If it exists, it has atoms

[Willum]

So I am just putting this out there as a thought-provoker:

If something exists, it is composed of atoms or is an energy or force: Electromagnetic, Gravitational, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Neutron Degeneracy.

Is there anything that is an exception to this conjecture?

[William]

[Replying to post 78 by DrNoGods]

I wouldn't ask you to believe in anything just because millions of people believe in it, but because of whether or not there is evidence to support the belief.

In that you skirt around the obvious point I am making regarding how the evidence can be interpreted. It is the way in which evidence is interpreted that can cause the individual to form belief.

What evidence do you have, besides your own personal interpretation, of something like an "earth entity consciousness", or that consciousness is NOT simply a manifestation of brain activity within an individual?

There you go again. I have not said that it is or isn't. I do not make those claims, because to make those claims this would have to be done through belief.

The evidence is plain enough that the earth could well be a living creative self aware entity which uses the form of the planet itself to create biological forms thereby explaining the intelligence involved which the theory of evolution tends to try to explain without including that possibility. Indeed I have interacted with many who argue the belief that it is not an intelligent process at all. This belief in itself creates a barrier to those individuals even wanting to entertain the possibility.

I'm not specifically arguing for simplicity in all things as some position to take, but if there is no evidence to support a hypothesis then it remains just that. Why invent complicated explanations for something until it can be shown that such an approach is necessary?

The point is that complicated hypothesis are necessary in relation to philosophical and theological positions. You are arguing one should keep it simple in relation to science. Science itself has NO NEED of the philosophical/theological in order to do its job, which is directly related to what can be observed, understood and manipulated to whatever ends those who use science choose.

In many cases, the simplest explanation IS the correct one, and if the answer is not yet known with certainty the "KISS" principle is a rational approach.

Unless it forms into actual belief, in which case it becomes irrational, and to use belief as argument against a possible alternative interpretation simply on the grounds that 'it is simpler for the individual to deal with' amounts to the individual simply preferring not to deal with it.

Certainly the belief you and so many like you espouse, claims that no one will experience anything else once their body dies because you interpret that consciousness is emergent of the brain and thus MUST have to die when that brain does, is understandable in the simplicity of its context, but does not actually mean that this is what is going to be the case for the individual.

But lets say that some day scientific method finds a way in which to extend a human life indefinitely. For those who will be able to afford such technology, the possibility of their being an 'afterlife' to experience will not be relevant.

But that will still not mean that there is no chance that the possibility of continuation of the individual consciousness will happen for those of us in the process of dying, mean-time, and hypothesis on the subject are best not allowed to evolve into belief, either way.

In regards to the mechanism of consciousness, I don't "know for sure" because I am not a "brain scientist." I have spent my career as an experimental spectroscopist (Ph.D. is in physical chemistry) and I like to read a lot. So I am just an "armchair scientist" when it comes to areas outside of physical chemistry and spectroscopy, and in those other areas I can only "believe" what I understand from reading on the subjects. If the complete mechanism of consciousness were thoroughly understood there would be no need to debate the subject here.

Sorry, but I do not get the impression you only 'believe' rather than actually believe.

Indeed, there are other sources of information regarding theories on afterlife and a great many personal accounts about individual experiences to do with this. If you have already made up your mind to believe in the simply, you will have no interest in the complex or the possibility that there is far more than meets the eye, or that the planet is a conscious living creative entity and other such things.

All that is required is to think it possible, and experimentation into such alternative is achievable to you, the subjective individual having your experience of life on this planet. All that really stands in the way of that, are the beliefs you have already adopted as 'truth'.

It has been demonstrated by our control of this planet and the amazing accomplishments in the areas of science, engineering and virtually every other subject that requires intelligence of the kind we possess as humans. There is no other creature with anywhere NEAR the cognitive capabilities of humans ... yet.

Well that is one interpretation. Another is that we humans are actually stuffing up the planet, are not even in control of ourselves let alone the planet, and indications are that things are literally going to heat up due largely to our lack of wisdom in relation to our cognitive capabilities. In relation to the planet itself, I would thinking that if indeed it were a conscious living creative self aware entity, it would surpass the praises you bestow upon humans, regulating us to our actual positions rather than this out of proportion one you argue for in the above.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 79 by William]

The evidence is plain enough that the earth could well be a living creative self aware entity which uses the form of the planet itself to create biological forms thereby explaining the intelligence involved which the theory of evolution tends to try to explain without including that possibility.

How much of that Maui Wow-ee is in that pipe of yours?

Since this fellow has me on ignore, will someone relay my wish for a head to head debate on the bolded bit? I'm tired of listening to self conscious creative Earth entity babble. It's time to put up, thanks.

[Bust Nak]

I have not said that it is or isn't... The evidence is plain enough that the earth could well be a living creative self aware entity...

What does "The evidence is plain enough that... could well be" mean here? Are you merely saying while the evidence doesn't show that Earth is living conscious entity, the evidence can't rule that scenario out? Or are you actually suggesting that the evidence does show Earth is living conscious entity?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 55 by AgnosticBoy]

If your whole point was subjective experience cannot be observed directly then fine, but the specific claim I was objecting to was "If mental imagery was available to 3rd person point-of-view (as in objectively observable), then we wouldn't need to rely on "statistical matching algorithms"." There are objectively observable images that are that require "statistical matching algorithms."

At best, what you see on the monitor in these mind-reading studies are "models" (varying degrees of accuracy) of mental imagery. The model is transmitted to a screen to be seen by the researchers. It is not the phenomenon itself because mental imagery does not rely on light, the senses, and monitors to be perceived. I'm glad you're willing to accept this to some degree, but many other materialists just tie themselves into an intellectual knot trying to explain this in physical terms (entirely - covering even the subjective aspect).

With that said, the OP question has already been answered ever since jgh7 brought up "consciousness" in post 4. Pain and information was brought up later on. Keep in mind that I've debated these issues on many different forums. Some agree with me and some don't. But what's important is that those who don't agree acknowledge that they LACK the empirically verifiable evidence to show how or why consciousness is entirely physical. Sure, there are a lot of UNtested theoretical explanations out there and I question if they even would deal with the 'hard problem' as opposed to just the 'easy problem' of consciousness. It's also worth mentioning that there are some positive reasons to believe that a physical explanation is inadequate - doesn't even seem to make sense in a materialistic/mechanistic worldview.

My conclusion based off of experience and evidence:
Consciousness is not entirely physical. It is IRREDUCIBLE and UNOBSERVABLE (via direct means).

NO scientists has refuted this by presenting scientific peer-reviewed/replicated evidence, so why should I believe an audience who are probably lacking in expertise (e.g. forum members/bloggers) would fare any better?!

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by Bust Nak]

I have not said that it is or isn't... The evidence is plain enough that the earth could well be a living creative self aware entity...

What does "The evidence is plain enough that... could well be" mean here?

The meaning is explained in my prior posts in this discussion. Rather than repeat myself, the reader is encouraged to go back and read for themselves...

Are you merely saying while the evidence doesn't show that Earth is living conscious entity, the evidence can't rule that scenario out?

No. It is not a case of 'merely'. It is a case of certainly, and it is a case of how that same evidence is interpreted differently, and it is a case of making sure one does not merely argue from a platform/position of belief. The particular belief I am referring to can be read about in my prior posts in this thread.

Or are you actually suggesting that the evidence does show Earth is living conscious entity?

No. I am stating implicitly that the evidence does not rule out that possibility.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 82 by AgnosticBoy]

My conclusion based off of experience and evidence:
Consciousness is not entirely physical. It is IRREDUCIBLE and UNOBSERVABLE (via direct means).

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "entirely physical" in the above quote? Are you suggesting that the origin and source of consciousness is not entirely the result of physical components of the brain interacting? Or do you accept that consciousness originates from these physical components and is produced by them, but itself is a nonphysical "thing"?

I don't think any materialist would argue against consciousness itself being a nonphysical thing, but neither is a thought or an idea. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere as these things are, by definition, nonphysical. But from your posts so far I can't tell if you are objecting to consciousness being the result of normal brain activity and nothing more, or if you are arguing that this is only part of the story and there is also a metaphysical component to it.

Saying that consciousness is "irreducible and unobservable via direct means" doesn't address the issue of whether consciousness is solely an emergent property of the brain, or not. It could be solely an emergent property with no metaphysical component, and still be unobservable by direct means, just like a thought or idea. So, do you think there is a metaphysical component to consciousness? If so, and you want peer-reviewed scientific papers as evidence (fair enough), what can you offer up to support the existence of a metaphysical component to consciousness? Is there any evidence whatsoever that such a prospect exists, or does a complete description of consciousness still reside within the realm of unsolved scientific problems, and therefore it is premature to believe that a metaphysical component is necessary to explain it?

[Bust Nak]

No. It is not a case of 'merely'. It is a case of certainly, and it is a case of how that same evidence is interpreted differently, and it is a case of making sure one does not merely argue from a platform/position of belief. The particular belief I am referring to can be read about in my prior posts in this thread.

Still not clear. Can evidence be interpreted in such a way to support the claim that the Earth is a living conscious entity? If so then provide example(s.)

No. I am stating implicitly that the evidence does not rule out that possibility.

Okay, should one believe that the Earth is a living conscious entity?

[Bust Nak]

At best, what you see on the monitor in these mind-reading studies are "models" (varying degrees of accuracy) of mental imagery. The model is transmitted to a screen to be seen by the researchers.

How is that different from "what you see on the monitor in these jpeg-loading browsers are "models" (varying degrees of accuracy) of digital imagery. The model is transmitted to a screen to be seen by users?"

It is not the phenomenon itself because mental imagery does not rely on light, the senses, and monitors to be perceived.

What's stopping someone from insisting that there is something extra in digital imagery that does not rely on light, the sense, and monitors be perceived?

I'm glad you're willing to accept this to some degree, but many other materialists just tie themselves into an intellectual knot trying to explain this in physical terms (entirely - covering even the subjective aspect).

I don't see why accepting that subjective experience cannot be observed directly would stop us materialists from trying explain this in entirely physical terms, along the lines of consciousness is reducible to the brain.

With that said, the OP question has already been answered ever since jgh7 brought up "consciousness" in post 4. Pain and information was brought up later on. Keep in mind that I've debated these issues on many different forums. Some agree with me and some don't. But what's important is that those who don't agree acknowledge that they LACK the empirically verifiable evidence to show how or why consciousness is entirely physical. Sure, there are a lot of UNtested theoretical explanations out there and I question if they even would deal with the 'hard problem' as opposed to just the 'easy problem' of consciousness. It's also worth mentioning that there are some positive reasons to believe that a physical explanation is inadequate - doesn't even seem to make sense in a materialistic/mechanistic worldview.

What's exactly wrong with the trivial correlation of no brains no counsciousness? Why insist on something beyond the material when there is this unambiguous correlation?

My conclusion based off of experience and evidence:
Consciousness is not entirely physical. It is IRREDUCIBLE and UNOBSERVABLE (via direct means).

NO scientists has refuted this by presenting scientific peer-reviewed/replicated evidence, so why should I believe an audience who are probably lacking in expertise (e.g. forum members/bloggers) would fare any better?!

Why would we need to refute this though, when we have a simpler explanation? The principle of parsimony applies here.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 82 by AgnosticBoy]

My conclusion based off of experience and evidence:
Consciousness is not entirely physical. It is IRREDUCIBLE and UNOBSERVABLE (via direct means).

