Consciousness, meaning and value.

[bluethread]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

[Divine Insight]

Then you think that science can not provide us with all of the answers we need, because we have logic? Can logic be empirically verified by science?

All the answers you need for what?

Have you ever considered that there may be things that you can never know?

So, what does constitute consciousness?

If I knew the answer to that question I'd have a Nobel Prize.

However, just because we don't yet know the answer is no need to postulate the existence of a boogieman who magically supplies us with consciousness.

Where would the boogieman have gotten his consciousness?

In short Bluethread, any attempt to use these kinds of arguments to support a need for a "God" or any magical supernatural creatures simple has no merit. Just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean there needs to be an invisible magician behind it.

I actually do have ideas on how consciousness "might" work. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it is the result of a feedback loop that is arranged in a certain way.

So, you think that there is no alternative but to believe that science will someday figure everything out?

All I can say with absolute certainty is that we currently have no better method of inquiry. If you have a better method to offer please do so instead of whining about science without offering a better method of inquiry.

Whining about science doesn't get you anywhere.

In the meantime are we to say that consciousness does not exist, because there is no scientific explanation for it?

Why? Why should we need to deny the existence of something just because we haven't yet explained how it works? There are many things we accept because they are obvious even though we can't yet explain them and possibly may never explain them.

And remember, if science can't explain something then all that means is that we don't understand how it works. It doesn't mean that it can't exist. Science doesn't need to explain everything to be the best method of inquiry that we have.

What I have in mind is, if science can explain everything we need, how does it explain consciousness, meaning and value.

Meaning and value have already been explained.

Whether science will be able to explain how consciousness works is yet to be seen. Science certainly hasn't hit any brick walls in the quest. In fact, if they actually hit a brick wall that itself would be a noteworthy discovery. We would learn something valuable from that alone.

So hitting a brick wall would be GREAT! But that hasn't happened.

I never suggested that nothing is beyond science. What I suggested is that proposing that there is something "beyond science" as a supposed explanation for consciousness is actually ridiculous unless you can explain how that thing that is supposedly beyond science is itself conscious.

I didn't say you said that. That is the point of the OP. If consciousness is important and science does not explain it, it must be explainable in some other way. That would mean that there is something important that science does not explain.

To begin with just because scientists haven't yet explained consciousness doesn't mean that science will never explain it.

Secondly, even if science can never explain it that doesn't change the fact that science is the only method we currently have to investigate the question. So if science can't answer it then we can't know the answer.

Unless of course, we could come up with something better than science. But thus far no one has been able to offer anything better.

In short, if you can't answer the questions that science can't answer, then you most certainly aren't doing any better than science.

And just because something is important to us does not mean that we necessarily need to be able to understand it or have an answer for. There may indeed be many things that we can never know. If you can't accept that, then you're in for some pretty serious mental anguish worrying about things that you can never know.

Just replace the term "God" with "Imaginary ideas of things that are beyond science that have no basis in reality". Again, two things that mean the same thing.

No, they do not mean the same thing. There may be alternate explanations that do not involve deities. As I stated, the question does not involve deities, unless you are proposing that as an alternative explanation. The question is whether science provides us with all the answers we need.

Until you have "alternative explanations" to offer then all you are doing is wasting everyone's time including your own.

I don't care what you might imagine those other explanations to be. You can label them whatever you like. If you can't even explain those ideas, then you certainly can't use those ideas to explain anything else, right?

In short, all you are doing is proposing the existence of ideas that don't make any sense and cannot be explained themselves in an effort to try to explain things that you seem to think that science might never be able to explain.

I don't see where that's ever going to pan out for you.

I'm quite content with accepting that there are many things I will never know. That appears to me to be our situation in this reality. May as well accept it.

I am not questioning whether science is explainable. I am asking about whether science explains everything we need to know.

Need to know?

Do you need to know how consciousness works in order to be a conscious entity?

I don't think so.

You simply don't need to know a lot of things that you already know.

If you can't know about these things that are supposedly "beyond science" then what good are they?

Seriously. I would really like to hear your answer concerning this final question.

So, are you saying that consciousness, meaning and value are not important, because science can not explain them? I think consciousness, meaning and value are very important and I don't know how science can be used to explain them.

Meaning and value have already been thoroughly explained from a purely secular worldview. So those questions have already been answered. Apparently you either don't understand those answers, or you simply don't like them. But keep in mind that when searching for truth there is no guarantee that you'll like the answers.

And while consciousness is important to us because we have placed subjective meaning and value onto it, understanding how consciousness works is apparently not important at all. At least not in terms of actually being conscious.

And besides, what will you do when scientists do discover the workings of consciousness and end up explaining it as a form of a feedback loop in terms that perhaps you may not even understand?

What then?

Then you'll have an answer that you will most likely neither understand nor like.

You'll probably just deny the answer like so many theists deny evolution.

So would an answer that you don't like be helpful to you in any way?

Probably not.

In the end, even if science discovers how consciousness works you may ultimately come to the realization that you never 'needed' this knowledge anyway.

You might not even be able to understand the answer.

Have you read Society of Mind by Marvin Minsky?

He claims to already have a good idea of how consciousness works.

So the question may already be answered and we just don't realize it.

Future scientists may someday look back and say, "Hey, Marvin Minsky got it right!"

[William]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

Do you need to know how consciousness works in order to be a conscious entity?

I think herein is the meat of the argument. It is not a case of knowing how it works but knowing what it is.

In that sense, it is up to the individual to decide, because neither science or philosophy have answers to those questions, although with philosophy, the sky is the limit because it has far more room for individuals to contemplate that question.

So the question I have asked is not how consciousness works (because obviously it does) but WHAT is consciousness.

And certainly we do not need to know what consciousness IS in order to BE it. But it can help or hinder, depending on how we each decide to answer that question for our self. It is always about how we each self identify, and beliefs have a massive role in that department.

[bluethread]

Then you think that science can not provide us with all of the answers we need, because we have logic? Can logic be empirically verified by science?

All the answers you need for what?

Have you ever considered that there may be things that you can never know?

For negotiating life. Of course, there are some things we can never know. That is part of the point. However, we are not talking about what can and can not be known, that is a subset of what can not be scientifically determined. The question is whether or not the set of necessary knowledge(NK) is a complete subset of scientifically determinable knowledge(SDK)? It may be an overlapping set, with some SDK outside of the NK set and some of the NK outside of the SDK set.

So, what does constitute consciousness?

If I knew the answer to that question I'd have a Nobel Prize.

However, just because we don't yet know the answer is no need to postulate the existence of a boogieman who magically supplies us with consciousness.

Where would the boogieman have gotten his consciousness?

In short Bluethread, any attempt to use these kinds of arguments to support a need for a "God" or any magical supernatural creatures simple has no merit. Just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean there needs to be an invisible magician behind it.

Again, you are the only one who is talking about deities. I am just asking that we examine the issue. Maybe if we were to do that there could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

I actually do have ideas on how consciousness "might" work. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it is the result of a feedback loop that is arranged in a certain way.

Good, then please elaborate on that.

So, you think that there is no alternative but to believe that science will someday figure everything out?

All I can say with absolute certainty is that we currently have no better method of inquiry. If you have a better method to offer please do so instead of whining about science without offering a better method of inquiry.

Whining about science doesn't get you anywhere.

I am not whining. All I am doing is examining an assertion that has been made with regard to science, i.e. if it is the source of all necessary knowledge, how does it explain consciousness, meaning and value.

In the meantime are we to say that consciousness does not exist, because there is no scientific explanation for it?

Why? Why should we need to deny the existence of something just because we haven't yet explained how it works? There are many things we accept because they are obvious even though we can't yet explain them and possibly may never explain them.

And remember, if science can't explain something then all that means is that we don't understand how it works. It doesn't mean that it can't exist. Science doesn't need to explain everything to be the best method of inquiry that we have.

So, are you saying that there are things that are not scientifically verifiable or can not be explained by science. If that is the case, are consciousness, meaning and value among them? If so, then that would mean that science is not all we need.

What I have in mind is, if science can explain everything we need, how does it explain consciousness, meaning and value.

Meaning and value have already been explained.

Whether science will be able to explain how consciousness works is yet to be seen. Science certainly hasn't hit any brick walls in the quest. In fact, if they actually hit a brick wall that itself would be a noteworthy discovery. We would learn something valuable from that alone.

So hitting a brick wall would be GREAT! But that hasn't happened.

Well, you have set meaning and value aside, by referring to them as subjective. However, it appears that you are saying that subjectivism is outside of science and you have not shown that subjectivism is not necessary. Therefore, the assertion that science is all that is necessary has not been proven in the case of those two things. Therefore, you would not accept the assertion in the OP to be true.

Also, since you say that how consciousness works has not yet been determined, then that would place that in the area of conjecture. Would you, therefore, say that conjecture is part of science, or is it something outside of science that provides us with something we need that science can not provide?

