Strategically speaking, should not one know about a tool before they use it? We rely on awareness to know things. Should not scientists understand consciousness before proclaiming materialism?
Strategically, the thinkers and traditions of the East are better suited to understand reality because of their focus on the nature of self.
This speaker explains
*self= consciousness
Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Moderator: Moderators
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #2Only to the degree that it's necessary. I use my computer as a tool of communication, but I'll be darned if I need to know how its bells and whistles interface.
Nope. Philosophically, materialism is a doctrine that asserts reality exists only in matter and its movement---the only reality doctrine rooted in convincing evidence---so I fail to see where or why understanding consciousness would necessarily bear on it.We rely on awareness to know things. Should not scientists understand consciousness before proclaiming materialism?
Practically, the thinkers and traditions of the East are better suited to understanding the sound of one hand clapping and why Buddha is five pounds of flax, and don't push their intellectual pursuits beyond such koanzles.Strategically, the thinkers and traditions of the East are better suited to understand reality because of their focus on the nature of self.
,
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #3Consciousness seems unable to understand itself. Maybe the "strange loop" concept of Douglas Hoffstader is a useful way to look at it.
Fortunately, science is capable of finding out about things, and even making them useful, without complete understanding.
Maybe that's the best we can do. Still, lots of work is being done on the mechanics of consciousness. And philosophers and theologians continue to work on the problem.
Theologically, once one realizes that the "death" God referred to in Genesis is a spiritual death, not a physical one, the issue goes away. After all, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and yet lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it wasn't a physical death that Adam brought into the world.
Fortunately, science is capable of finding out about things, and even making them useful, without complete understanding.
Maybe that's the best we can do. Still, lots of work is being done on the mechanics of consciousness. And philosophers and theologians continue to work on the problem.
Theologically, once one realizes that the "death" God referred to in Genesis is a spiritual death, not a physical one, the issue goes away. After all, God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and yet lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know it wasn't a physical death that Adam brought into the world.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #4I don't see that this is the case. For example there is evidence (not the same as proof) that suggests intelligence behind evolution, evidence that suggests the universe has its origins in mind (Fine Tuning Argument) etc. Of course, if you limit your definition of evidence you are not likely to accept evidence outside that definition. For the sake of argument, what do you consider evidence to be? Would you accept that strong argument is evidence?
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #5Great, I love evidence. Bring it on.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.Of course, if you limit your definition of evidence you are not likely to accept evidence outside that definition. For the sake of argument, what do you consider evidence to be?
Only if the argument is sound, i.e. its premises are true and its form is valid, such as syllogisms:Would you accept that strong argument is evidence?
................All M are P
................No S are P
................________
................No S are M
.
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #6There is plenty of evidence that materialism is false. It can not explain the big questions.
Why do so many Western Scientists flock to Eastern thinkers in search of answers? I know at least a dozen scientists that have left their careers to spread a message that challenges the materialistic worldview. Dr. Eben Alexander comes to mind. Others are not as well known.
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #7There is plenty of evidence that materialism is false and evil.
I challenge you to not simply expect others to provide it for you, or to just read about it on the internet. Take the time to engage in field research. Every skeptic that has turned to spirituality has done so because of experience. Playing this non sense debate game is a waste of time when you are unwilling to experience it for yourself.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #8I already have. The Fine Tuning Argument suits the definition of evidence you have given.
The key word here is 'Indicating'. That means it supports an argument. To indicate is not the same as proof.Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #9I'm curious to see this "evidence" to compare against such conclusions drawn therefrom.
Same here.evidence that suggests the universe has its origins in mind (Fine Tuning Argument) etc.
We can declare there's evidence for anything. Providing that evidence is the key to its understanding.
Lacking evidence for your alleged evidence leads me to think you're trying to imply folks'd reject it based on a faulty definition. That reads a lot like implying nefarity on the part of folks who'd reject evidence you've yet to provide.Of course, if you limit your definition of evidence you are not likely to accept evidence outside that definition.
How might anyone properly define evidence you've yet to provide?
So until you provide evidence, I think the most accurate definition for that'd be "ghosty".
That set of data a claimant presents in support of their claims.For the sake of argument, what do you consider evidence to be?
I'd withhold judgement at least until you presented a strong argument.Would you accept that strong argument is evidence?
Please let us all know when you've actually presented one.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Consciousness should be Most important topic in Science
Post #10[Replying to Swami in post #6]
You're jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. Just because science/materialism may not YET be able to explain some of the big questions (origin of life, origin of the universe, detailed mechanisms resulting in consciousness, etc.) does not mean it never will or cannot. There are many examples of natural phenomena that science could not explain in the past, but are now fully explained (eg. why planets move as they do, why volcanoes erupt, how sight works, and countless other examples).
Science works to explain things using accumulated knowledge and observations, measurements, etc. that can shed light on the problem. It doesn't just stop and assign a supernatural explanation for lack of a better idea. It has yet to be proved that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of a working brain.
It can not explain the big questions.
You're jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. Just because science/materialism may not YET be able to explain some of the big questions (origin of life, origin of the universe, detailed mechanisms resulting in consciousness, etc.) does not mean it never will or cannot. There are many examples of natural phenomena that science could not explain in the past, but are now fully explained (eg. why planets move as they do, why volcanoes erupt, how sight works, and countless other examples).
Science works to explain things using accumulated knowledge and observations, measurements, etc. that can shed light on the problem. It doesn't just stop and assign a supernatural explanation for lack of a better idea. It has yet to be proved that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of a working brain.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain