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?

[bluethread]

Specifically I myself am arguing that consciousness isn't dependent on existing without a brain. Consciousness is simply defined as an ability to be aware of self, even that this awareness may not be as acute in some as in others. Specifically "I am that I am" is a statement of consciousness, but even if consciousness has no means in which to state such, it has other ways of making this obvious.
My contention is that consciousness pervades all things, and that is 'GOD'.

That seems to support the view that something is indeed beyond the ability for science to explain. That is the point of this thread. Do you think that any of that is scientifically verifiable and if so, how so?

It is relatively simply to determine what consciousness actually is. The problem isn't that, but in assigning it as 'different' depending upon what it is interacting with/through.
Consciousness defines itself. "I am that I am" and if one can grasp the rudimentary foundation of that concept, one can understand that it is the fabric upon that which all and every reality is derived.
This is why I often point out the necessity of 'knowing thyself' as it were. To understand the quintessence of consciousness, striped of all 'things'. That is GOD and that is from where we derive and what we ultimately are.

The 'living' can be observed in what we refer to as 'life' and the common denominator is intelligence and therefore - consciousness.
It is easy enough to attribute intelligence and consciousness to mammals and other things with brains, but difficult for many to admit that the whole planet is a self aware creative entity, and that biological evolution is the evidence for this being the case.

Again, presuming your view to be correct, how is that scientifically verifiable. If it is not then science is not sufficient to explain all human activity.

Science is far too busy working from the inside out - as that is all it can really do.
The notion/belief that consciousness derives from brains is one such sign of this inside out analysis. In relation to the heart, there are studies being done related to 'heart consciousness' as if somehow the brain consciousness is different from the heart consciousness, but it does not matter how thinly one slices up consciousness, it always retains the essence of the complete image of its self no matter how many times it is reduced in size, or what container it expresses through.

So, it appears that you believe that science is inadequate to explain things like consciousness, meaning and value. if that is not the case please explain how science can address these things.

Could it be that this is what gives support to subjectivism. Since, surgery on the nervous system in general, and the brain specifically, requires patient interaction, doesn't that indicate that consiousness is not universally the same, but is inherently subjective and can only be communicated in the abstract?

No. This is because every thing in the universe is unique, so it will give the impression that it is thus not universally 'the same' due to whatever it is expressing through. This is what has lead to the idea of dualism.
Consciousness can ever only appreciate the subjective experience of itself, no matter the form being occupied.

You appear to claim that there is a universal consciousness that is shared by everyone and people just experience it subjectively. Is that subjective view a matte of differences in scientifically verifiable differences, or is it yet another factor that can not be scientifically verified?

I don't think consciousness is different from form to form - and what is a 'person' anyway? What you are speaking to here is not so much consciousness as in how consciousness expresses through forms. Because each individual is unique in their subjective situation, they express that uniqueness through their form and into the greater environment.

It is not consciousness itself which therefore has the final say as to what it is in relation to the human experience. So many other things combine to usurp and undermine that ability and right. The nature of this reality allows for consciousness to lose itself - to be lost to itself - and much of the evidence re this can be seen in the generic manner in which humans choose to express their collective experience. Self identification is integral to consciousness, so getting it wrong can be catastrophic, and not only in relation to this side of death.

That is a fine extrapolation on your philosophical view, however, can any of that be scientifically verified?

[William]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

That seems to support the view that something is indeed beyond the ability for science to explain. That is the point of this thread. Do you think that any of that is scientifically verifiable and if so, how so?

In one way it has already being verified through observation. However, interpretation of observation is where things can get wobbly-wheeled.

For now a popular interpretation of the science by many scientists is they cannot see GOD in consciousness, or consciousness as being the same thing in different forms. If they are looking for any signs of GOD, they are excluding these things in their equations/interpretations.

But then, so are many theists, and popular theism over the centuries have produced an unsavory idea of GOD which is occulted entirely behind the wall of a supposed alternate reality which cannot be observed by scientific means, nor is its reality measurable as a consequence.

Again, presuming your view to be correct, how is that scientifically verifiable. If it is not then science is not sufficient to explain all human activity.

Again, present scientific practice seems unable to verify with any certainty, what consciousness is in relation to meaning and value.
Is science the correct tool for that job? It requires verification in order to justifiable be called 'science' and it is apparent that while studies are continually done in relation to brains and consciousness, correct conclusions cannot be presently ascertained. The popular conclusion that consciousness is emergent property of brain function allows for the idea of 'GOD' to be rejected, but the rejection isn't itself a product of science.

So, it appears that you believe that science is inadequate to explain things like consciousness, meaning and value.

Present day science is inadequate, yes. It is still a work in progress re consciousness. Meaning and value are something which cannot be contemplated without consciousness, but are not generally considered to being something science deals with.

These are usually left up to individuals to ascertain and group accordingly together depending on those outcomes.

You appear to claim that there is a universal consciousness that is shared by everyone and people just experience it subjectively. Is that subjective view a matte of differences in scientifically verifiable differences, or is it yet another factor that can not be scientifically verified?

Subjectivity is not really something science finds useful. Beliefs do not matter. Verifiable facts are what matter.

That is a fine extrapolation on your philosophical view, however, can any of that be scientifically verified?

I don't know. I am not a scientist. Indeed I formed my theology based on theological information, philosophical information, subjective experience, and studying many accounts of individuals who have experienced alternate states of reality, especially in regard to astral projection.

I have also used ideomotor especially in relation to so-called 'talking boards' and this is one way that data can be compiled and measured but not something the scientific community are overly interested in investigating more than simple surface scratching and most seem of the opinion that 'there is nothing to see here folks - move along' as the saying goes.

Secular science doesn't offer me meaning and value or any adequate explanations as to what consciousness is in relation to what I know and have experienced subjectively.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

That seems to support the view that something is indeed beyond the ability for science to explain. That is the point of this thread. Do you think that any of that is scientifically verifiable and if so, how so?

In one way it has already being verified through observation. However, interpretation of observation is where things can get wobbly-wheeled.

For now a popular interpretation of the science by many scientists is they cannot see GOD in consciousness, or consciousness as being the same thing in different forms. If they are looking for any signs of GOD, they are excluding these things in their equations/interpretations.

But then, so are many theists, and popular theism over the centuries have produced an unsavory idea of GOD which is occulted entirely behind the wall of a supposed alternate reality which cannot be observed by scientific means, nor is its reality measurable as a consequence.

I really do not think that lumping this all under the title "GOD" is very useful at on this thread, in this forum. I'm more interested in what can be explained scientifically. You said, "In one way it has already being verified through observation." How so? What is it specifically that has been observed and how is that observation verified scientifically?

Again, presuming your view to be correct, how is that scientifically verifiable. If it is not then science is not sufficient to explain all human activity.

Again, present scientific practice seems unable to verify with any certainty, what consciousness is in relation to meaning and value.
Is science the correct tool for that job? It requires verification in order to justifiable be called 'science' and it is apparent that while studies are continually done in relation to brains and consciousness, correct conclusions cannot be presently ascertained. The popular conclusion that consciousness is emergent property of brain function allows for the idea of 'GOD' to be rejected, but the rejection isn't itself a product of science.

Then it sounds like the short answer is no, science can not verifiably explain what consciousness is and how meaning and value relate to that.

So, it appears that you believe that science is inadequate to explain things like consciousness, meaning and value.

Present day science is inadequate, yes. It is still a work in progress re consciousness. Meaning and value are something which cannot be contemplated without consciousness, but are not generally considered to being something science deals with.

These are usually left up to individuals to ascertain and group accordingly together depending on those outcomes.

Ok, so on what are we basing the concept on consciousness currently?

You appear to claim that there is a universal consciousness that is shared by everyone and people just experience it subjectively. Is that subjective view a matte of differences in scientifically verifiable differences, or is it yet another factor that can not be scientifically verified?

Subjectivity is not really something science finds useful. Beliefs do not matter. Verifiable facts are what matter.

So, how does subjectivity provide us with our share concept of consciousness?

That is a fine extrapolation on your philosophical view, however, can any of that be scientifically verified?

I don't know. I am not a scientist. Indeed I formed my theology based on theological information, philosophical information, subjective experience, and studying many accounts of individuals who have experienced alternate states of reality, especially in regard to astral projection.

I have also used ideomotor especially in relation to so-called 'talking boards' and this is one way that data can be compiled and measured but not something the scientific community are overly interested in investigating more than simple surface scratching and most seem of the opinion that 'there is nothing to see here folks - move along' as the saying goes.

Secular science doesn't offer me meaning and value or any adequate explanations as to what consciousness is in relation to what I know and have experienced subjectively.

Ok, so it sounds like you have developed your views on consciousness, meaning and value based on comparing shared cultural explanations, i.e. story telling. Is that correct?

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by bluethread]

I really do not think that lumping this all under the title "GOD" is very useful at on this thread, in this forum.

Are you saying that GOD is not useful in some situations? This forum is not just about science BT, but also religion and last time I looked, religion was primarily about ideas of GOD.

Remember, I said this to begin with; (*corrected from original)

Specifically I myself am arguing that consciousness isn't dependent on existing without (*or with) a brain. Consciousness is simply defined as an ability to be aware of self, even that this awareness may not be as acute in some as in others. Specifically "I am that I am" is a statement of consciousness, but even if consciousness has no means in which to state such, it has other ways of making this obvious.
My contention is that consciousness pervades all things, and that is 'GOD'.