If consciousness is important and science does not explain it, it must be explainable in some other way. That would mean that there is something important that science does not explain.

To begin with just because scientists haven't yet explained consciousness doesn't mean that science will never explain it.

Secondly, even if science can never explain it that doesn't change the fact that science is the only method we currently have to investigate the question. So if science can't answer it then we can't know the answer.

I never questioned whether science will never explain it. I am just noting that we recognize it without scientific explanation. That would mean that, in that case, we are accepting it based on something other than science. If it is a fact that science is the only method to investigate things, how does science recognize consciousness?

In short, if you can't answer the questions that science can't answer, then you most certainly aren't doing any better than science.

And just because something is important to us does not mean that we necessarily need to be able to understand it or have an answer for. There may indeed be many things that we can never know. If you can't accept that, then you're in for some pretty serious mental anguish worrying about things that you can never know.

Do you believe that science is the only form of knowledge?

Until you have "alternative explanations" to offer then all you are doing is wasting everyone's time including your own.

I don't care what you might imagine those other explanations to be. You can label them whatever you like. If you can't even explain those ideas, then you certainly can't use those ideas to explain anything else, right?

In short, all you are doing is proposing the existence of ideas that don't make any sense and cannot be explained themselves in an effort to try to explain things that you seem to think that science might never be able to explain.

So, unless one has an alternate explanation, one can not question whether something is all one needs? That is interesting. Are you also saying that consciousness and subjectivity(which you appear to say explains meaning and value) don't make any sense? If that is the case, why is science examining them?

I'm quite content with accepting that there are many things I will never know. That appears to me to be our situation in this reality. May as well accept it.

That doesn't sound very scientific, accepting things without scientific verification? Wouldn't that mean that the assertion in the OP that all we need is science is not correct?

I am not questioning whether science is explainable. I am asking about whether science explains everything we need to know.

Need to know?

Do you need to know how consciousness works in order to be a conscious entity?

I don't think so.

You simply don't need to know a lot of things that you already know.

That last statement is rather interesting. If I already know it, how is it I gained that knowledge?

So, are you saying that consciousness, meaning and value are not important, because science can not explain them? I think consciousness, meaning and value are very important and I don't know how science can be used to explain them.

Meaning and value have already been thoroughly explained from a purely secular worldview. So those questions have already been answered. Apparently you either don't understand those answers, or you simply don't like them. But keep in mind that when searching for truth there is no guarantee that you'll like the answers.

Whether it is from a secular world view, or some other world view is not the question. The question is do we know those explanations scientifically, or by some other means?

And while consciousness is important to us because we have placed subjective meaning and value onto it, understanding how consciousness works is apparently not important at all. At least not in terms of actually being conscious.

And besides, what will you do when scientists do discover the workings of consciousness and end up explaining it as a form of a feedback loop in terms that perhaps you may not even understand?

What then?

Then I will have an answer that a do not currently have and that answer might help affirm that science is all that is needed. However, it appears that right now, we know somethings, not because of science, but because we place subjective meaning and value on them. If subjectivity is not scientific, then we does that not mean that we need something other than science.

[Divine Insight]

In that sense, it is up to the individual to decide, because neither science or philosophy have answers to those questions, although with philosophy, the sky is the limit because it has far more room for individuals to contemplate that question.

But there's a problem with pure philosophy. It's basically no different from merely guessing. Pure philosophy cannot lead you to truth anymore than pure guessing could.

Sure, you might accidentally stumble upon pure truth by guessing, but even if you did you would have no way of knowing that it's true.

So pure philosophy is useless. Sure, you can say "the sky is the limit", but unbounded limits of pure guessing is useless.

So pure philosophy has nothing to offer. As Stephen Hawking has rightfully pointed out, pure philosophy is dead. It can never lead you to truth.

[Divine Insight]

All the answers you need for what?

For negotiating life. Of course, there are some things we can never know. That is part of the point. However, we are not talking about what can and can not be known, that is a subset of what can not be scientifically determined. The question is whether or not the set of necessary knowledge(NK) is a complete subset of scientifically determinable knowledge(SDK)? It may be an overlapping set, with some SDK outside of the NK set and some of the NK outside of the SDK set.

Until you can offer a better method of determining truth everything you just said here is rather moot isn't it?

Again, you are the only one who is talking about deities. I am just asking that we examine the issue. Maybe if we were to do that there could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

I'm really not interested in any prizes, but like you, I would like to know the answer to a lot of questions as well. But that hardly helps. Science is the best we can do. Unless you can offer something better?

I actually do have ideas on how consciousness "might" work. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it is the result of a feedback loop that is arranged in a certain way.

Good, then please elaborate on that.

I've been thinking about A.I. for several decades. In fact back in the 80's I actually took a course on A.I. but to be perfectly honest it was a total disappointment. What they were calling A.I. was really nothing more than "Expert Systems". Expert systems are actually easy to program and I don't consider them to be A.I. at all.

Although in truth I guess an Expert System truly is A.I. (i.e. Artificial Intelligence), because it's certainly not real intelligence.

Also, intelligence itself does not produce consciousness (IMHO). Although there are some arguments that can be made along those lines. In fact, that's what Marvin Minsky basically argues for in his book.

I have ideas for how true "sentience" might be obtained. Not just a machine that refers to itself as an entity, but one that actually becomes the entity that it is. However that is way too involved to explain here on an Internet forum. The only thing I can tell you is that it requires a genuine analog neural network. Not a digitally simulated neural network like most people who work on A.I. are attempting to use. In fact, that's all they will ever produce using that method, (i.e. Artificial Intelligence), their never create a genuinely conscious entity using digital processing.

In any case, there's no point in trying to explain these thing on this forum. People on this forum often can't even seem to comprehend that things like meaning and value are just subjective opinions. They seem to think that there needs to be some higher explanation when in truth no higher explanation is required.

I am not whining. All I am doing is examining an assertion that has been made with regard to science, i.e. if it is the source of all necessary knowledge, how does it explain consciousness, meaning and value.

See what I mean?

You are still harping on the question of meaning and value. Those questions have already been answered by secularists. There is no need to keep harping on those questions when they have been fully explained.

Think about a human baby. Does a human baby have meaning and value? Clearly the universe doesn't think so. The universe will destroy a human baby in the most horrific ways without any problem at all. Even many animals would gladly eat a human baby if they can get their jaws on it. The only people who place meaning and value on a human baby are other humans, and even some of them couldn't care less about babies, unfortunately.

So human meaning and value is absolutely proven to be subjective. It's just a subjective value judgment. No further explanation is required. Yet you keep acting like these questions haven't been answered when they have already been fully addressed.

So, are you saying that there are things that are not scientifically verifiable or can not be explained by science. If that is the case, are consciousness, meaning and value among them? If so, then that would mean that science is not all we need.

Again meaning and value have already been explained and accounted for yet you refuse to drop those concerns. You keep acting like they need to be addressed when in truth they have already been fully addressed.

Finally, if you think we need something better than science then offer a suggestion for what that might be. Until you do that, you have nothing to offer but an unending chain of complaints.

Well, you have set meaning and value aside, by referring to them as subjective.

That's absolutely what they are. The universe and other animals have already proven this. There is no "absolute value or meaning" to even a human baby. It only has meaning and value to other humans, and not even ALL other humans give a hoot about human babies.

This is the truth of the world we live in.

Can it be that you just don't like the answers?

However, it appears that you are saying that subjectivism is outside of science and you have not shown that subjectivism is not necessary.

I never said that subjectivism is outside of science. To the contrary, it's pretty simple and crystal clear from observation.

Does the universe (i.e. nature) give a hoot about human babies? Nope.
Do hungry carnivorous animals give a hoot about human babies? Nope.
If there is something "beyond science", does it give a hoot about human babies? Apparently not.

Using science to observe the world around you will clearly reveal that meaning and value are subjective. So subjectivism is not "outside of science". It can be observed and there is well within the realm of scientific inquiry and explanation.

So once again you are doing nothing more than displaying your own inability to understand precisely what science is and what it can indeed explain. Meaning and value have already been totally understood and explained by science. Yet you keep acting like those concepts are beyond the ability of science to address.

It's just not true. Those questions have been fully answered. Meaning and value are nothing more than subjective opinions.

In fact, my sister and I are a very good example of this. We place meaning and value on entirely different things. So clearly what has meaning and value to us is extremely subjective. The subjectivity of meaning and value is so blatantly obvious I can't even understand why you would feel that it has not yet been answered or explained.

Therefore, the assertion that science is all that is necessary has not been proven in the case of those two things. Therefore, you would not accept the assertion in the OP to be true.

Well again, you have placed a highly subjective criteria of "need" on your demands which itself is a subjective notion.

In the OP you say: "It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need."

There are two problems with this:

The first problem is that you haven't shown where a belief in something which cannot be empirically verified has proved to be useful in any productive way in terms of providing any answer to your questions.

The second problem with your concern is that you haven't shown why anyone needs to have the answers to the question that seem to be bothering you.

I'm quite satisfied with the scientific observation that everything humans give meaning and value too is entirely a subjective opinion. So the question of meaning and value has been fully answered for me.

Also, since you say that how consciousness works has not yet been determined, then that would place that in the area of conjecture. Would you, therefore, say that conjecture is part of science, or is it something outside of science that provides us with something we need that science can not provide?

Not knowing how something works does not place it in the area of conjecture. Obviously you can make conjectures about it if you like. This is indeed the basis of how science proceeds. You make a conjecture (a hypothesis) and then you perform tests to see if your hypothesis can be verified or falsified. The conjecture or hypothesis itself is not a scientific truth. It's just an idea that can be tested.

And once again, even if science cannot provide an answer what then?

Do you have any better method of determining the truth or fallacy of a conjecture or hypothesis? If so, then offer it up. If not, then you're stuck with science as the best method we have thus far.

Science is simply the best method of inquiry that we have. That's what you seem to be unwilling to accept. Until you can offer something better, then you're stuck with science just like everyone else.

I never questioned whether science will never explain it. I am just noting that we recognize it without scientific explanation. That would mean that, in that case, we are accepting it based on something other than science. If it is a fact that science is the only method to investigate things, how does science recognize consciousness?

Scientist recognize consciousness because scientists observe their own conscious experience. In fact, no one (including science) can disprove solipsism. There is no way to prove that anyone is truly having a conscious experience other than yourself.

As a practical matter it seems to simply make sense to assume (without proof) that all humans are having a conscious experience. But no, it cannot be proven by science that anyone is having an actual experience.

But how does that help your predicament?

It doesn't. You still don't have any alternative way of discovering the truth. So you're still stuck with having science as the "BEST" method available to you.

That's all that needs to be said.

Until you can come up with something better, then what's your point? You may as well just go bang your head against a brick wall. Until you can offer a better method of answering these questions then all you are doing is complaining about things you can't do anything about.

That's no helping anyone.

Do you believe that science is the only form of knowledge?

Yes. Especially if we're talking about the knowledge of the world we live in.

Pure philosophy has already proven to be useless. Pure philosophy is truly no better than just guessing. You can imagine all sorts of possible universes or existence. What good does that do you? You can't demonstrate that any of those imagined world actually exist anywhere beyond your own imagination.

So where are you going to find knowledge about anything outside of science?

Even mathematicians argue among themselves over whether mathematics is discovered or invented. Especially if it's mathematics that describes things that are not possible in our world. Is there any "reality" to that mathematics? Or is it just as empty as philosophy?

In fact, the question about our mathematical formalism is a question that I have very passionate view about strong view on. So don't get me started on that topic.

So, unless one has an alternate explanation, one can not question whether something is all one needs? That is interesting.

It's a meaningless question to ask whether all you have available to you is all you think you "need".

A meaningful question would be to ask whether you can produce a better method of inquiry? Until you do that you're just spinning your wheels.

That is interesting. Are you also saying that consciousness and subjectivity(which you appear to say explains meaning and value) don't make any sense? If that is the case, why is science examining them?

No, I NEVER said that consciousness and subjectivity don't make any sense. Where in the world did you ever get that idea?

Subjectivity makes perfect sense. In fact, it's precisely the type of behavior that should be expected in a world with beings that are self-aware.

So self-awareness explains subjectivity.

It might be informative to understand that self-awareness itself is not the same as consciousness. In fact, we can already build robots that are "self-aware", at least in terms of logical thought. But does that mean that they are actually having an experience?

As I mentioned at the top of this thread, the whole concept of 'consciousness' is extremely complex. Self-awareness alone does not constitute an experience. Keep in mind, that we can't disprove solipsism, yet it's pretty obvious that people around us are clearly aware of themselves. The question isn't whether or not they are aware of themselves, the question is whether or not there is anyone 'home' that is having the experience of being aware of themselves.

A zombie would be aware of itself. Pretty soon we're going to have auto-driven cars that will not only be aware of themselves but they will be aware of all the other cars and pedestrians around them. Will that make them "conscious"?

You can answer that for yourself.

I'm quite content with accepting that there are many things I will never know. That appears to me to be our situation in this reality. May as well accept it.

That doesn't sound very scientific, accepting things without scientific verification? Wouldn't that mean that the assertion in the OP that all we need is science is not correct?

Keep in mind that YOU wrote the OP. The OP does not represent truth carved in stone.

I never took that position that all we "need" is science. Especially if what you mean by "need" is to be able to answer every possible question we could ever dream up.

