Quantum Consciousness

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #61

Post by Divine Insight »

Goat wrote: As far as I can see, what you are describing as the 'core philosophies' are woo.
What the heck are you talking about?

My core philosophy is actually as hardcore scientific as anything can get.

The universe is made of stuff.

We are the stuff of the universe.

We are aware.

Therefore the stuff of the universe is aware.

Thus the stuff of the universe must be capable of being aware.

It seems to me that the only way around this core philosophy is to say that it's not the stuff of the universe that is aware. It must be something else.

But then what else are you going to point to? :-k

An external soul?

All I'm doing is taking the core observations of science to their necessarily conclusion.

Where is there any WOO in that? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
JohnPaul
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:00 am
Location: northern California coast, USA

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #62

Post by JohnPaul »

Divine Insight wrote:
Goat wrote: As far as I can see, what you are describing as the 'core philosophies' are woo.
What the heck are you talking about?

My core philosophy is actually as hardcore scientific as anything can get.

The universe is made of stuff.

We are the stuff of the universe.

We are aware.

Therefore the stuff of the universe is aware.

Thus the stuff of the universe must be capable of being aware.

It seems to me that the only way around this core philosophy is to say that it's not the stuff of the universe that is aware. It must be something else.

But then what else are you going to point to? :-k

An external soul?

All I'm doing is taking the core observations of science to their necessarily conclusion.

Where is there any WOO in that? :-k
Divine Insight's logic here is clear and self-evident:
1. The universe is made of stuff.
2. Horse manure is made of stuff.
3. Therefore the universe is a giant pile of horse manure.

There are some obvious corollaries to this logic. For example:
1. Divine Insight is made of stuff.
2. Therefore Divine Insight is ?

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #63

Post by dianaiad »

JohnPaul wrote:
Divine Insight's logic here is clear and self-evident:
1. The universe is made of stuff.
2. Horse manure is made of stuff.
3. Therefore the universe is a giant pile of horse manure.

There are some obvious corollaries to this logic. For example:
1. Divine Insight is made of stuff.
2. Therefore Divine Insight is ?
:warning: Moderator Warning


Do not talk about the posters in the forum. Make your point another way.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24717
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #64

Post by Goat »

Divine Insight wrote:
Goat wrote: As far as I can see, what you are describing as the 'core philosophies' are woo.
What the heck are you talking about?

My core philosophy is actually as hardcore scientific as anything can get.

The universe is made of stuff.

We are the stuff of the universe.

We are aware.

Therefore the stuff of the universe is aware.

Thus the stuff of the universe must be capable of being aware.

It seems to me that the only way around this core philosophy is to say that it's not the stuff of the universe that is aware. It must be something else.

But then what else are you going to point to? :-k

An external soul?

All I'm doing is taking the core observations of science to their necessarily conclusion.

Where is there any WOO in that? :-k
By claiming the 'mystical model' is more accurate than the masterialistic model.

Although, I have to admit, I don't see a model of consciousness in your blurp at all
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #65

Post by Divine Insight »

Goat wrote: By claiming the 'mystical model' is more accurate than the masterialistic model.

Although, I have to admit, I don't see a model of consciousness in your blurp at all
And so where is there any model of consciousness in the materialistic model?

What is it that is having an experience or being aware Goat?

An abstract notion of an "emergent property"?

Is that what is having an experience and is aware? :-k

And that makes sense to you?

You accept that as an explanation for what it is that is having an experience of has awareness.

An emergent property is having an experience and has awareness.

Hmmm? :-k

Sounds like a pretty mystical idea to me.

And I'm supposed to slap myself on the forehead and say #-o , "Of course! That makes perfect sense and EXPLAINS everything".

I don't think so Goat.

I think the atheists are kidding themselves big time if they think they have a materialistic explanation for what is having an experience and awareness.

The problem with your arguments is that you act like the materialists think they already have a working explanation, when if fact, they don't.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24717
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #66

Post by Goat »

Divine Insight wrote:
Goat wrote: By claiming the 'mystical model' is more accurate than the masterialistic model.

Although, I have to admit, I don't see a model of consciousness in your blurp at all
And so where is there any model of consciousness in the materialistic model?

ti.
Models of consciousness
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #67

Post by Divine Insight »

Goat wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Goat wrote: By claiming the 'mystical model' is more accurate than the masterialistic model.

Although, I have to admit, I don't see a model of consciousness in your blurp at all
And so where is there any model of consciousness in the materialistic model?

ti.
Models of consciousness
Right.

And the mere fact that there exists a whole long list of competing theories and guesses speaks volumes to the fact that none of these guesses stands out as being especially convincing to anyone.

;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24717
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #68

Post by Goat »

Divine Insight wrote:
Goat wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Goat wrote: By claiming the 'mystical model' is more accurate than the masterialistic model.

