How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

Hans Blaster

Don't look directly at me
Mar 11, 2017
8,364
7,446
52
USA
✟180,083.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
According to scientific materialism fermions are the building blocks to matter. I liken this to a 'billiard ball schema' or a 'mechano set reality'. Things are reducible to natural mechanical processes according to the ' Closure of the Physical) where everything is traced back to a physical cause.

No, fermions are the "building blocks to matter". (Some of the building blocks are fermions, others not.)

Fermions are particles with half-integer spin: 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, etc.

The electron, the quarks, the proton, the neutron are all fermions and all important, but photons, gluons, and others aren't. Photons and gluons are just as fundamental as electrons and quarks, but they are bosons with whole integer spin.

And it's not "scientific materialism" that catagorizes those particles (the photons, electrons, quarks, etc., not the "fermions") as fundamental "building blocks". It is the Standard Model of particle physics -- a theoretical framework for understanding experimental data.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,737
619
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟179,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This doesn't even come close to answering my simple question about what thing that physicists call "fundamental matter" really isn't in your physics.
Not sure what you mean. The issue is how do we know that the particles and fields that have been described by science for observed phenomena is not of a immaterial nature or involves something immaterial.

Science cannot measure the fundamental nature of anything. It cannot get outside matter and know what it fundamentally is. It can only describe/explain behavior. So any of the particles and fields mentioned may have some immaterial influence.

This is just wordy mush...
I disagree. Scientists propose there is such a thing as matter out there. Its measured in terms of particles, waves, energy etc.

We hear of claims about a new particle or field like the Higgs being found that reveal something new about reality. We hear arguments using science to refute ideas that don't fit the scientific materialist view of matter.

The thing is scientists cannot know what the nature of matter is. So really they are making an ontological claim about what matter is and is not when they use science to defend the fact that reality is matter.

...all in support of a predetermined position, not evidence.
Ironically that is exactly the position the science method finds itself in. It assumes that reality is material and naturalistic before any measure is taken. So any assumption that matter is material is really an ontological position claiming what matter is.

If the materialistic scientific method cannot tell us anything about what matter and consciousness is then its limited. There's an explanatory gap. A non-materialist view seems to fill this explanatory gap because it makes 'Mind' as fundamental which the evidence seems to be suggesting.

Other than our gravitational attraction to the Earth, *EVERYTHING* in ordinary human experience is the electromagnetic force including light (the EM force carrier), the structure of solid matter, pressure (short range electromagnetic repulsion between atoms), sound (pressure variations), etc.

Oh, BTW, the naturalistic view of consciousness is all built on various EM based interactions. All of it.
yes and some say that consciousness interacts and can influence EM force.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,737
619
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟179,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Humans interact with electromagnetic force constantly - it holds our molecules together and it's the means by which we experience the world through sight and touch.
As far as I understand our molecules and our senses are the mechanical processes that explain the material/physical aspect of reality. Though we experience the world through our senses our senses (sight, hearing, touching ect) don't explain experience. We hear beautiful music and are physically affected such as goose bumps. But the experiencing the joy of music is not explained by neurons, molecules, guitar strings or drum skins.

There are two sides to reality. The outer material reality and the inner immaterial reality of experience. The scientific materialist view relegates the inner reality as non-causal, ineffectual and a by product of a physical origin. All experience and any sense of meaning, purpose, agency or free will is a delusion created by more fundamental biological processes. The conscious being is reduced to a passive non-entity when it comes to actually having the ability to influence the physical world and reality.

But there is no direct evidence for this only correlations for the claim that consciousness is a product of physical processes within the brain. As mentioned there is no way the science method can come up with a theory let along verify this because you can't explain a qualitative phenomena by a quantitative measuring method. You can't turn the experience of exhilaration into neurons or pain into nerve cells. It just doesn't translate.
We do radiate energy that interacts with matter - it also involves the electromagnetic field - it's called thermal radiation.

If you have something else in mind, be specific, e.g. a citation.
Ok that is interesting. So really we have energy like some force in space and we also radiate energy and the two interact with each other. So how is this not evidence that consciousness can affect reality. If consciousness radiates energy then this will affect things.

I think there's lots of evidence for humans influencing reality. Psychology brings up some interesting issues that cannot be explained by reductive processes. Then there's Mind. There's a lot of evidence showing that Mind is a fundamental aspect of reality. Ideas like a universal Mind or consciousness we all can tap into. It makes a lot of sense that the Mind creates reality or at least is fundamental.

Why would 'Mind' or 'consciousness' as a fundamental aspect keep coming up as a good solution to the difficulties faced by science if it was just a product of some deeper fundamental process from the physical brain. Under the materialist view there is no independent Mind out there. Its just all in the head. So why do so many physicists push the idea of 'Mind' being fundamental.

The Consciousness of Reality
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
14,864
7,867
✟299,997.00
Faith
Atheist
As far as I understand our molecules and our senses are the mechanical processes that explain the material/physical aspect of reality. Though we experience the world through our senses our senses (sight, hearing, touching ect) don't explain experience. We hear beautiful music and are physically affected such as goose bumps. But the experiencing the joy of music is not explained by neurons, molecules, guitar strings or drum skins.
We have reasonable explanations for why the various stimuli are associated with the particular sensations, but we don't yet have an explanation for subjective experience itself - although there explanations have been suggested for why it is advantageous.

The scientific materialist view relegates the inner reality as non-causal, ineffectual and a by product of a physical origin.
No, it doesn't. You made that up.

All experience and any sense of meaning, purpose, agency or free will is a delusion created by more fundamental biological processes. The conscious being is reduced to a passive non-entity when it comes to actually having the ability to influence the physical world and reality.
You're talking philosophy, not science. Some philosophers (epiphenomenalists) have that view, but I think they're in the minority these days.

But there is no direct evidence for this only correlations for the claim that consciousness is a product of physical processes within the brain.
The only evidence we have for anything is correlations - correlations between our models and our observations. If we manipulate the brain in specific ways, consciousness changes in correspondingly specific ways. If we trigger a particular part of the brain stem, consciousness goes out like a light, when we stop triggering it, consciousness resumes as if uninterrupted.

What would the 'direct evidence' you want, that consciousness is a physical process, look like?

As mentioned there is no way the science method can come up with a theory let along verify this because you can't explain a qualitative phenomena by a quantitative measuring method. You can't turn the experience of exhilaration into neurons or pain into nerve cells. It just doesn't translate.
No one who studies consciousness thinks pain or exhilaration consists of nerve cells. They're correlated with the collective activity of billions of nerve cells.

As I've said before, my view is that it's logically impossible to objectively describe or explain subjective experience except in terms of objective correlations. You only know about consciousness outside yourself by its bodily correlations, its behavioural correlations and its metaphorical descriptions & similes of experiences that correlate to some degree with your own subjective experiences.

Ok that is interesting. So really we have energy like some force in space and we also radiate energy and the two interact with each other. So how is this not evidence that consciousness can affect reality. If consciousness radiates energy then this will affect things.
Everything radiates thermal energy. Consciousness is a process; when the brain is active it uses energy to fuel that process and generates waste heat as a result - so your head tends to be warmer than the rest of your body - it radiates heat - i.e. thermal energy (long wavelength photons).

When the brain is active, neurons are signalling to each other using waves of membrane depolarization, a movement of ions that generates tiny electrical pulses that, when summed across billions of neurons, can be picked up by an EEG machine. These tiny electrical signals are how the brain operates - they are how brain processes work - consciousness is just one of the brain processing modes they facilitate. IOW they generate consciousness, not the other way around.

When you think about different things, consciously or unconsciously, the patterns of electrical activity in your brain change correspondingly - those patterns of brain activity are you thinking, which is why, if they're interfered with, your thinking is affected correspondingly.

So yes, consciousness can affect the physical world - because it's a physical process that has physical effects. But the thermal and electromagnetic radiation that are by-products of that processing are nothing to write home about - a thermal camera will show the head is typically a bit warmer than the rest of the body, and a sensitive EEG machine on the scalp can detect the massed activities of billions of neurons. You're not going to communicate with anyone or bend any spoons that way - you're better using your brain to direct your body to do that.

I think there's lots of evidence for humans influencing reality.
You don't say! :rolleyes:

Psychology brings up some interesting issues that cannot be explained by reductive processes. Then there's Mind. There's a lot of evidence showing that Mind is a fundamental aspect of reality.
Such as?

Ideas like a universal Mind or consciousness we all can tap into.
Evidence?

It makes a lot of sense that the Mind creates reality or at least is fundamental.
Of course - mind is the concept that reifies what the brain does, and it does create each individual's personal reality from the neural spike trains that enter the brain. But the only way it can influence the source of those neural spike trains, external reality, is through the actions of the body (unless someone's using an EEG, MRI, or CT scanner, etc., to get a vague idea of what your brain is doing).

Why would 'Mind' or 'consciousness' as a fundamental aspect keep coming up as a good solution to the difficulties faced by science if it was just a product of some deeper fundamental process from the physical brain. Under the materialist view there is no independent Mind out there. Its just all in the head. So why do so many physicists push the idea of 'Mind' being fundamental.

The Consciousness of Reality
Most of them don't. Most of those that do are commenting outside their expertise. Glattfelder is either seriously ignorant of quantum physics or he's a woo merchant (QM does not need "mind-matter interactions" to explain the double-slit experiment).

Science is about explanatory models, i.e. explanations. Give some examples of how 'mind or consciousness as a fundamental aspect' provides good explanations for difficulties faced by science, by reasonable criteria for a good explanation.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Don't look directly at me
Mar 11, 2017
8,364
7,446
52
USA
✟180,083.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Everything radiates thermal energy. Consciousness is a process; when the brain is active it uses energy to fuel that process and generates waste heat as a result - so your head tends to be warmer than the rest of your body - it radiates heat - i.e. thermal energy (long wavelength photons).

When the brain is active, neurons are signalling to each other using waves of membrane depolarization, a movement of ions that generates tiny electrical pulses that, when summed across billions of neurons, can be picked up by an EEG machine. These tiny electrical signals are how the brain operates - they are how brain processes work - consciousness is just one of the brain processing modes they facilitate. IOW they generate consciousness, not the other way around.

When you think about different things, consciously or unconsciously, the patterns of electrical activity in your brain change correspondingly - those patterns of brain activity are you thinking, which is why, if they're interfered with, your thinking is affected correspondingly.

So yes, consciousness can affect the physical world - because it's a physical process that has physical effects. But the thermal and electromagnetic radiation that are by-products of that processing are nothing to write home about - a thermal camera will show the head is typically a bit warmer than the rest of the body, and a sensitive EEG machine on the scalp can detect the massed activities of billions of neurons. You're not going to communicate with anyone or bend any spoons that way - you're better using your brain to direct your body to do that.

Thanks for catching this. I gave up wading through all of the philosophical/metaphysical stuff.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,218
1,345
43
Colonia del Sacramento
✟298,547.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Let's just go with the bible, because it has it right, people know something is going on by looking at all that exists, but... they can't do it very well because: 1) they are blinded by the devil, if they try to come to light they get a kick from the spirit of this world against that, and 2) their mind started thinking wrong stuff at a young age, and that snowballed and now they are deceived and corrupted.

God can be found, the Holy spirit in christians is real and you can be totally sure as a christian when God does things in your favour to you, spiritually or something else.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,737
619
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟179,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We have reasonable explanations for why the various stimuli are associated with the particular sensations, but we don't yet have an explanation for subjective experience itself - although there explanations have been suggested for why it is advantageous.
Do you mean evolution as in a survival advantage.

No, it doesn't. You made that up.
That seems to be the scientific materialist position. For example 'inner reality' or 'conscious experience' which basically gives us the awareness of self and meaning to life is said to be an illusion. As many materialist scientists have claimed, there is no purpose or meaning to life even to the extent that our genes have tricked us into thinking we are conscious. This assumes a materialist reality under the guise of naturalism along with a restrictive measuring method that only counts what is assumed to be included or not.

So long as science acknowledges its limitations and sticks to what it does best then there's no issue. But what tends to happen understandable as science and tech have proven so well is that dogma is formed and people begin to 'believe' that science also tells us what reality is and is not. Unfortunately this is inherent in the science method IMO.

You're talking philosophy, not science. Some philosophers (epiphenomenalists) have that view, but I think they're in the minority these days.
As mentioned metaphysics is inherent in methodological naturalism so we cannot really separate philosophy from science. Just like we can't separate ourselves from any measure of the world.

The only evidence we have for anything is correlations - correlations between our models and our observations. If we manipulate the brain in specific ways, consciousness changes in correspondingly specific ways. If we trigger a particular part of the brain stem, consciousness goes out like a light, when we stop triggering it, consciousness resumes as if uninterrupted.
Of course triggering part of the brain stem is going to extinguish consciousness just like a knock out punch will. This assumes that consciousness beyond the brain doesn't also have a physical influence.

The brain may be a filter or receiver similar to a radio. The wires and transistors don't create radio waves. They are already out there in the cosmos. Its just a receiver of those waves.
What would the 'direct evidence' you want, that consciousness is a physical process, look like?
I don't think we can even comprehend what it would look like. I know it wouldn't look like any physical or mechanistic process or not just that because the nature we are trying to explain is abstract, not of a substance or reducible to parts and mechanisms. I guess that's the hard problem of consciousness.

I have links at some of the attempts to explain this non-material nature in us and the universe. But I think its a new frontier and still developing. But there is some good evidence as far as I can see. We just have to be open to it which means letting go of the assumption that everything is material and naturalistic.

No one who studies consciousness thinks pain or exhilaration consists of nerve cells. They're correlated with the collective activity of billions of nerve cells.
But for many this is begging the question. Your assuming that the materialist view of fundamental reality is correct. Even so this doesn't make sense or make a good argument because I don't think it matters as to whether its 1 nerve cell or neuron or a combination of many it still cannot explain how these experiences, self awareness of the very neurons and cells in ones own existence can be created, programmed or emerge from inanimate matter.

It would be like the ghost in the machine. Somehow the conglomeration of nuts, bolts, wiring has created self awareness. If that's so then we should be able to build a robot complex enough mimicking the brain which would then become conscious of itself. In fact not only conscious of itself but conscious that another conscious being replicated itself.

As I've said before, my view is that it's logically impossible to objectively describe or explain subjective experience except in terms of objective correlations. You only know about consciousness outside yourself by its bodily correlations, its behavioral correlations and its metaphorical descriptions & similes of experiences that correlate to some degree with your own subjective experiences.
And I think that's the problem. The science method cannot explain consciousness because it cannot get outside the thing its making correlations with to understand the fundamental nature and see if those correlations stand up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
14,864
7,867
✟299,997.00
Faith
Atheist
Do you mean evolution as in a survival advantage.
Yes, and the reasons why it could be a survival advantage.

That seems to be the scientific materialist position. For example 'inner reality' or 'conscious experience' which basically gives us the awareness of self and meaning to life is said to be an illusion. As many materialist scientists have claimed, there is no purpose or meaning to life even to the extent that our genes have tricked us into thinking we are conscious. This assumes a materialist reality under the guise of naturalism along with a restrictive measuring method that only counts what is assumed to be included or not.
You are mistaken. This is not a scientific question but a philosophical one. Some philosophers (e.g. Dan Dennett) use the term 'illusion' in reference to consciousness. In Dennett's case, he's referring to it as the brain's "user illusion" of itself, by analogy with a computer's user interface of buttons made of pixels that are not real buttons and tell you nothing about how they really function.

Most philosophers use the term in a similar way; IOW, consciousness and the sense of self are illusions in that they are not what they seem to the experiencing individual in the same way that the phenomenal world - the experiential world of sensations, of sights, sounds, smells, etc. - is an illusion that usefully models the causes of the neural spike trains that enter the brain. The experience is real, but in another sense, it's a construct, an illusion.

So long as science acknowledges its limitations and sticks to what it does best then there's no issue. But what tends to happen understandable as science and tech have proven so well is that dogma is formed and people begin to 'believe' that science also tells us what reality is and is not. Unfortunately this is inherent in the science method IMO.
This is another philosophical question. Science generates predictive models for our observations; if you wish, you can describe our observations as reflections of reality, and our models as representations of reality. You might say that the purpose or aspiration of science is to discover and describe reality, but it's really just a conceptual convenience; if you get hit by a bus, it's reasonable to think that the bus was real, but you might be mistaken about that - e.g. it might really be a carnival float that looks like a bus. Was the bus an illusion? yes in one sense, no in another (see above).

As mentioned metaphysics is inherent in methodological naturalism so we cannot really separate philosophy from science. Just like we can't separate ourselves from any measure of the world.
I don't see why you think that - metaphysics is related to the philosophy of science.

Can you give an argument to support it, with an example of how a scientist might need metaphysics in their everyday work?

Of course triggering part of the brain stem is going to extinguish consciousness just like a knock out punch will. This assumes that consciousness beyond the brain doesn't also have a physical influence.
It sounds like you're saying that consciousness is something physical 'beyond the brain'. Can you explain what you mean by that?

The brain may be a filter or receiver similar to a radio. The wires and transistors don't create radio waves. They are already out there in the cosmos. Its just a receiver of those waves.
If the brain was a receiver for consciousness like a TV is a receiver for broadcast TV programmes, then we wouldn't expect that messing with the brain would change the contents of the consciousness. It would be like messing with the insides of a TV and finding the studio decor of the TV programme newsroom changed, or the plot & actors of the movie, or the sex of the presenter...