Then you replied;

That seems to support the view that something is indeed beyond the ability for science to explain. That is the point of this thread. Do you think that any of that is scientifically verifiable and if so, how so?

I answered this

"In one way it has already being verified through observation." and now you ask;

How so?

Through observing, is how so. As I also said;

However, interpretation of observation is where things can get wobbly-wheeled.

and went on to explain that.

What is it specifically that has been observed and how is that observation verified scientifically?

What is being observed is how consciousness interacts with the brain. That is science verifying consciousness interacting with the brain. At least that is what we are told is happening...but I see no reason to doubt those observations are something other than consciousness interacting with the brain.
However, I also see no reason to thus conclude that consciousness is therefore emergent of the brain, which is the 'wobbly-wheeled' part I mentioned.

Again, my observation re what is shown scientifically regarding the nature of bacteria leads me to conclude that bacteria are self conscious - they have consciousness but do not have brains.

Others choose to go with dictionary definitions regarding 'what is intelligence' and therein argue from the position of popular definitions rather than pure scientific observations, and therein interpret that bacteria do not have consciousness because they are brainless, and make that their argument.

Then it sounds like the short answer is no, science can not verifiably explain what consciousness is and how meaning and value relate to that.

Presently speaking in relation to secular science, it does appear that this is the case.
There may be science going on in which the public and/or their governments are not made aware of which may tell a different story of course, but since these generally fit under the heading of 'conspiracy theory' and cannot be verified one way or another as to the truth of the matter, all I would say then is that this is possible so the only truthful answer I can give which incorporates that possibility is that whether or not science can varifiably explain what consciousness is and/or how meaning and value relate to that - at present - no science we are aware of, is doing so.

Ok, so on what are we basing the concept on consciousness currently?

That is variable, correct? This is a matter of individual subjective decision. This of course equates to natural enough grouping as individuals sort out their preferences in relation to other individuals.

For me though, consciousness is NOT a 'concept'. It is real. And without it, nothing else could be acknowledged as being real.
That would place it at the top of the reality spectrum, wouldn't you agree?

So, how does subjectivity provide us with our share concept of consciousness?

Consciousness is not a concept. It is a reality. It is real. It is who we each are. Subjectivity is the only thing which consciousness is able to experience, be that as GOD outright, or GOD in form. That is why I think consciousness and GOD are indistinguishable. Only FORM allows for distinction.

The pattern does not change. If one were to understand GOD as pure consciousness, wholeness, formless eternal and alone, GOD still experiences subjectively as that being.

If one is to understand that GOD creates form in which to divest Its consciousness into those forms for the experience, the aspects of GOD-consciousness within those forms experience subjectively as those beings.

Consciousness may be able to understand things objectivity at least in 'getting the gist', but its primary position is always subjective.

Science deals with trying to understand things objectively, which is useful in relation to a planet in a galaxy and a species experiencing life on that planet, as we do. Where it fails is in how to incorporate the predominant subjectivity of consciousness into the objective. Both are realities, but which should be consider real? That which is experiencing or that which is being experienced?

As important as your thread question might be, the same question can be asked of theism, and Christianity is one religion which also fails to adequately answer said question, because it has developed doctrines which demonizes individual subjective experience and this hasn't been at all helpful - historically speaking - as well as presently speaking.

Ok, so it sounds like you have developed your views on consciousness, meaning and value based on comparing shared cultural explanations, i.e. story telling. Is that correct?

Yes.

Although usually the expression 'story-telling' begins 'once upon a time' and is assumed to be made up fantasy.
What makes the stories that little bit more believable is that I have experienced first hand certain things which allow for me to understand that people are not making things up.
This is not to say that one should not be prudent of course. I look for things such as previously unacquainted cultures with such stories embedded into their lore which align. This allows for the theory that consciousness is somehow connected throughout the collective species and the stories are like 'background noise', as it were.

There are of course explanations woven into the fabric of these stories which help the seeker to understand the nature of that which is otherwise unseen - and thus unverifiable through scientific methodology - not purposefully occulted but naturally so.

Indra's net is one such analogy which I gather is referring to this hidden process of species collective consciousness.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Robotic technology may be useful in some applications, but the more we rely on AI in our day to day life, we change our own brains and thus diminish consciousness. This is partly the problem of the societal decay we see today. There are more people than ever before who don't know how to have a conversation because they are too busy looking at there iPhones.

The human brain has gotten people through centuries of development, but we have come or are coming to a point where what people were capable of doing for themselves, may not be doing anymore. So we are diminishing consciousness, meaning, and values because technology is beginning to surpass human functional capabilities.