• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

theprestige said:
All the evidence suggests that consciousness has a materialist explanation, even if we don't know what it is yet.

None of the evidence suggests that there is a non materialist explanation.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for consciousness at all. Consciousness is subjective and no scientific test has been established, even in theory, that would test for its existence.

theprestige said:
In fact, whenever science looks for an explanation, it always turns out to be materialism. It never turns out to be magic.
Click to expand...

It's pretty short-sighted to keep talking about magic. Is quantum mechanics magic, just because you don't know how it works, or because 130 years ago its conclusions would not have been believed?
 
baron said:
There is no evidence for consciousness at all. Consciousness is subjective and no scientific test has been established, even in theory, that would test for its existence.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter what exactly it is, I bet it still has a materialist explanation.

baron said:
It's pretty short-sighted to keep talking about magic. Is quantum mechanics magic, just because you don't know how it works, or because 130 years ago its conclusions would not have been believed?
Click to expand...

What? He said magic does not exist and you call it "pretty short-sighted to keep talking about magic"? Do you realize that on this you seem to agree?
 
Cheetah said:
Doesn't really matter what exactly it is, I bet it still has a materialist explanation.
Click to expand...

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

Cheetah said:
What? He said magic does not exist and you call it "pretty short-sighted to keep talking about magic"? Do you realize that on this you seem to agree?
Click to expand...

It's short sighted to label as magic anything that is current inexplicable by science. I never mentioned magic, simply alternative explanations for consciousness. At the turn of the last century, should someone have correctly speculated on the nature of the quantum world, he and others would have told them to stop talking about magic. It is short-sighted to imagine we are anywhere close to understanding the universe, and even more so to call anything not currently explained 'magic'.
 
Well that's the point. He is not "labeling anything current inexplicable by science as magic" and that seems to be what you are objecting to.
 
Cheetah said:
Well that's the point. He is not "labeling anything current inexplicable by science as magic" and that seems to be what you are objecting to.
Click to expand...

He's saying it must be magic unless it can be explained by currently understood scientific principles. That is short-sighted.
 
Cheetah said:
Where does he say that? Could you please direct me to the post, or quote him?
Click to expand...

It's right there in front of you.

theprestige said:
In fact, whenever science looks for an explanation, it always turns out to be materialism. It never turns out to be magic.
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous position to hold. Quantum physics is as far removed from pre-quantum materialism as it's possible to get. What happens is that when something radical and not proven by science is suggested then it's 'magic' and 'unicorns'. Then, when it's evidenced by science the definition of materialism is expanded to incorporate it and those very same people say, "See, I told you everything can be explained by materialism."

This is exactly what would happen if, say, science discovers the existence of a ubiquitous conscious field. Those who are saying it's magic now will redefine 'materialism' to incorporate the new science and gloat, "Oh, everything so far discovered is materialistic, not magic." It is such a dishonest way of arguing.
 
Darat said:
Of course there is, one that is used every single day throughout many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale
Click to expand...

That says nothing about the hard problem of consciousness. The word consciousness in that sense is used interchangeably with 'awareness'. It just tests for reaction, it's no more evidential than saying the existence of consciousness is proved by sleep; ask a sleeping person the time and they don't respond, ask them when they wake up and they'll tell you. Those reactions could be replicated by an unconscious machine and don't begin to address the notion of conscious experience, nor are they intended to.
 
Cheetah said:
Read it again. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Do you have any opinion on this topic, or are you going to continually badger me over irrelevances?
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
baron said:
It's right there in front of you.



It's a ridiculous position to hold. Quantum physics is as far removed from pre-quantum materialism as it's possible to get. What happens is that when something radical and not proven by science is suggested then it's 'magic' and 'unicorns'. Then, when it's evidenced by science the definition of materialism is expanded to incorporate it and those very same people say, "See, I told you everything can be explained by materialism."

This is exactly what would happen if, say, science discovers the existence of a ubiquitous conscious field. Those who are saying it's magic now will redefine 'materialism' to incorporate the new science and gloat, "Oh, everything so far discovered is materialistic, not magic." It is such a dishonest way of arguing.
Click to expand...

Sadly over the last few years we have now learnt enough to know there isn't a gap such a thing could be hiding in. There simply isn't the room for it.
 
baron said:
That says nothing about the hard problem of consciousness. The word consciousness in that sense is used interchangeably with 'awareness'. It just tests for reaction, it's no more evidential than saying the existence of consciousness is proved by sleep; ask a sleeping person the time and they don't respond, ask them when they wake up and they'll tell you. Those reactions could be replicated by an unconscious machine and don't begin to address the notion of conscious experience, nor are they intended to.
Click to expand...

The "hard problem of consciousness" only arises if you start with a dualist starting point.
 
baron said:
Do you have any opinion on this topic, or are you going to continually badger me over irrelevances?
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...

Oh wow. I'm am boggled, because that quote it means the opposite to what you are claiming.
Read it again.

I would say that my opinion is the same as theprestige's, no magic at all in consciousness or in the whole universe for that matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darat said:
Sadly over the last few years we have now learnt enough to know there isn't a gap such a thing could be hiding in. There simply isn't the room for it.
Click to expand...

You stated this before and when I asked for evidence you said there was an article you'd read, but wouldn't link to it. I'll say now what I said then, I've never heard of such a thing and if it were in any way a consensus it would be world news. 'Science is almost complete and there's nothing major left to discover! (OK, scientists have been saying this constantly for a thousand years, but still...)'

Darat said:
The "hard problem of consciousness" only arises if you start with a dualist starting point.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true. The hard problem looks at subjective experience and qualia, it says nothing about dualism.
 
Cheetah said:
I would say that my opinion is the same as theprestige's, no magic at all in consciousness or in the whole universe for that matter.
Click to expand...

It's great we all agree there's no magic. Now, if we can move on?
 
baron said:
It's great we all agree there's no magic. Now, if we can move on?
Click to expand...

Hey, you were the one who totally misunderstood a very straightforward comment. I was just trying to get you up to speed and you kept on arguing on instead of admitting you made a mistake.

So sure, let's move on.

Please tell me more about your idea that consciousness may carry on when the brain is destroyed, that sound like magic to me.
 
I have to confess that I've only read the last couple of pages, so perhaps I've missed this, but is there any evidence at all for a "consciousness field"? If not, then why isn't the current scientific understanding enough?
 
None evidence for it and no reason to think that consciousness cannot be explained by current science.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom