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

[ynot]

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..."

Yep . . .

Theists often defend their god beliefs by attacking science with silly comments like - “Science doesn’t know everything, Science isn’t always right, Science can’t explain love”, etc. My response is usually - “So what? I’m an atheist mainly because theism has failed to convince me any god exists. Take away science and I would still be an atheist. Don’t blame science for the failure of theism”.

You may need to conflate "science" and "materialism" to be able to join the dots.

 

[ynot]

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?

As children take the actual existence of Santa as a matter of faith in the honesty of parents and other adults.

What else can innocent, gullible, trusting children do, after all?

 

[MikeG]

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..."

Are you being serious? Really?

Lovely straw man "I can tell you everything.......", as part of a general logic cluster-****. Atheism can be utterly detached from science, and even without any science at all on the planet, the credulous would ask "this god-thing of yours: got any evidence?" That's all it needs for atheism to be the logical position: a search for the evidence behind theistic doctrines and claims. "Got nothing to back that up? OK, then come back to me when you have".....and you've got another atheist.

-

Seems to me that every single thread on atheism boils down to theists getting their knickers in a twist over the word "belief" (or "faith") and when they can't get to redefine it to suit their argument they end up with god-of-the-gaps and science-doesn't-know-everything. Almost like they never learn.

 

[ynot]

Are you being serious? Really?

Lovely straw man "I can tell you everything.......", as part of a general logic cluster-****. Atheism can be utterly detached from science, and even without any science at all on the planet, the credulous would ask "this god-thing of yours: got any evidence?" That's all it needs for atheism to be the logical position: a search for the evidence behind theistic doctrines and claims. "Got nothing to back that up? OK, then come back to me when you have".....and you've got another atheist.

-

Seems to me that every single thread on atheism boils down to theists getting their knickers in a twist over the word "belief" (or "faith") and when they can't get to redefine it to suit their argument they end up with god-of-the-gaps and science-doesn't-know-everything. Almost like they never learn.

Theism doesn't need to learn anything as it already "knows" everything by way of belief and faith. A case of theism transposing it's own worst (cocky teenagers who think they know everything) fault on to atheism.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

Neither does materialism or atheism.

A theist would simply take the existence of god (and its consciousness) as a matter of faith.

Well that obviously doesn't work. "We hold ourselves to a very low standard" is clearly not a path towards a reasonable belief system.

I don't think you're holding a very consistent standard.

 

[acbytesla]

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).

You seem to contradict yourself in that paragraph.

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 really don't get this. We may never be able to give ourselves a good explanation for consciousness. I grant you that. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to explain a mystery with another mystery.

 

[Fudbucker]

You seem to contradict yourself in that paragraph.
I really don't get this. We may never be able to give ourselves a good explanation for consciousness. I grant you that. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to explain a mystery with another mystery.

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As opposed to ' theism not coming up empty '?

And why ' catastrophic ' ?

"Difficult"?

Inconvenient perhaps?

I think any question for which their is no plausible answer, would be a difficult question, as well as inconvenient for the ' expert ' to whom it is posed..

 

[ynot]

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?

It's not about theism v materialism.

It's not about theism v science.

It's not about theism v atheism.

It's ONLY about theism v credibility.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?

No.

Every other theory is in itself unexplainable.and really is worthless. By calling it a miracle or an act of a God or a spirit is really a cheat. The correct answer to a unexplained question is 'we don't know'. Not unproven bs we couldn't possibly understand.

 

[ynot]

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?

No. I would rather continue looking at self-evident realities. Why wouldn't you?

 

[MikeG]

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?

No. Not at all.

Oh, and theism doesn't explain anything (you said as much yourself), so, by your own argument, wouldn't you start looking around for an alternative?

 

[Fudbucker]

No.

Every other theory is in itself unexplainable.and really is worthless. By calling it a miracle or an act of a God or a spirit is really a cheat. The correct answer to a unexplained question is 'we don't know'. Not unproven bs we couldn't possibly understand.

Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.

 

[Fudbucker]

No. Not at all.

Oh, and theism doesn't explain anything (you said as much yourself), so, by your own argument, wouldn't you start looking around for an alternative?

Dualism. Perhaps there is a lot more to the universe than just this material stuff.

ETA: or idealism: perhaps there isn't any material stuff at all and everything is a projection of the mind.

 

[ynot]

Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.

To dualism land and beyond . . .

 

[MikeG]

Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.

This whole consciousness schtick of yours is tedious, off-topic, and utterly irrelevant. It is also disingenuous, because if you have done any reading on the matter at all (surely you have, as you can't leave the subject alone) you'd know that we actually have pretty good knowledge of consciousness, and, for instance, know the parameters within which its full explanation will fall. It has also been explained to you multiple times (so many times, in fact, that one wonders why you ignore all the explanations other than just to annoy your interlocutors) that not knowing some stuff completely is no reason whatever to cling to makey-uppie magic-man-in-the-sky crap........an idea for which there is zero evidence. You cannot logically argue that all science is bunk because we don't know some stuff but in the next breath claim that theism is a perfectly good alternative despite us not having anything other than "it says so in this old book" as evidence in support.

 

[Fudbucker]

This whole consciousness schtick of yours is tedious, off-topic, and utterly irrelevant. It is also disingenuous, because if you have done any reading on the matter at all (surely you have, as you can't leave the subject alone) you'd know that we actually have pretty good knowledge of consciousness, and, for instance, know the parameters within which its full explanation will fall. It has also been explained to you multiple times (so many times, in fact, that one wonders why you ignore all the explanations other than just to annoy your interlocutors) that not knowing some stuff completely is no reason whatever to cling to makey-uppie magic-man-in-the-sky crap........an idea for which there is zero evidence. You cannot logically argue that all science is bunk because we don't know some stuff but in the next breath claim that theism is a perfectly good alternative despite us not having anything other than "it says so in this old book" as evidence in support.

And so you will be telling me how the brain produces consciousness? Or at least a rough sketch of the causal mechanism? Or at least what the word itself actually means?

Until then, I will continue to point out this glaring flaw.

 

[acbytesla]

Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.

It's not a question of surrendering. It's about having the intellectual integrity and maturity to admit that you dont know when you don't. No one likes questions that seem unanswerable. But answering them with unproven bovine feces is worse. It's messy and it stinks.

You can't explain Gods, miracles, mysticism or anything supernatural either.
Can you? Answering a mystery with another mystery doesn't get you an inch closer to what the answer is, so why not just admit you don't know?

 

[MikeG]

And so you will be telling me how the brain produces consciousness? Or at least a rough sketch of the causal mechanism? Or at least what the word itself actually means?

Until then, I will continue to point out this glaring flaw.

Despite it being off topic? Go ahead. Let's see how that works out.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's not a question of surrendering. It's about having the intellectual integrity and maturity to admit that you dont know when you don't. No one likes questions that seem unanswerable. But answering them with unproven bovine feces is worse. It's messy and it stinks.

Everything is unproven, before it is proven. Little organisms we can't see making us sick? Laughable.

You can't explain Gods, miracles, mysticism or anything supernatural either. Can you? Answering a mystery with another mystery doesn't get you an inch closer to what the answer is, so why not just admit you don't know?

I am admitting we don't know. I think we should look in areas that might seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things sometimes turn out to be true. Other people (not just cranks) are starting to go this route: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956