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

[Fudbucker]

This thread was split from Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?.

It may be that some posts were moved which should not have been, and/or that some posts which should have been moved remain in the original thread. Please report any posts that fall into either category so that I or another mod can deal with them. Thank you.

Posted By: Agatha

If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.

The best part of materialism is that doesn't matter.

 

[Fudbucker]

The best part of materialism is that doesn't matter.

It certainly does matter. If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory. I think it reached that point long ago. Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It certainly does matter. If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory. I think it reached that point long ago. Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.

It doesn't reach a conclusion. If there is no explanation how it arose, then there is no current explanation. No conclusion to be absurd.

Wait,I think I'm mixing up materialism with just skepticism.

 

[ynot]

If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.

It certainly does matter. If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory. I think it reached that point long ago. Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.

Even if true . . . So what?

My enduring default atheism is the failure of theism to convince me it's true (or even possibly true). I simply don't accept/believe the silly childish tales of magic and miracles and the promises of eternal bliss and threats of eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Complete lack of credibility has always been the Achilles heel of theism.

 

[Fudbucker]

It doesn't reach a conclusion. If there is no explanation how it arose, then there is no current explanation. No conclusion to be absurd.

The problem is that there should have been hints of an explanation after all this time. We still can't even agree on what the terms mean. We can't even agree on whether your perception of green is like mine. For materialism, which champions results and progress, to still be this in the dark about something so fundamental is devastating to the theory.

I know materialism adherents think something will eventually pan out, but the top contender right now is ITT, which has tremendous problems. My view is that if progress hasn't been made by now, it probably won't be made at all and materialism will end up on the ash-heap of failed scientific theories.

Wait,I think I'm mixing up materialism with just skepticism.

Materialism requires adherence to a particular model of reality. A skeptic would question all models.

 

[Fudbucker]

Even if true . . . So what?

My enduring default atheism is the failure of theism to convince me it's true (or even possibly true). I simply don't accept/believe the silly childish tales of magic and miracles and the promises of eternal bliss and threats of eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Incredulity has always been the Achilles heel of theism.

So there are only two other competing models of reality if materialism fails: dualism and theism. Theism gets a huge boost if you knock out materialism.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The problem is that there should have been hints of an explanation after all this time. We still can't even agree on what the terms mean. We can't even agree on whether your perception of green is like mine. For materialism, which champions results and progress, to still be this in the dark about something so fundamental is devastating to the theory.

I know materialism adherents think something will eventually pan out, but the top contender right now is ITT, which has tremendous problems. My view is that if progress hasn't been made by now, it probably won't be made at all and materialism will end up on the ash-heap of failed scientific theories.



Materialism requires adherence to a particular model of reality. A skeptic would question all models.

That is why I said wait. Materialism is actually a philosophy and not just requiring evidence

 

[acbytesla]

If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.

How do you define what a miracle iis?

Here is one definition.

'a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency'

Just because science cannot fully explain something at this time doesn't mean it is is divine. The way you use the term miracle is basically a cacthall for what you cannot explain. What's wrong with saying 'it's cool and we just don't know'? By filling in the gaps of human knowledge with words like god or miracle, you have surrendered. You might as well say 'fairies did it', or 'it was magic'. They are totally interchangeable with God and miracles.

 

[ynot]

So there are only two other competing models of reality if materialism fails: dualism and theism. Theism gets a huge boost if you knock out materialism.

Let's see which would work best to knock you out . . .

Materialism - Hit yourself hard on the head with a material club.

Theism - Do whatever you can with whatever you can find of theism.

 

[Fudbucker]

Let's see which would work best to knock you out . . .

Materialism - Hit yourself hard on the head with a material club.

Theism - Do whatever you can with whatever you can find of theism.

Did you want a serious discussion or not?

 

[The Norseman]

Did you want a serious discussion or not?

Your theories on consciousness and materialism are off-topic for this thread so do us a favor and comment in the correct thread.

 

[ynot]

Did you want a serious discussion or not?

Sorry, I didn't realise your post I responded to was meant to be taken seriously. Or to put it another way, I couldn't take it seriously. But do feel free to bang on about "competing models of reality" all you like. But please do it in another thread.

 

[ynot]

Your theories on consciousness and materialism are off-topic for this thread so do us a favor and comment in the correct thread.

Thanks for that!

ETA - A friendly reminder . . .

This thread is addressed to atheists and asks them whether their atheism is predominately preserved by either science or the failure of theism to convert them into theists.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks for that!

ETA - A friendly reminder . . .

This thread is addressed to atheists and asks them whether their atheism is predominately preserved by either science or the failure of theism to convert them into theists.

Yeah, so theists... bugger off!

 

[Fudbucker]

How do you define what a miracle iis?

Here is one definition.

'a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency'

I consider a miracle to be a violation of established laws of nature. In that case, consciousness isn't really a "miracle" under materialism (hyperbole on my part), but its existence (and lack of any explanation for it) are enough to rule out materialism (for me at least).

Just because science cannot fully explain something at this time doesn't mean it is is divine. The way you use the term miracle is basically a cacthall for what you cannot explain. What's wrong with saying 'it's cool and we just don't know'? By filling in the gaps of human knowledge with words like god or miracle, you have surrendered. You might as well say 'fairies did it', or 'it was magic'. They are totally interchangeable with God and miracles.

Because I think it's more than a case of "we don't know, but we eventually will". I don't think any progress has been made on the causal mechanism of subjective experience, nor do I think any will be made. And some materialist explanations that posit conscious rope-brains or a universe of conscious beings simulated by moving rocks around illustrate the weakness of the theory. I know why those materialists have to make those claims: anything that is functionally identical to a working organic brain should be conscious.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I consider a miracle to be a violation of established laws of nature. In that case, consciousness isn't really a "miracle" under materialism (hyperbole on my part), but its existence (and lack of any explanation for it) are enough to rule out materialism (for me at least).

Then what is the explanation for God's consciousness?

 

[Fudbucker]

Then what is the explanation for God's consciousness?

Good question. I don't consider it a knock on theism, because theism doesn't purport to explain the world around us through rigorous methodology. A theist would simply take the existence of god (and its consciousness) as a matter of faith.

 

[sackett]

A John Frumist would simply take the existence of cargo (and its creation by the ancestors) as a matter of faith.

What else can believers do, after all?

 

[Fudbucker]

A John Frumist would simply take the existence of cargo (and its creation by the ancestors) as a matter of faith.

What else can believers do, after all?

Try to take down non-theistic models of reality. Materialism reminds me of those cocky teenagers who think they know everything:
"I can tell you everything you need to know, using science!"
"OK, how do brains produce consciousness?"
"Eh..."