I don't think we can even comprehend what it would look like. I know it wouldn't look like any physical or mechanistic process or not just that because the nature we are trying to explain is abstract, not of a substance or reducible to parts and mechanisms.
You're confusing the physical process and the emergent ('abstract') results, e.g. the patterns it produces. Consider musical instruments that use simple physical processes to produce complex patterns of sound in the air - an orchestra is just a collection of groups of various instruments performing their simple physical processes and producing emergent complex and interacting multi-layered patterns of sound; on one level, the melodies don't really interact with one another, they're written to sound that way (e.g. call & response), but on another level, the patterns of sound do interact by, for example, reinforcing each other at specified times to produce higher level patterns. I think that's a nice analogy for what happens in the brain.

You're also begging the question by assuming, "the nature we are trying to explain is ... not of a substance or reducible to parts and mechanisms." This is the same error that stymied biologists looking for the 'vital force' of life (and some people still can't let it go). It turned out, on close examination, that the 'life force' that seemed so obviously present and necessary, was just an 'illusion', an emergent artefact of the complex chemistry of cells. A number of scientists & philosophers (e.g. Anil Seth) think that there's a good chance that, on close examination, consciousness will turn out to be similarly evanescent.

I guess that's the hard problem of consciousness.
No, it isn't. The 'hard problem' of consciousness is why we have subjective experience, i.e. why there is something it is like to be a conscious entity.

I have links at some of the attempts to explain this non-material nature in us and the universe. But I think its a new frontier and still developing. But there is some good evidence as far as I can see. We just have to be open to it which means letting go of the assumption that everything is material and naturalistic.
Once more I'll ask you, what evidence do you see?

It seems to me you'll have difficulty explaining what has been asserted without evidence.

But for many this is begging the question. Your assuming that the materialist view of fundamental reality is correct.
Nope; a library of empirical evidence tells us that pain or exhilaration are correlated with the collective activity of billions of nerve cells. No one claims that correlation is causation, but in the absence of any other coherent and/or testable hypothesis, that's where the focus of attention is.

Even so this doesn't make sense or make a good argument because I don't think it matters as to whether its 1 nerve cell or neuron or a combination of many it still cannot explain how these experiences, self awareness of the very neurons and cells in ones own existence can be created, programmed or emerge from inanimate matter.
Unsubstantiated assertion; the argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Hypotheses are not falsified because of your incredulity.

It would be like the ghost in the machine. Somehow the conglomeration of nuts, bolts, wiring has created self awareness. If that's so then we should be able to build a robot complex enough mimicking the brain which would then become conscious of itself. In fact not only conscious of itself but conscious that another conscious being replicated itself.
Setting aside your straw man 'conglomeration of nuts, bolts, wiring', what problem do you see with the idea that, in principle, we could produce a conscious machine?

I suspect you're begging the question again by the prior assumption that consciousness is not the product of material processes.

And I think that's the problem. The science method cannot explain consciousness because it cannot get outside the thing its making correlations with to understand the fundamental nature and see if those correlations stand up.
It's a problem, but if it's the same kind of problem as the 'vital force', a sufficiently detailed level of correlations will be explanatory. As I said before, all we ever have to explain our observations and experiences are correlations.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,737
619
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟179,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, and the reasons why it could be a survival advantage.
I don't think there really is any evolutionary explanation for consciousness. Its the same for human agency. Evolution dismisses subjective experience as a product of mechanistic material processes and thus an illusion created by mechanical processes.

You are mistaken. This is not a scientific question but a philosophical one.
As I mentioned you can't separate philosophy from science. Its inherent. If you take a step back you will find that the very act of measurement in science has already got metaphysics included. So its not the method but the assumptions of science before any measure is taken which is a philosophical position and not a science one.
Some philosophers (e.g. Dan Dennett) use the term 'illusion' in reference to consciousness. In Dennett's case, he's referring to it as the brain's "user illusion" of itself, by analogy with a computer's user interface of buttons made of pixels that are not real buttons and tell you nothing about how they really function.

Most philosophers use the term in a similar way; IOW, consciousness and the sense of self are illusions in that they are not what they seem to the experiencing individual in the same way that the phenomenal world - the experiential world of sensations, of sights, sounds, smells, etc. - is an illusion that usefully models the causes of the neural spike trains that enter the brain. The experience is real, but in another sense, it's a construct, an illusion.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Basically I think its about reductionism and materialism verses non-materialism. So the scientific materialist position has little choice but to explain away consciousness and agency as an illusion or epiphenomenon otherwise the materialist view is undermined.

This is another philosophical question. Science generates predictive models for our observations; if you wish, you can describe our observations as reflections of reality, and our models as representations of reality.
Or you could say our observations are but a slice of a more fundamental reality and thus not representational of whats really going on beyond our limited perceptions.
You might say that the purpose or aspiration of science is to discover and describe reality, but it's really just a conceptual convenience; if you get hit by a bus, it's reasonable to think that the bus was real, but you might be mistaken about that - e.g. it might really be a carnival float that looks like a bus. Was the bus an illusion? yes in one sense, no in another (see above).
But then there's another aspect to reality about the bus that is just as real if not more than any material version of how we see the bus.

Materialistically a bus is just a block of metal moving around. It has other stuff like the engine, electronics ect but its basically a mechanistic process. According to this schema the metal block has no agency or purpose to its operation. Just blind, reactionary, operations.

But humans come along and now this metal block takes on a different meaning. Getting hit by a bus should mean nothing in a material schema of reality. Just a glitch in the operation. But conscious beings take reality to a new level.

So which is real , the material operation certainly can tell us to avoid a moving bus. But we only want to avoid the bus because of our conscious experience and meaning we create. But that should not happen in an material schema.

That's why I mentioned Peterson's quote in another similar thread that "Its not just about matter but also what Matters" as far as reality is concerned. The only real thing we can know is our conscious experience of the world and it tells us there's something else going on beyond the material and its not an illusion. We just find it hard to articulate what exactly it is at the moment.

I don't see why you think that - metaphysics is related to the philosophy of science.

Can you give an argument to support it, with an example of how a scientist might need metaphysics in their everyday work?
If we can't separate the subject/observer out of the equation then how is it objective science.

Its not about examples but rather an overall metaphysical position inherent in methodological naturalism. Science works to a paradigm of language, rules, assumptions which includes certain stuff and excludes other stuff prior to any measure (closure of the physical world).

Sciences proposes and claims there are certain realities like atoms, quarks, chemicals etc. It even claims to give us new and deeper knowledge of realities like with the Higgs boson discovery. It assumes that there is such a thing as matter out there beyond our brains. But we can never verify this.

Proposing there is such a thing as a fundamental thing of matter out there is an ontological and thus metaphysical claim beyond science because its not only explaining/describing something. In explaining something its also claiming what reality is and that's beyond science.

commitment to methodological naturalism necessitates the adoption of metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism implies evidentialism, which obliges us to base the justification of our beliefs purely upon empirical evidence. And at the same time, since supernatural entities are causally isolated from the natural world, it is impossible for them to be reflected in the empirical evidence. As a result, someone who accepts methodological naturalism has to deny the existence of the supernatural and commit to metaphysical naturalism.


The core of this argument is the recognition that the causal closure principle is the link between methodological and metaphysical naturalism: for this principle at once assumes the causal isolation of the natural world, compels us to adopt a naturalistic methodology for discovering the world, and discredits our beliefs about the supernatural.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-019-09464-8
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,737
619
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟179,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It sounds like you're saying that consciousness is something physical 'beyond the brain'. Can you explain what you mean by that?
No I'm saying if the physical brain is a receiver and transmitter of consciousness then playing around with the brain just like playing around with the physical radio box will interfere or stop the signal of consciousness in the case of the brain. The fact is we have consciousness, its just a case of whether consciousness emerges from the brain or is something we can tune into that's everywhere because its fundamental.

If the brain was a receiver for consciousness like a TV is a receiver for broadcast TV programmes, then we wouldn't expect that messing with the brain would change the contents of the consciousness. It would be like messing with the insides of a TV and finding the studio decor of the TV programme newsroom changed, or the plot & actors of the movie, or the sex of the presenter...
No messing with the receiver would just affect the signal. The ability to receive or tap into the consciousness.

You're confusing the physical process and the emergent ('abstract') results, e.g. the patterns it produces. Consider musical instruments that use simple physical processes to produce complex patterns of sound in the air - an orchestra is just a collection of groups of various instruments performing their simple physical processes and producing emergent complex and interacting multi-layered patterns of sound; on one level, the melodies don't really interact with one another, they're written to sound that way (e.g. call & response), but on another level, the patterns of sound do interact by, for example, reinforcing each other at specified times to produce higher level patterns. I think that's a nice analogy for what happens in the brain.
Can you give an example of how this applies to the brain and consciousness.

You're also begging the question by assuming, "the nature we are trying to explain is ... not of a substance or reducible to parts and mechanisms."
Its the same for science in assuming its nature is material and reductive. Except from what I understand consciousness cannot be reducible to material mechanisms as fundementally it consitutes a different type of phenomena beyond material measurement.

But I think if we follow the evidence its point to non-material abstract explanations to explain fundamental reality. Ideas like consciousness beyond the brain, Mind at large and Information seem to fit better.

This is the same error that stymied biologists looking for the 'vital force' of life (and some people still can't let it go). It turned out, on close examination, that the 'life force' that seemed so obviously present and necessary, was just an 'illusion', an emergent artefact of the complex chemistry of cells.
I don't think anyone has shown that the idea of a 'vital force' has been falsified. If this idea is anything like consciousness then in principle it cannot be falsified because its outside science. Its like trying to falsify God.

I think the idea of a 'vital force' was an attempt to explain what we call consciousness today. Its we have wrestled with for millennia. It seems its still a Hard problem which science cannot answer and and is just as relevant and even more so today due to ironically scientific discoveries.

A number of scientists & philosophers (e.g. Anil Seth) think that there's a good chance that, on close examination, consciousness will turn out to be similarly evanescent.
But isn't that also begging the question in that the promissory hope of science is premised on the assumption that reality is material. As consciousness or a 'vital force' are non-material then in principle science can never explain its nature.

Once more I'll ask you, what evidence do you see?
It seems to me you'll have difficulty explaining what has been asserted without evidence.
The first thing I would say about that is the use of evidence as being the key to what is true or not. So we are starting from a biased measure to begin with. If your not open to non-material possibilities then all your going to find is material evidence.

The second is that our experience of the world is the evidence. The only thin g we can know is real is our experience of it. So perhaps that's where we start to find the answers. The third is that the non-material ideas posed are not entirely outside science, at least in an indirect and circumstantial way.

Its just how you interpret the data and in some ways non-material ideas like Panpsychism, QBism, Mind and information being fundamental give the most elegant and simple fit explanation for fundamental reality. These are all attempts like the 'vital force' in explaining a non-material reality. They are probably off the mark or they may have some basis but some explanation along these lines is required.

Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?

Consciousness: here, there and everywhere?

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) can explain a range of clinical and laboratory findings, makes a number of testable predictions and extrapolates to a number of problematic conditions.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167

The mind interprets sensory impressions by resorting to abstract concepts and imposing them upon the sense impression in order to situate the impression in an intelligible context. These abstract concepts – of similarity, difference, equality, inequality, etc. are not themselves material and cannot be provided or created by mere aggregates of material objects like atoms, molecule, cells or neurons. Indeed, the converse is truer – our very understanding of atoms, molecules or cells relies on abstract concepts to begin with. Since some conscious states employ abstract concepts that are not present in material objects, it follows that consciousness is neither identical with nor reducible to matter.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7319/full/nature09510.html



Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist

Observers are powerful players in the quantum world.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html


According to the physicist John Wheeler, quantum mechanics implies that our observations of reality influence its unfolding. We live in a "participatory universe," Wheeler proposed, in which mind is as fundamental as matter.
Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

Heisenberg recommended staying in touch with reality as we experience it, which is to say holding a place for conceptions of mind and soul.


Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics:

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

Nope; a library of empirical evidence tells us that pain or exhilaration are correlated with the collective activity of billions of nerve cells. No one claims that correlation is causation, but in the absence of any other coherent and/or testable hypothesis, that's where the focus of attention is.
But the problem with that view is there is an explanatory bridge which can never be crossed using correlations. So this will never lead to a fundamental cause or explanation alone and to based science on correlations alone is well 'unscientific'.

Supposing that somehow a bunch of nerve cells somehow gives birth to consciousness is like proposing magic and a ghost in the machine. Besides I think there is plausible explanations as mentioned above.

Unsubstantiated assertion; the argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Hypotheses are not falsified because of your incredulity.
But as you said science is suppose to be about verification and not belief. As there is no connection between the hypothesis of correlations and causation to claim that this explains consciousness is a belief about what reality is and not science. To claim that consciousness equals a mechanistic process of the brain goes beyond science and is a metaphysical claim.

Setting aside your straw man 'conglomeration of nuts, bolts, wiring',
I thought it was a good analogy. Somehow a qualitative phenomena must come from a quantitative cause which are totally different in their fundamental nature.
what problem do you see with the idea that, in principle, we could produce a conscious machine?
Because never has science shown that material mechanism can cause conscious experience. There is a fundamental explanatory gap that science can never get over. They are two different things and cannot be equated with each other. Because consciousness is more than the sum of material parts.

But even if science could show this, it has just discovered another strange and exotic phenomena that still needs explaining. That's the thing about science it can keep adjusting a theory to accommodate any observations.

I suspect you're begging the question again by the prior assumption that consciousness is not the product of material processes.
Both positions seem to have assumptions. Maybe that's the point, that we the 'observer and subject' are caught up in this and we cannot remove ourselves from the equation. So I guess if that's the case then maybe what we actually experience and how we embody that gives the best insights into reality.

It's a problem, but if it's the same kind of problem as the 'vital force', a sufficiently detailed level of correlations will be explanatory. As I said before, all we ever have to explain our observations and experiences are correlations.
Perhaps our experiences tell us something else beyond science that gives us insights into reality. But if we assume there is only a material reality that's all we will find. It will take a paradigm shift to expand our understanding of reality and it won't happen under scientific materialism.

As mentioned earlier the 'vital force' has not really been falsified. Its just one way of trying to explain a non-material force, essence, abstract phenomena that is fundamental to reality. The idea hasn't gone away and in fact has come back even stronger and now seems top be the way forward.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
13,799
4,980
✟256,195.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No I'm saying if the physical brain is a receiver and transmitter of consciousness then playing around with the brain just like playing around with the physical radio box will interfere or stop the signal of consciousness in the case of the brain. The fact is we have consciousness, its just a case of whether consciousness emerges from the brain or is something we can tune into that's everywhere because its fundamental.

No messing with the receiver would just affect the signal. The ability to receive or tap into the consciousness.

You haven't shown that your "the brain is simply a receiver for consciousness that originates from outside the body" idea is correct. Everything we have is also consistent with the "consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and is completely self contained" idea as well.

If you want us to take your idea more seriously, then you must present evidence which shows that your idea is more likely, or that the alternative I presented here is less likely.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Don't look directly at me
Mar 11, 2017
8,364
7,446
52
USA
✟180,083.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No I'm saying if the physical brain is a receiver and transmitter of consciousness then playing around with the brain just like playing around with the physical radio box will interfere or stop the signal of consciousness in the case of the brain. The fact is we have consciousness, its just a case of whether consciousness emerges from the brain or is something we can tune into that's everywhere because its fundamental.

If the brain is just a receiver for spirit then what is the physical mechanism or force by which the brain is altered?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
10,737
619
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟179,788.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You haven't shown that your "the brain is simply a receiver for consciousness that originates from outside the body" idea is correct. Everything we have is also consistent with the "consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and is completely self contained" idea as well.

If you want us to take your idea more seriously, then you must present evidence which shows that your idea is more likely, or that the alternative I presented here is less likely.
Did you read any of the articles I linked. I am not claiming that we can verify consciousness beyond the brain just like we can't verify consciousness emerging from the brain.

I am saying that on the face of it from what we find with consciousness and how we experience the world that the most elegant, simplest and best fit explanations are along the lines of non-material ideas because consciousness seems 'well' non-material.

This is the great paradox. On the one hand the scientific materialist claims our conscious experience is an illusion of sorts and material reality is all there is. On the other hand there are those who say material reality is the illusion, an interface we create to perceive a deeper reality, one of Mind and consciousness.

There is support for both but it seems the non-material reality in the form of the Mind is fundamental and creates reality or everything comes down to Information or Math which are abstract ideas and also require a Mind and even in QM interpretation the Mind and the observer is fundamental it makes more sense to think that some form of a non-materialist paradigm is required to move forward.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,844,729
50,419
Guam
✟4,673,735.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Define spirit.
That part of our tripartite makeup (along with body & soul) that connects us to God.

Others call it engrams, ESP, or a sixth sense.

It feeds off of the word of God.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
6,774
2,311
38
Hong Kong
✟86,489.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
thank you. Its from the ancient.
It very old.

Does spirit have form?
I've no idea what you are
attempting to articulate other than
the question.
And I dont know what you mean by
"spirit".

I'm guessing that what you mean by
" Spirit" is something with no more
form than anything else that's imaginary
and wholly nonexistent.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
25,633
28,609
Los Angeles Area
✟642,136.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate.

"what is the physical mechanism or force by which the brain is altered?"

I think what Hans Blaster is getting at is...

A radio is altered by 'immaterial' signals sent through the air. Although the signals are invisible, we can detect the changes being made in the radio. Electrical impulses and currents. Seemingly coming out of nowhere. Currents not caused by the battery, but some external influence.

Of course we understand these are consequences of the force of electromagnetism.

In the case of the brain, what is getting tickled or jiggled or excited by this external influence?
What force causes the jiggling?

We understand (to some extent) in the brain that this neuron started firing more rapidly because these other 3 neurons that connect to it started firing more rapidly. A physical cause begets a physical response. You seem to be suggesting that some sort of physical response occurs in the brain without any physical cause. What do these causeless physical responses look like? By what process are they physically or nonphysically caused?
 
Upvote 0