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

[Astrid]

You did not understand my point.

Leaving out essential steps does not make something simpler.

Tends to make it rong

 

[partinobodycular]

And yet all the evidence we have indicates that B is an essential component.

What evidence would that be? I'd definitely agree that there's evidence of correlation, but as we both know correlation doesn't equal causation. Are you suggesting that in "A leads to C" the exact same correlation wouldn't exist, if so why not?

All that I'm suggesting here is that there's no reason to assume that the correlation wouldn't be exactly the same no matter which series you use.

 

[partinobodycular]

Leaving out essential steps does not make something simpler.

True, but you haven't shown that it's an essential step, and I honestly have no idea how you can possibly do that.

 

[partinobodycular]

And yet all the evidence we have indicates that B is an essential component. Why then do you leave it out?

I can understand your reticence, so I'm going to try to explain why there's no reason to assume that there would be any difference between "A leads to B leads to C" and simply "A leads to C".

The premise is that in either case everything that we perceive arises out of patterns in an underlying set of quantum fields.

In the case of "A leads to B leads to C", "A" first gives rise to patterns that produce "B" and then "B" gives rise to patterns that produce "C".

But there really wouldn't seem to be a need for "B".

It's simpler to assume that "A" gives rise to patterns that produce "C" along with the illusion of "B", but "B" really doesn't need to be an active agent in the process because it's just redundant if "A" is perfectly capable of producing any patterns that "B" could produce.

So the conclusion as far as Occam's razor is concerned, is if "A" is perfectly capable of producing all of the patterns that "B" can produce then there's no need for "B", because it's redundant.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

 

[Kylie]

What evidence would that be? I'd definitely agree that there's evidence of correlation, but as we both know correlation doesn't equal causation. Are you suggesting that in "A leads to C" the exact same correlation wouldn't exist, if so why not?

All that I'm suggesting here is that there's no reason to assume that the correlation wouldn't be exactly the same no matter which series you use.

If the correlation is exactly the same either way, why are you so against the idea of consciousness being an emergent property of matter?

 

[Kylie]

True, but you haven't shown that it's an essential step, and I honestly have no idea how you can possibly do that.

There is a HUGE amount of evidence that changes to the physical structure of the brain result in a change of consciousness.

 

[Kylie]

I can understand your reticence, so I'm going to try to explain why there's no reason to assume that there would be any difference between "A leads to B leads to C" and simply "A leads to C".

The premise is that in either case everything that we perceive arises out of patterns in an underlying set of quantum fields.

In the case of "A leads to B leads to C", "A" first gives rise to patterns that produce "B" and then "B" gives rise to patterns that produce "C".

But there really wouldn't seem to be a need for "B".

This is just nonsense.

How can you say that A --> B --> C = A --> C and then say that there's no need for B?

It's simpler to assume that "A" gives rise to patterns that produce "C" along with the illusion of "B", but "B" really doesn't need to be an active agent in the process because it's just redundant if "A" is perfectly capable of producing any patterns that "B" could produce.

So the conclusion as far as Occam's razor is concerned, is if "A" is perfectly capable of producing all of the patterns that "B" can produce then there's no need for "B", because it's redundant.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

Woah, you are messing it up.

A --> B --> C is not the same thing as A &/or B --> C

In the first, A causes B, and B causes C. A by itself can not cause C.

In the second, A causes C and B also causes C. Two very different things. We are talking about the first, so please don't try to shift the goalposts to the second.

And you are ignoring the fact that A can cause C VIA B

 

[partinobodycular]

If the correlation is exactly the same either way, why are you so against the idea of consciousness being an emergent property of matter?

I'm not against the idea of consciousness being an emergent property of matter, it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. It's just that in post #2108 you stated that Occam's razor precludes the alternative, I'm merely pointing out that that's simply not the case. Occam's razor would suggest that "A --> B --> C" is actually the least likely scenario as far as Occam's razor is concerned, and it's the alternative that's actually the more likely.

 

[partinobodycular]

There is a HUGE amount of evidence that changes to the physical structure of the brain result in a change of consciousness.

Again, as we both know, correlation doesn't mean causation, and the alternative would look exactly the same, so your evidence tells us nothing.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not against the idea of consciousness being an emergent property of matter, it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. It's just that in post #2108 you stated that Occam's razor precludes the alternative, I'm merely pointing out that that's simply not the case. Occam's razor would suggest that "A --> B --> C" is actually the least likely scenario as far as Occam's razor is concerned, and it's the alternative that's actually the more likely.

You have drastically misunderstood what I said in that post.

I never said that A --> B --> C was wrong. I said that A --> C was not supported by Occam's Razor, since we have plenty of evidence that B --> C. B --> C is perfectly consistent with A --> B --> C, but it is not consistent at all with A --> C, which is the alternative you proposed in post 2160 where you said B was just an illusion caused by A.

There is a huge amount of evidence to support the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. This requirement for matter is B. You can say quantum fields cause matter to exist all you want, and that doesn't change B --> C. It just sticks an A in the front of it.

 

[partinobodycular]

How can you say that A --> B --> C = A --> C and then say that there's no need for B?

Because "B" is superfluous. It adds absolutely nothing to the equation. It's like saying that "1 + 0 + 1" = "1 + 1", the zero is unnecessary.

 

[partinobodycular]

B --> C is perfectly consistent with A --> B --> C, but it is not consistent at all with A --> C, which is the alternative you proposed in post 2160 where you said B was just an illusion caused by A.

Indeed, there's absolutely no way for you prove that "B" isn't simply an illusion caused by "A". And since neither of us can prove our position Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is more likely to be the correct one, and in this case the simpler explanation is that since "A" is perfectly capable of producing "C" on its own there's no need to invoke "B". "B" is completely superfluous.

 

[Kylie]

Because "B" is superfluous. It adds absolutely nothing to the equation. It's like saying that "1 + 0 + 1" = "1 + 1", the zero is unnecessary.

That simply isn't true.

You might as well say that if C is "Become a millionaire," then A is "Be born." And that's all you need, because every person who is a millionaire was born at some point. But simply being born is not all that is required. The B (which in this case would be something like, "Inherit vast sums of money," or "Get daddy to give you a high paying job," or "Exploit lots of poor workers") is still an essential part. If there's no B, then there's no chance of C, even if you get the A.

Likewise, you have not shown that the existence of matter is superfluous to consciousness. In fact, by your own admission, you CAN'T show that it is superfluous!

 

[Kylie]

Indeed, there's absolutely no way for you prove that "B" isn't simply an illusion caused by "A". And since neither of us can prove our position Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is more likely to be the correct one, and in this case the simpler explanation is that since "A" is perfectly capable of producing "C" on its own there's no need to invoke "B". "B" is completely superfluous.

And this is ignoring the HUGE amount of evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains. There have been many cases where a change in the physical structure of the brain has resulted in drastic changes in personality. You are ignoring that.

 

[partinobodycular]

Likewise, you have not shown that the existence of matter is superfluous to consciousness. In fact, by your own admission, you CAN'T show that it is superfluous!

Except that every neuron and every brainwave is actually a pattern produced by "A"...those underlying quantum fields...therefore "B" isn't actually responsible for producing anything, and the idea that it does is simply an illusion. "B" is just a manifestation of the patterns produced by "A".

Those underlying quantum fields are responsible for everything. Every particle, every force, and every brainwave. Of its own accord the brain contributes nothing.

 

[Kylie]

Except that every neuron and every brainwave is actually a pattern produced by "A"...those underlying quantum fields...therefore "B" isn't actually responsible for producing anything, and the idea that it does is simply an illusion. "B" is just a manifestation of the patterns produced by "A".

Those underlying quantum fields are responsible for everything. Every particle, every force, and every brainwave. Of its own accord the brain contributes nothing.

Then all you are saying is that A=B. And given that, then if A --> C, then it follows that B --> C as well.

More specifically, (A=B) --> C.

 

[SelfSim]

What's really clear about this conversation, is that the logic being argued, leads nowhere of any practical use that I can see. That's the classic problem with pure logic propositions .. they're always seeking 'truths', when no one has any idea of what those 'truths' are. That's where science kicks in and disrupts such never ending philosophical musings ..

Scientific effort (including fringe science) has moved on towards investigating how firing neurons might generate conscious experience. Amongst several of his fringe science proposals, Stuart Hameroff was investigating microtubules within neuronal axons. Others have also researched the electrical properties of idealised theoretical circuit components called 'memristors', of which biology's microtubules appear to align, (at least from a circuit theoretical viewpoint), and quantum happenings inside microtubules are likely.

The name of the game is to figure out the mechanisms behind consciousness in normal brain based neural activity, in which QM properties are almost inevitable.

A nice readable article, recapping the history including the ins and outs of Hammeroff/Penrose (and others') proposals, is here (if interested):
Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness? One Scientist Thinks It Might

 

[partinobodycular]

Then all you are saying is that A=B. And given that, then if A --> C, then it follows that B --> C as well.

More specifically, (A=B) --> C.

Rather than continue to talk past each other, I'll try to change the question so that we can get a different perspective on the relationship between "A" and "B". (We're both fans of pondering the imponderable...right?)

"A" is the microscopic world of interacting quantum fields.
"B" is the macroscopic world of particles, forces, matter, and brains.

So here's the question. Are actions in the macroscopic world (us) responsible for changes in the microscopic world (the quantum fields), or are actions in the quantum fields responsible for the changes in us?

Which is it? Does our macroscopic world cause changes in the quantum fields, or is it the other way around?

If the former is true, that the macroscopic is responsible for changes in the microscopic then you actually have a case for the brain being responsible for consciousness. On the other hand, if the microscopic is responsible for changes in the macroscopic then it's actually the microscopic that's responsible for consciousness, and the perception that it's the brain that's the causal agent is simply an illusion, because it's those darn quantum fields that are the cause, and the brain is just a material projection of what's happening in the fields.

There is of course a third option, that there's an interaction between the two such that we're living in an observer created reality, arising out of a quantum reality, but not entirely subjugated to it. Whatever that means. (Of course that then leads to the whole chicken and the egg problem)

Here's to pondering the imponderable.

 

[partinobodycular]

What's really clear about this conversation, is that the logic being argued, leads nowhere of any practical use that I can see. That's the classic problem with pure logic propositions .. they're always seeking 'truths', when no one has any idea of what those 'truths' are. That's where science kicks in and disrupts such never ending philosophical musings ..

Scientific effort (including fringe science) has moved on towards investigating how firing neurons might generate conscious experience. Amongst several of his fringe science proposals, Stuart Hameroff was investigating microtubules within neuronal axons. Others have also researched the electrical properties of idealised theoretical circuit components called 'memristors', of which biology's microtubules appear to align, (at least from a circuit theoretical viewpoint), and quantum happenings inside microtubules are likely.

The name of the game is to figure out the mechanisms behind consciousness in normal brain based neural activity, in which QM properties are almost inevitable.

Sometimes we just ponder things for no practical reason at all, other than we like to. And that, as Frost would say, has made all the difference. What we should try not to do, is to get so fixated on what we believe to be true that we stop pondering what might be true. Heaven forbid that that day should ever come, for what would life be like if we stopped pondering.

 

[SelfSim]

Sometimes we just ponder things for no practical reason at all, other than we like to. And that, as Frost would say, has made all the difference. What we should try not to do, is to get so fixated on what we believe to be true that we stop pondering what might be true. Heaven forbid that that day should ever come, for what would life be like if we stopped pondering.

What a waste of time ... what a waste of a life!
Get a job and become useful.