like, running with clockwork precision where the constituents of the universe were seen as indivisible particle-like points following perfect Newtonian laws of motion.

That picture was shattered by Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics demands that this picture must break-down, and that a weird property known as complementarity must take over at the quantum level. This behavior is described by Quantum Mechanics very mathematically by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles, which is actually a very precise mathematical statement.

Scourge seems to be upset because mystical pictures of reality do not explain the world in terms of reductionism (which Quantum Mechanics has shown us cannot be carried out to the infinitely small).

Albert Einstein was upset about this too. In fact, most people are upset about it. A few people like Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg have accepted it because they accept the scientific facts.

Mysticism does not need to explain things in precise detail. On the contrary mysticism accepts that such a reductionistic description of reality is indeed impossible (just as the science of Quantum Mechanics demonstrates).

The bottom line is that given sufficient thought we can see that we are the entity that is having an experience, and that there is no place in science for such an entity to even exist. A purely secular accidental reality is not even possible.

The only reality that makes any rational sense at all is indeed a mystical reality.

In fact, as I have often pointed out in many of my posts, even if we lived in the purely secular world of a Newtonian-like mechanical universe where balls were having an experience, that reality would still be every bit as mystical as a spiritual reality.

The mere fact that anything exists at all, is mystical itself.

The additional fact that this stuff that exists can actually have an experience is mystical beyond even that.

So even a purely secular reality would be a mystical reality anyway.

There's no getting around it.

How anyone can believe that our reality could be explained in a way that makes complete rational secular sense is beyond me.

Scourge seems to be upset with the idea that reality may be beyond rational explanation.

But why should that be a significant factor in considering the truth of reality?

Why should reality need to cater to how Scourge believes it should be?

It's far more likely that reality will just be what it is regardless of whether rationalists think its rational or not.

Where is it written that reality must be rational?

It's not even quantitatively rational. We can even see that quantitatively it's irrational. So the universe is screaming with irrationality. We have no justification to start demanding that it should behave rationality.

And what would that even mean anyway?

The fact that anything exists at all is already irrational.

The fact that anything is having an experience is already irrational.

A pure secular existence (if it exists) is already a totally irrational existence anyway.

Pure secularism is totally equal to pure mysticism.

They are equally absurd.

Why anyone would think that one has a leg up on the other is beyond me.

They are both equally mystical.

Also, if a purely secular accident could happen once, then it could happen again. And therefore even a pure secular accident could itself be an eternally reoccurring event.

In fact, how could it be considered to be "rational" not to believe that it could?

After all, if reality could pop into existence from nowhere and have an experience once. Then there is no reason at all why it shouldn't be able to do this infinitely many times.

And bingo, all of a sudden you're talking mysticism.

I'm not sure if there can even be shown to be a difference between the two.

We may be arguing about totally irrelevant things.

Mysticism and scientific knowledge may actually be in total harmony with each other. In fact, I personally don't see any reason to believe that they aren't.

[JohnA]

I ask readers to note that Divine Insight once again fails to give a clear and unambiguous description of what the "mystical/spiritual" answer is to how consciousness arises and what it is. Its just more evidence of the obscurantism he engages in.

Here is Divine Insights argument in a nutshell in all its glory:

I don't understand how consciousness can arise from matter. Its a mystery. Therefore some vague, unspecific, obscurantist answer is the truth which i will not explain or elaborate upon because it would show my position is completely vacuous. PS - quantum mechanics is true therefore I'm right and here is a wall of text 10 pages long ....

-------

No, that's not my argument at all.

To begin with it's not merely "I" who doesn't understand how matter can have an experience, but rather it is all of science.

You are playing word games. Applying high level descriptions to things which don;t belong.

Your argument is jut as silly as this one: science doesn't understand slipperiness. Things that are slippery are just made of atoms but atoms aren't slippery. So how can things that are made of atoms be slippery! Science doesn't know!!

When you figure out why the above is silly and misguided then you'll understand why your question "how can matter be having an experience"is also silly and misguided .

There is nothing in the fundamental postulates of science that allows for energy/matter to have an experience. So this is a fundamental problem with the discipline of science and physics. It's not a personal problem on my part.

Even if i agreed with you. That doesn't mean some other idea is justified or believable. That is what you try to do. You say "science hasn't explained X therefore my answer is believable" Its an argument from ignorance and you seem completely oblivious to it.

Moreover, I disagree with your description that there must be some vague, unspecified, obscurantist answer. Those terms are of your choosing, not mine. Moreover, you have clearly chosen those terms specifically to belittle my position. I'm simply saying that perhaps the our fundamental premises in physics aren't complete to begin with. After all, what guarantee do we have that they are complete? What breathes fire into the equations of physics? Science has always taken that for granted.

Notice that Divine Insight whines about my description, and instead of presenting an unobscure and direct explanation of what the "spiritual/mystical" answer is, he avoids the challenge altogether.

Further proof of obscurantism despite all of his completely hollow assurances to the opposite. I suppose we are just supposed to take it on "faith".

As far as quantum mechanics is concerned I only bring that up for two very substantial reasons.

1. The mathematics of Quantum Theory demands an end to the normal scientific method of reductionism.

That, IMHO, is paramount in science. Any scientist should be very aware of the implications of this. If science has traditionally been entirely dependent upon reductionism to find answers, and Quantum Theory has revealed that reductionism necessarily must end at the quantum level because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or complementarity, then this is a significant scientific discovery. Why continue to pretend that science hasn't already predicted the end to its own strategy of investigation? Reductionism cannot go on forever, for Quantum Theory tells us so.

Please quote mainstream physicists saying that "reductionism is at an end" or something UNAMBIGUOUSLY close to that.

I agree that we have to proceed research in new ways because of the uncertainty principle. But nowhere have i seen anyone say "reductionism is at an end".


Furthermore this is once again another example of obscurantism. A vague claim that "reductionism" is at an end. I'm sure Divine insight can find any number of ways to repackage that to mean just about ANYTHING and later claim that is what he was saying all along.

Couple this with the scientific fact that brain activity occurs mostly in the quantum realm. In other words, the vast bulk of brain activity has to do with the behavior of electrons and electromagnetic fields or photons. So brain activity takes place almost entirely within the quantum realm. To say that Quantum Theory cannot be applies to a macro brain is absurd. The brain may be viewed as a macro object in terms of the larger biological structures, but the brain activity remains quantum activity. So Quantum Theory applies to the brain as much as it applies to anything.

This sort of argument can be said of anything. Observe:

Hurricanes are comprised of matter which is made of atoms and interact with photons and electromagnetic fields therefore quantum mechanics applies to hurricanes!! To say that Quantum Theory cannot be applied to a hurricanes is absurd. A hurricane may be viewed as a macro object in terms of the larger weather patterns , but the hurricane activity remains quantum activity. So Quantum Theory applies to hurricanes as much as it applies to anything.

What a load of bullpoop.

I agree that there are unsolved problems in science and we don't know how exactly consciousness arises from matter. But we know it does.

We don't even know what matter is. Einstein has shown us that matter and energy are the same thing. In fact, insofar as we can tell matter is nothing more than standing wave patterns of energy. And we have absolutely no clue what energy is.

Another argument form ignorance:

We don't know what matter is therefore the spiritual/mystical answer is believable and justified!!!

We see it in animals, we see it in our selves. We see mental capabilities directly linked to brain damage. We see consciousness develop gradually with increased brain complexity in humans and animals. And we see it emerge as humans change from a glob of cells, to a fetus, to an adult.

The mystics are well-aware of all of this. This is not a problem for the mystics. The mystics do not reject the incarnated world. On the contrary they totally accept it. The question isn't concerned with how well we can think. The question is concerned with what is it that is having an experience?

Once again a non-answer. Just assurances that the mystical/spiritual answer has been "right all along".

Another example ofobscurantism.

You are not what you "know".

Correct. That is part of "me". not all of "me".

You are not the sum knowledge of your brain.

Correct. That is part of "me". not all of "me".

This is why this approach to trying to discover the true self through science can never work.

Your logic does not follow.

Logic FAIL.

Science merely looks at the experiences being produced at any given moment.

Strawman.

But you are the entity that experiences everything. You are not the experiences themselves, but rather you are the entity that is having an experience.

Incorrect. I agree i am not a brain. I am a manifestation of a working brain. Just as a hurricane is not just a bunch of atoms. Its atoms in motion, in a certain configuration, and in a certain environment.

So the fact that you brain changes over time doesn't change who you ultimately are in the end.

My consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain. My consciousness IS the result of the workings of my brain and the changes that occur to it both by external forces and internal feedback. Thus, changes to brain certainly do and can change who I ultimately am in the end. Just ask any lobotomized patient.

You are the entity that is having the experience.

THat "entioty" is nothing but a construct. A concept. it is no more real than numbers or harry potter is real. You are the manifestation of a working physical brain. Nothing more. Sam Harris says it best: "You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm."

I'm being very specific. I'm saying that they entity that is having an experience is the entity in question.

That isn't obscurantism!!!!!????

When I ask you what the spiritual/mystical answer to what exactly consciousness is and how it manifests from a brain and you reply with the above.

WOW! I think you are too far gone to even recognize the obscurity in your answers.

You are looking at the cause of experiences and pointing to that as being the basis of consciousness.

I've said nothing specific about the cause of experiences. If i could explain how experiences manifest from matter i'd have won a Nobel prize.
So your representation of my argument is so off-base its absurd.

So the things you point to as the foundation of consciousness don't even make any sense.

You can't even accurately represent my position.

ps - Its got nothing to do with quantum mechanics anymore than hurricanes or reproduction has anything to do with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics in this discussion is a red-herring.

Brain activity is almost entirely in the realm of electromagnetic phenomenon. That would be electrons and photos. Clearly denizens of the quantum world.

Hurricanes are macro phenomenon consisting of the motions of gas molecules and high and low pressure systems on a macro scale.

So your comparison of brain activity to hurricanes is an unscientific comparison and and a very bad analogy actually.

You can't treat the brain as a hurricane. It's a totally different beast.

There is NOTHING. Not ONE IOTA of evidence that suggests quantum mechanics has got anything to do with the brain and consciousness anymore than its got something to do with hurricanes or reproduction. Brains exist as macro objects. There are no relevant quantum events that don't decohere just as they do in hurricanes and reproduction. If they did, we would be able to detect them.

You're grasping at straws.

DI already admitted being an obscurantist when he confirmed he rejects logic, Math, science, and dictionaries.

It is pointless jabbering on. I gave up, but want to see him and instant debate.

[otseng]

DI already admitted being an obscurantist when he confirmed he rejects logic, Math, science, and dictionaries.

Moderator Comment

I fail to see where Divine Insight "admitted being an obscurantist." Do not attribute something to others unless they specifically state it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.