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "entirely physical" in the above quote? Are you suggesting that the origin and source of consciousness is not entirely the result of physical components of the brain interacting? Or do you accept that consciousness originates from these physical components and is produced by them, but itself is a nonphysical "thing"?

The latter description.

Saying that consciousness is "irreducible and unobservable via direct means" doesn't address the issue of whether consciousness is solely an emergent property of the brain, or not. It could be solely an emergent property with no metaphysical component, and still be unobservable by direct means, just like a thought or idea. So, do you think there is a metaphysical component to consciousness? If so, and you want peer-reviewed scientific papers as evidence (fair enough), what can you offer up to support the existence of a metaphysical component to consciousness? Is there any evidence whatsoever that such a prospect exists, or does a complete description of consciousness still reside within the realm of unsolved scientific problems, and therefore it is premature to believe that a metaphysical component is necessary to explain it?

If by metaphysical you mean 'supernatural' or mystical then that is not part of my view. The non-physical aspect of the mind comes into existence via a natural process, i.e. 'emergence'.

I believe scientists can deal with a non-physical mind because they're scientific explanations involves 'unobservables', like certain subatomic particles, Multiverses, dimensions, etc. Eventhough consciousness resists any real physical characterization, but it's tied to and interacts with a physical system (brain) so scientists can observe it indirectly.

[AgnosticBoy]

At best, what you see on the monitor in these mind-reading studies are "models" (varying degrees of accuracy) of mental imagery. The model is transmitted to a screen to be seen by the researchers.

How is that different from "what you see on the monitor in these jpeg-loading browsers are "models" (varying degrees of accuracy) of digital imagery. The model is transmitted to a screen to be seen by users?"

Every bit of information to a digital image is "directly" observable. That's true from the basic level (the digital encoding) all the way up to the top level (the actual image on the screen).

I've already refuted arguments that try to use 'mind-reading' studies to show that mental imagery is physical and/or directly observable.
Here's one of my previous threads, Mental imagery as non-physical perception.

It is not the phenomenon itself because mental imagery does not rely on light, the senses, and monitors to be perceived.

What's stopping someone from insisting that there is something extra in digital imagery that does not rely on light, the sense, and monitors be perceived?

We have clear evidence that digital imagery relies on light and monitors to be seen. There's no evidence that it does not.

With that said, the OP question has already been answered ever since jgh7 brought up "consciousness" in post 4. Pain and information was brought up later on. Keep in mind that I've debated these issues on many different forums. Some agree with me and some don't. But what's important is that those who don't agree acknowledge that they LACK the empirically verifiable evidence to show how or why consciousness is entirely physical.

What's exactly wrong with the trivial correlation of no brains no counsciousness? Why insist on something beyond the material when there is this unambiguous correlation?

Emergent dualism factors in that brain and consciousness are connected. But it also acknowledges that the effect is drastically different from the basic level that that caused it. A simple way to prove my point is to make a list of all of the properties of the lower level parts and a list of all of the higher level properties. One clear example is that neural activity is observable/physical, while subjective experience is not. Another example is mental imagery can have visual properties while neural activity (flow of electrons/chemicals) does not.

My conclusion based off of experience and evidence:
Consciousness is not entirely physical. It is IRREDUCIBLE and UNOBSERVABLE (via direct means).
NO scientists has refuted this by presenting scientific peer-reviewed/replicated evidence, so why should I believe an audience who are probably lacking in expertise (e.g. forum members/bloggers) would fare any better?!

Why would we need to refute this though, when we have a simpler explanation? The principle of parsimony applies here.

You have no verified/tested explanation. Having simpler IDEAS or hypotheses does not count as an empirically verified explanation for how neural activity gives rise to consciousness and/or subjective experience. I've presented evidence of some notable scientists abandoning the purely reductionistic approach which takes a level of the physical out of the picture.

More on that here.

This will be my last post here.