There is no promise in science that science will be able to answer every question you can possibly ask.

In fact, I often think about a possible "God". And the very first thing that comes to my mind is the question, "Could even a God know everything, including the totality of its very own existence?"

I find that question to be quite profound. Imagine knowing everything including the very essence of your own existence. (assuming your the God) How you came to be? Or how you always existed if there was never a time when you did not exist?

You have absolutely NO QUESTIONS. You know precisely what you are and how you work and how you came to exist, or how and why you have always existed.

As far as I'm concerned, there basically needs to be some unanswerable questions somewhere.

I mean, the idea that all possible questions could be answered is probably a silly notion to begin with.

And if you knew that a "God" existed and is the answer to why we exist, would that be all you "need" to know? If so, why stop there?

Wouldn't you want to know how it is that God exists? And from whence God came to be?

I don't think human curiosity could ever be fully satisfied. There would always be something that you can't know.

You simply don't need to know a lot of things that you already know.

That last statement is rather interesting. If I already know it, how is it I gained that knowledge?

Maybe you were forced to take a class you really weren't interested in?

Whether it is from a secular world view, or some other world view is not the question. The question is do we know those explanations scientifically, or by some other means?

Scientific means are the ONLY means we have. So there is no other means by which we could have learned these truths.

Remember, if you think you've learned something from philosophical pondering, it was either pure dumb luck that you just happened to get it right, or you actually got it wrong and might even continue to cling to those fallacies.

Learning things from observation and experience (i.e. the scientific method) is really all we have. There simply is no other means of discovering truths in our world.

You seem to think that maybe there are alternative methods?

And besides, what will you do when scientists do discover the workings of consciousness and end up explaining it as a form of a feedback loop in terms that perhaps you may not even understand?

What then?

Then I will have an answer that a do not currently have and that answer might help affirm that science is all that is needed.

Science is all you have available to you. So if you need something more in you are pretty bad shape. That's just the way things are.

However, it appears that right now, we know somethings, not because of science, but because we place subjective meaning and value on them.

What do you think you know because you place subjective meaning and value on them? Keep in mind that opinions, likes, and dislikes, are not learned truths. They are just personal subjective views.

If subjectivity is not scientific, then we does that not mean that we need something other than science.

Subjectivity is scientific in that it is observed and explained in scientific terms. However, subjective opinions do not constitute absolute truths. Just because science can explain subjectivity does not mean that subjective opinions represent truths of reality.

Subjectivity is not a reliable method of inquiry into truth. In fact, subjective views and opinions are far more likely to be guided by wishful thinking and personal desires.

You seem to have a real bone to pick with science. But if you are interested in seeking truth science is actually the best friend you could ever have.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

But there's a problem with pure philosophy. It's basically no different from merely guessing. Pure philosophy cannot lead you to truth anymore than pure guessing could.

Sure, you might accidentally stumble upon pure truth by guessing, but even if you did you would have no way of knowing that it's true.

So pure philosophy is useless. Sure, you can say "the sky is the limit", but unbounded limits of pure guessing is useless.

So pure philosophy has nothing to offer. As Stephen Hawking has rightfully pointed out, pure philosophy is dead. It can never lead you to truth.

I see what you did there. In order to answer in the fashion that you did, you had to ignore the overall context of what I was saying about consciousness and self identity.

What 'truth' are you speaking about exactly? What is this 'truth' Stephen Hawking is speaking to in which "pure philosophy is dead" and how does it show the individual how best to self identify?

Because it was about self identifying which my post was focusing upon in relation to consciousness.

I think herein is the meat of the argument. It is not a case of knowing how it works but knowing what it is.

Knowing what it is, is knowing who you are.
All science had to offer in that department is to say 'we are stardust'.

In that sense, it is up to the individual to decide, because neither science or philosophy have answers to those questions, although with philosophy, the sky is the limit because it has far more room for individuals to contemplate that question.

That is the meat of the argument.

You believe you are a 'good person'. What about science has lead you to believe that this is the case? What truth did science give to you which allowed you to determine this factor and add it to your list of things which you self identify as being?

And certainly we do not need to know what consciousness IS in order to BE it. But it can help or hinder, depending on how we each decide to answer that question for our self. It is always about how we each self identify, and beliefs have a massive role in that department.

Your ability to self identify as being 'a good person' has what to do with what science has to tell you?

[Divine Insight]

I think herein is the meat of the argument. It is not a case of knowing how it works but knowing what it is.

Knowing what it is, is knowing who you are.
All science had to offer in that department is to say 'we are stardust'.

Being stardust is good enough for me.

Besides, you can't know anymore about your consciousness than I can know about mine. Therefore your arguments are meaningless.

Also what would change?

If you thought that some "higher consciousness" was required in order for you to be a conscious being, would then change how you would behave if instead you were convinced that you were conscious stardust?"

I've asked myself that question and my answer is that it would make absolutely no difference at all in who I am or how I behave.

So for me the question is moot, other than perhaps being an interest of curiosity.

This goes out to Bluethread as well: Why would you 'need' to know? What would that change? For me it would change absolutely nothing. I would still be precisely the same person I am right now. So it's clearly not information that I 'need' to know in order to make any important decisions.

In that sense, it is up to the individual to decide, because neither science or philosophy have answers to those questions, although with philosophy, the sky is the limit because it has far more room for individuals to contemplate that question.

That is the meat of the argument.

But it's a totally moot argument if you can't answer the question, and clearly you can't.

You believe you are a 'good person'. What about science has lead you to believe that this is the case? What truth did science give to you which allowed you to determine this factor and add it to your list of things which you self identify as being?

I pose no threat or harm to anyone. By the mere definition of our language if a person doesn't do things that are considered to be 'bad' then they necessarily must be a 'good person'.

And of course I'm speaking within the context of human thought and language. Can I say that I am a 'good person' in some imagined 'philosophical sense'? Again, that would all depend on who the philosopher is who is defining these terms.

But generally speaking, for all practical purposes, I'm a 'good person' in terms of what our society considers a 'good person' to be. Could I be better? No doubt, but then we're getting into subjective judgement calls at this point.

All I can really say is that "in my opinion" I'm a good person. Other's may disagree.

But then I'm free to have an opinion about them as well.

And certainly we do not need to know what consciousness IS in order to BE it. But it can help or hinder, depending on how we each decide to answer that question for our self. It is always about how we each self identify, and beliefs have a massive role in that department.

Your ability to self identify as being 'a good person' has what to do with what science has to tell you?

"Science" is simply a formalized method of making certain that observations and logical conclusions are accurate based on the formalism of logic and on the reality of observations. (i.e. personal hallucinations and/or imaginings aren't given much credence, and rightfully so, IMHO).

The bottom line when asking "What consciousness is?" should not be important to how a person conducts themselves. If it does make a difference for them then they should look deeply into why that is so.

That's all need to say about that.

I'm not going to change who I am based on the answer to what consciousness is.

If you would, then you should be seriously concerned with why your behavior would change? At that point the question becomes, "Who are you REALLY?"

If the answer to a question is going to change who you are, then can you even say that you have any substantial character at all?

I know who I am, and that's not going to change based on any answers I might learn in the future.

I can truly say I am that I am. Period.

Can you?

In fact, this is why I see many religions as being ridiculous. If their God doesn't like me for who I am, then so be it. For me to change who I am in an effort to please some God would be as pretentious as can possibly be.

So even if there exists a God, there's no way I could ever change who I am. Either that God would be pleased with me or not. There's no sense in playing any pretentious games about it.

I didn't mean to bring religion into this discussion, but the same goes for any other answers to the question of what consciousness is. I'm still me no matter what the answer to that question might be.

So the answer is moot and certainly not something I need to know.

The only people who would need to know would be people who might actually want to behave in certain ways but are only restraining themselves because they fear there might be some higher consciousness keeping track of them and potentially judging them.

Otherwise why would it make any difference?

The question of consciousness is moot. Other than being a matter of curiosity and possibly having medical benefits for people who aren't in full control of their own consciousness.

[bluethread]

But there's a problem with pure philosophy. It's basically no different from merely guessing. Pure philosophy cannot lead you to truth anymore than pure guessing could.

Excuse me for answering for William, but he seems to be understanding the issue better than you are.

Pure science does not always lead to truth either. I am not arguing for pure philosophy. That is your straw man. What I am asking is if something like philosphy can answer questions that science can not.

Sure, you might accidentally stumble upon pure truth by guessing, but even if you did you would have no way of knowing that it's true.

That depends on what you mean by knowing. We seem to know we are consious, but science can not explain consciousness. We therefore accept it on some other basis.

This goes out to Bluethread as well: Why would you 'need' to know? What would that change? For me it would change absolutely nothing. I would still be precisely the same person I am right now. So it's clearly not information that I 'need' to know in order to make any important decisions.

Well, let's take my decision to take you seriously. If all you are is stardust, why should anything you say matter to me? In your previous post to me you stated that meaning and value are not important, because we can consider a baby devoid of meaning and value. However, why would we do that? On what do we base our subjective attribution of meaning and value? More importantly, how does the baby establish meaning and value. These things have been in existance long before the development of the scientific method, both individually and corporately. We developed the majority of our cognitive structure before we ever knew anything about science.

What is interesting is that it appears that we set up science as a cognitive structure, even before we learn how it works. Primary school children are not taught the scientific method. They are taught life "science". That is they are taught about life and the study of life is deemed to be "science". So, in that sence, what we refer to as "science" in early developemnt is not scientific, it is merely a cognitive construct.

[Divine Insight]

Pure science does not always lead to truth either. I am not arguing for pure philosophy. That is your straw man. What I am asking is if something like philosphy can answer questions that science can not.

But the answer to that question is already known:

The answer is no. No one has been able to offer any method of inquiry that is better than science.

As I continually point out, if you have something to offer please do so. Until then the answer to your question is, "No. No philosophy better than science has yet been recognized or even proposed by anyone."

So you are asking a question that already has an answer.

Sure, you might accidentally stumble upon pure truth by guessing, but even if you did you would have no way of knowing that it's true.

That depends on what you mean by knowing. We seem to know we are consious, but science can not explain consciousness. We therefore accept it on some other basis.

But we know that "our individual consciousness" exists precisely by using the scientific method. (i.e. we observe that our own consciousness exists directly as an observer.) That's the scientific method in a nutshell.

What we can't do is directly observe that anyone else is actually having a conscious experience. And because of this we can't know whether other people are actually conscious or not.

Keep in mind that you cannot prove that solipsism is false. Therefore you can't know that anyone is truly having a conscious experience other than yourself.

Therefore you cannot know anything beyond what you can know through science (i.e. through direct experience and observation).

Your mistake here is in thinking that you can know something that science can't know. But that's false.

You can "prove" (i.e. verify via observation and experience) your own conscious experience to yourself. What you can't do is prove it to anyone else. Nor can you be certain that everyone else isn't an automated zombie.

We can only guess that it seems rational to conclude that other humans are just as conscious as we are. But that's necessarily a GUESS. It has to be, because it's impossible to disprove solipsism.

So you cannot know anything beyond science. Even your own conscious experience is not beyond science from your personal objective experience.

So you haven't produced any knowledge that cannot be known by science.

[Divine Insight]

Well, let's take my decision to take you seriously. If all you are is stardust, why should anything you say matter to me?

Why shouldn't it matter to you?

What difference would it make if I was made of something else?

In your previous post me you stated that meaning and value are not important, because we can consider a baby devoid of meaning and value. However, why would we do that?

I never said that meaning and value are not important. Where did you come up with that idea?

I simply said that what humans deem to be meaningful and valuable is indeed relative to human subjective opinions. Does that make it "not important"? Apparently you seem to think so. But that's not my position at all. It's clearly important to humans (at least to most of us anyway).

On what do we base our subjective attribution of meaning and value? More importantly, how does the baby establish meaning and value. These things have been in existence long before the development of the scientific method, both individually and corporately. We developed the majority of our cognitive structure before we ever knew anything about science.

You say, "These things have been in existance long before the development of the scientific method".

But this is actually false. The scientific method has existed since humans first became sentient, and possible even before that even in non-sentient life forms. All modern science has done is given this perfectly natural way of evaluating the world a name (i.e. "The Scientific Method"), and then formalized it to make certain that it isn't abused by people who would try to assert that mere un-evidenced opinions qualify as "science".

This no different from something like "Evolution". Evolution has always been occurring, it didn't just come into existence when we defined the word.

So the scientific method of inquiry has been with us from the dawn of time, long before we officially formalized it so that people can't get away with abusing the the semantics.

What is interesting is that it appears that we set up science as a cognitive structure, even before we learn how it works.

I would suggest that this is grossly wrong. What I see having happened was that humans finally came to the realization that only things that can be directly observed and/or experience can be trusted to reveal the truth of our reality. And so they took those elements of inquiry and formalized them. They didn't "set up" anything. They simply recognized what was already important.

Primary school children are not taught the scientific method. They are taught life "science". That is they are taught about life and the study of life is deemed to be "science". So, in that sence, what we refer to as "science" in early developemnt is not scientific, it is merely a cognitive construct.

I see no point in discussing the failures and flaws of our educational institutions in this thread.

Just because schools have decided to teach things in certain ways doesn't mean that it was a wise move, or an intelligent move. In fact, if our schools are producing students who question the scientific method of inquiry then shame on our schools.

That's all I have to say about that.