Although, I have to admit, I don't see a model of consciousness in your blurp at all
And so where is there any model of consciousness in the materialistic model?

ti.
Models of consciousness
Right.

And the mere fact that there exists a whole long list of competing theories and guesses speaks volumes to the fact that none of these guesses stands out as being especially convincing to anyone.

;)
Yet, you didn't even do that. You proclaims 'mystical models are better'.. yet failed to show that. . or even what a mystical model is.

I count that as 'woo'
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #69

Post by Divine Insight »

Goat wrote: Yet, you didn't even do that. You proclaims 'mystical models are better'.. yet failed to show that. . or even what a mystical model is.

I count that as 'woo'
I did show it. Crystal clear as can be.

Something is having an experience.

Unless you want to bring in some sort of theistic external soul, then the stuff that constitutes the universe must be having an experience, and we are that stuff.

The models you've pointed to are merely attempts to explain "how" the stuff of the universe achieves a particular experience.

But, in the end, it still has to be the stuff of the universe that is having the experience.

There simply is nothing else to point to in the materialistic model.

Pointing to an "emergent property" as the thing that is actually having an experience is silly.

The emergent property of a brain is what is "being" experienced.

I keep saying that I'm agnostic, but I'm not sure why I keep saying that. It's pretty obvious that mysticism has to be true.

The mystics have nailed the riddle of life. It can be no other way.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
pixelero
Apprentice
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:29 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Quantum Consciousness

Post #70

Post by pixelero »

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]
Isn't consciousness and awareness really the same thing?
No, consciousness and awareness are not the same thing although I'm all in favor of Humpty-Dumptism as long as one's terms are clearly defined. One can be unaware of something without being unconscious. If one is asked, "are you conscious?" the answer would most naturally be, "yes," (unless one is in a hypnotic trance and one defines such hypnotic states as "unconscious.") On the other hand, if one is asked, "are you aware?" the most natural answer is, "aware of what?" That is, consciousness is a general state of mind whereas awareness denotes specific knowledge of something.

I don't know if you recall, but I once gave you a rather more restrictive definition of consciousness than "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings". I suggested consciousness means not only awareness of ones surroundings, and awareness of oneself, but also awareness of awareness, (the later condition being, apparently exclusive to humans, as far as we can tell.)
There have been many debated over just how "sentient" chimpanzees might actually be. Are they truly self-aware like humans are? Or are they merely just aware of their surroundings?

Many arguments have been make that Chimpanzees do indeed have a high degree of sentience or sense of self.

In fact, we can ask these same questions of other animals like dogs, cat, or mice, etc. There are currently debates over whether or not mice are "sentient" or have a sense of self-awareness.
There is plenty of research, (for example the mirror experiments I mentioned earlier,) that demonstrates that not only apes and other mammals, but even some birds are self aware. As far as invertebrates are concerned, I suspect many of them may well be self aware too, (there has been some interesting research on octopus intelligence.) I suspect that social insects such as bees, ants, and termites probably have an awareness of, perhaps not individual self, but of colony. The behavior of ants toward their sisters infected with ophiocordyceps would suggest as much.

I doubt that self awareness will ever be demonstrated in single cell organisms, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. When it comes to simple awareness of surroundings, on the other hand, I suspect that even protista may evince that, although there does come a point where one my wish to draw a distinction between "awareness of environment" and "reflex response to external stimuli". I would suspect that plants turning toward sunlight is probably more of the latter than the former.
awareness (or consciousness) is required for sentience.
As I said, awareness is not consciousness, and your definition of consciousness is far too loose to be very meaningful. (In fact, there's so much slack in that definition that you are eligible for an immediate Archbishopric in the Church of the Subgenius!! Apply Now! No Waiting! Be sure to mention that Cardinal Pixelero referred you.)

On the other end of the spectrum from simple awareness of environment, awareness of awareness, appears to be unique to humans. This is indicated by the fact that only we ask questions. When one is aware that one is aware of some things, one is therefore aware that one is unaware of other things. Therefore one asks a question in an attempt to gain awareness of that particular unknown information. In the five decades or so of research into animal-human communication, a number of apes, especially chimpanzees and gorillas, have learned to communicate with visual languages, such as sign language, or pictographic written language. Although such apes have demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer complex questions, not one has ever attempted to ask a question, despite the tools and clear examples being available. I would say therefore that consciousness may be described as a kind of hierarchy of awareness. So far, only humans have displayed evidence of the highest level, but I'm open to the possibility that apes may develop it, (or even have it but hide it! That remains to be seen.)

The one thing that is quite clear however, is that consciousness does require awareness. It would also appear to be the case that awareness requires perception, and perception requires a mechanism, such as a nervous system, however rudimentary. All this is supported by observation and evidence obtained by experimentation. On the other hand, the proposition that inanimate matter is aware, let alone conscious, is mere unsupported speculation. Furthermore, the only "arguments" you have presented to support this outlandish claim are demonstrably fallacious.

Post Reply