What Creates Consciousness?

[stevevw]

No, they regard claims made about such things as unevidenced and basically unfalsifiable and so of no particular interest to science. Such of them as are Christians realize that mind-body dualism is not a prerequisite for the possession of an immortal soul so even they can ignore it.

And yet here we have people in this thread claims that the ideas I have linked are Woo. Its one thing to quote the unreal ideal that the scientist and the method is neutral and doesn't comment on such issues. But its another in how people actually use science, how its applied in reality.

If anyone suggests consciousness beyond the physical brain or NDE for example you get people asking for the evidence. When none is supplied or doesn't meet the standard they want they say that these claims are false and unreal. That is the natural answer if you are asking to determine things like consciousness. Unless it meets the criteria for evidence they claim its not true.

Otherwise why the resistence. They should be saying science cannot falsify consciousness because its beyond science to do so. So we don't know, consciousness beyond brain may be real but the science method cannot prove or disprove this.

But no, instead we get clear claims that there is no consciousness beyond brain because there is no supernatural phenomena. Think of it this way. If science claims that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain they cannot then say we don't know what consciousness is and it may be possible for consciousness beyond brain.

No they have already come to their conclusions and position by claiming consciousness is an epiphenomena. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

[BCP1928]

But no, instead we get clear claims that there is no consciousness beyond brain because there is no supernatural phenomena. Think of it this way. If science claims that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain they cannot then say we don't know what consciousness is and it may be possible for consciousness beyond brain.

No, what we get are claims that there is no evidence for consciousness beyond the brain and an explanation which does not require it.

No they have already come to their conclusions and position by claiming consciousness is an epiphenomena. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

But they sure can eat your lunch when it comes to science. Theology too, probably.
Belief in the supernatural, God in particular, does not entail belief in substance dualism. Rejection of substance dualism does not constitute rejection of the supernatural.

 

[stevevw]

No, what we get are claims that there is no evidence for consciousness beyond the brain and an explanation which does not require it.

Ok lets put it another way with a question. Is consciousness an epiphenomena of the physical brain. Is this a scientific objective fact.

Why is it that people on this thread use the fact that there is no evidence for consciousness beyond brain to say that ideas that propose consciousness beyond brain is Woo.

But they sure can eat your lunch when it comes to science. Theology too, probably.
Belief in the supernatural, God in particular, does not entail belief in substance dualism. Rejection of substance dualism does not constitute rejection of the supernatural.

I think it does at least put substance dualism into the realm of non physical stuff that cannot be reduced to the realm of physical objects ie size, shape, location, solidity, motion, particles, matter, fields and adherence to the laws of physics, and so on.

So as you mentioned just like consciousness beyond brain, God, spirits and other non physical stuff that cannot be verified by science is the same. Methodological naturalism assumes fundemental reality is within the closure of the physical. So it is taking a metaphysical belief before anything has been measured.

That is the belief that there is such a thing as matter beyond brain. Which we cannot verify scientifically because we cannot get outside our Minds to check.

So its actually about belief and not science. Science can only tell us descriptions of a limited aspect of reality. The rest is beyond science yet every bit as real.

https://iep.utm.edu/dualism-and-min...s typically argue that,of physics, and so on.

 

[BCP1928]

And yet here we have people in this thread claims that the ideas I have linked are Woo. Its one thing to quote the unreal ideal that the scientist and the method is neutral and doesn't comment on such issues. But its another in how people actually use science, how its applied in reality.

No, it's your argument. You have to take credit for it , you can't blame it on the sources you quote.

If anyone suggests consciousness beyond the physical brain or NDE for example you get people asking for the evidence. When none is supplied or doesn't meet the standard they want they say that these claims are false and unreal. That is the natural answer if you are asking to determine things like consciousness. Unless it meets the criteria for evidence they claim its not true.

No they say the claims are unevidenced and whatever fanciful theological claims you base on them they say, go grind that axe someplace else.

Otherwise why the resistence. They should be saying science cannot falsify consciousness because its beyond science to do so. So we don't know, consciousness beyond brain may be real but the science method cannot prove or disprove this.

But no, instead we get clear claims that there is no consciousness beyond brain because there is no supernatural phenomena. Think of it this way. If science claims that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain they cannot then say we don't know what consciousness is and it may be possible for consciousness beyond brain.

No they have already come to their conclusions and position by claiming consciousness is an epiphenomena. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

"Otherwise why the resistance..?" That's a question which you ought to reflect on a little more. Ask yourself, "Why is it being resisted?" and, "Why are there Christians and other theists amongst the resisters?"

 

[Ophiolite]

Why is it that people on this thread use the fact that there is no evidence for consciousness beyond brain to say that ideas that propose consciousness beyond brain is Woo.

Because proposing concepts for which there is no meaningful evidence despite extensive efforts to find such evidence is pretty much the definition of woo. In the past dualism was readily accepted. As our understanding of nature in general and man in particular grew it became increasingly obvious that there was no likeliehood, from a scientific standpoint, that the idea had merit. In such a case, persisting in promoting the idea can only be cited as an excellent example of woo. Why is it that you don't get that very simple fact?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why is it that people on this thread use the fact that there is no evidence for consciousness beyond brain to say that ideas that propose consciousness beyond brain is Woo.

It was your claim of electrons having the property of consciousness that we labeled woo. We stand by that label.

 

[dlamberth]

It was your claim of electrons having the property of consciousness that we labeled woo. We stand by that label.

In watching this discussion, I can't help but wonder if perhaps differing understandings of consciousness is at work here.

As I tend towards the mystical aspect of things, I clearly would be in the woo category.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In watching this discussion, I can't help but wonder if perhaps differing understandings of consciousness is at work here.

As I tend towards the mystical aspect of things, I clearly would be in the woo category.

Nah, you are and neither is Steve. It is certain *claims* (like electrons ahving a consicousness property) that are so beyond the pale that they are "woo".

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah, you are and neither is Steve. It is certain *claims* (like electrons ahving a consicousness property) that are so beyond the pale that they are "woo".

Speaking of electrons, do you know scientists say they have "spin"?

 

[BCP1928]

In watching this discussion, I can't help but wonder if perhaps differing understandings of consciousness is at work here.

As I tend towards the mystical aspect of things, I clearly would be in the woo category.

Mind body dualism proposes that the mind and the physical brain are separate substances. It is usually supposed that the "mind" component is supernatural in some way. That is to say, that consciousness is a property of the supernatural, such that evolution by random variation and selection could not produce it. Consequently, scientists reject mind body dualism because it would force them to admit of a supernatural phenomenon. EES is offered, with a little help from Intelligent Design sources, as proof of conscious intent in the evolutionary process. maybe even present in electrons. EES thus overturns evolutionary theory and proves that its explanation for the emergence of mind has failed.
Assuming that mind body dualism is true, of course. But this thread is not really about mind body dualism, it's about how scientists stick to their materialist theories whatever the evidence, out of fear they will have to admit to the existence of God.

 

[dlamberth]

Mind body dualism proposes that the mind and the physical brain are separate substances. It is usually supposed that the "mind" component is supernatural in some way. That is to say, that consciousness is a property of the supernatural, such that evolution by random variation and selection could not produce it. Consequently, scientists reject mind body dualism because it would force them to admit of a supernatural phenomenon. EES is offered, with a little help from Intelligent Design sources, as proof of conscious intent in the evolutionary process. maybe even present in electrons. EES thus overturns evolutionary theory and proves that its explanation for the emergence of mind has failed.
Assuming that mind body dualism is true, of course. But this thread is not really about mind body dualism, it's about how scientists stick to their materialist theories whatever the evidence, out of fear they will have to admit to the existence of God.

Even as a Lover of God I could not go down the path that your describing. It's not about anything supernatural or mind/body or anything like that. But as I see it, consciousness is a basic element of existence starting with the moment of the Big Bang. I understand that's where I willingly go down the woo track. And...that trajectory is not science and does not belong here.

 

[Doveaman]

Hey, Dove!

Welcome back!

Thanks

 

[Doveaman]

Even as a Lover of God I could not go down the path that your describing. It's not about anything supernatural or mind/body or anything like that. But as I see it, consciousness is a basic element of existence starting with the moment of the Big Bang.

What "basic element" is that?

 

[Laodicean60]

But this thread is not really about mind body dualism, it's about how scientists stick to their materialist theories whatever the evidence, out of fear they will have to admit to the existence of God.

I don't think this thread started that way. Does it have to be God, what about a highly intelligent aliens in another dimension which I don't think biology or traditional physics can explain?

When I say a paradygm shift in thinking I am not talking about woo but similar to how there was a shift in physics thinking with QM compared to the classical conceptions. Many called those proposing that fundemental reality was indeterminant were also called woo. Like I said Behaviouralist use to say Mentalists were quacks as well.

The same with most scientific ideas. They have completely changed from the original conceptions about what is reality and there were those who claimed these new ways of thinking was pseudoscience when it proved to be correct all along.

I am open to all science including physics in QM I don't hold any particular worldview when it comes to science or woo science, what is woo today may not be in the future our knowledge and test equipment are limited. What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance” today isn't so spooky after all. Not only can we not explain consciousness, mantra chants, prayer, intuition, or when someone gives you bad vibes is not a natural process but we all know the basic building block of matter is the atom so why not study the properties and their actions through QM?

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think this thread started that way. Does it have to be God, what about a highly intelligent aliens in another dimension which I don't think biology or traditional physics can explain?

OK. But you would have to have evidence for their existence and/or their activity. In the meantime, physics and biology are doing all right and continuing to make progress. For Steve it has to be his God and his God's rules about how we do sex.

I am open to all science including physics in QM I don't hold any particular worldview when it comes to science or woo science, what is woo today may not be in the future our knowledge and test equipment are limited. What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance” today isn't so spooky after all. Not only can we not explain consciousness, mantra chants, prayer, intuition, or when someone gives you bad vibes is not a natural process but we all know the basic building block of matter is the atom so why not study the properties and their actions through QM?

OK.

 

[AV1611VET]

For Steve it has to be his God and his God's rules about how we do sex.

As opposed to mans' rules?

 

[BCP1928]

As opposed to mans' rules?

No, as opposed to somebody else's ideas of what God's rules are.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, as opposed to somebody else's ideas of what God's rules are.

Which is basically mans' rules ... right?

 

[Laodicean60]

But you would have to have evidence for their existence and/or their activity.

I agree, or evidence a person is willing to accept.

 

[dlamberth]

What "basic element" is that?

That would be Consciousness.