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

[Darat]

If you had any concept of science you would know it was proved over 100 years ago. Materialism is an absurdity. Matter does not exist. Maybe you're a bit behind the times and still think atoms are little balls that bounce around ...snip...

Ah I see your misunderstanding - what materialism means has changed since the 19th century. Catch-up with the modern usage and you'll see your objections to it are a tad silly.

 

[baron]

The idea that getting a better understanding of what matter consists of disproved materialism is ... odd. I sort of understand what baron is getting at, but I don't think it really stands up.

'Matter' is a throwback term to when the subatomic world was thought a mirror the macro world and consist of tiny little balls bouncing around and interacting. We have known for decades that this is not the case. Any current definition of 'matter' cannot relate to all that can be observed, and indeed does not. The photon does not have mass, the quark does not even exist in three dimensional space, and that's before you even get onto the question of fields and forces, which have never been defined under the term, and have historically been ignored by materialists of all flavours. No attributes of macro objects are mirrored in the subatomic world and therefore the idea of 'matter' and 'material' as applied to the latter is literally not even wrong, it is moot; it has no meaning.

Been linked to in a few other threads but not this - this thread just seems to be for flat assertions so I didn't think necessary to relink.

About 20 years ago I bought a book titled 'The End of Science', a confused, attention seeking tome suggesting that we were approaching a time when we know everything there is to know about reality. Some elements of the scientific community have been bleating on in a similar vein for the past two thousand years. Perhaps once it was a valid avenue of speculation, now it is inexcusable. What should be clear is that statements such as "We know that X cannot exist" are unjustified and unscientific.

There simply isn't a gap left for such an unknown mechanism to work - we've only been able to say that with confidence in about the past 10 years - I find it awe inspiring what we now know. (I also find it very disappointing in a way as we now know there is no magic.)

I don't know the article, and I've never heard of such a statement being made, but it smacks of sensationalism. That something of this magnitude is contained in single article is laughably unlikely. I certainly haven't encountered anything similar in the books I've read, even the ones published in the last 18 months.

In fact, 'unknown mechanism'? Consciousness, you mean? Consciousness does operate via an unknown mechanism. That's not even in serious dispute (unless you believe the title of Dennett's book 'Consciousness Explained', in which he waffles on about peripheral irrelevances before announcing he doesn't actually have a clue what consciousness is; I did consider getting a refund on the basis of false advertising). The general consensus, in my view, is that right now we know there is more we don't know that at any point in our history.

Ah I see your misunderstanding - what materialism means has changed since the 19th century. Catch-up with the modern usage and you'll see your objections to it are a tad silly.

Of course it's changed, that's my whole point! It changes every five years, when its followers realise the current flavour fails miserably to describe the prevailing scientific consensus yet don't have the wit or the honesty to admit they are wrong and re-evaluate their worldviews.

I was a materialist once, I have no qualms about admitting it. But then I did the research. Materialism wasn't a religion to me so I had no issues about letting it go.

 

[acbytesla]

'Matter' is a throwback term to when the subatomic world was thought a mirror the macro world and consist of tiny little balls bouncing around and interacting. We have known for decades that this is not the case. Any current definition of 'matter' cannot relate to all that can be observed, and indeed does not. The photon does not have mass, the quark does not even exist in three dimensional space, and that's before you even get onto the question of fields and forces, which have never been defined under the term, and have historically been ignored by materialists of all flavours. No attributes of macro objects are mirrored in the subatomic world and therefore the idea of 'matter' and 'material' as applied to the latter is literally not even wrong, it is moot; it has no meaning.



About 20 years ago I bought a book titled 'The End of Science', a confused, attention seeking tome suggesting that we were approaching a time when we know everything there is to know about reality. Some elements of the scientific community have been bleating on in a similar vein for the past two thousand years. Perhaps once it was a valid avenue of speculation, now it is inexcusable. What should be clear is that statements such as "We know that X cannot exist" are unjustified and unscientific.



I don't know the article, and I've never heard of such a statement being made, but it smacks of sensationalism. That something of this magnitude is contained in single article is laughably unlikely. I certainly haven't encountered anything similar in the books I've read, even the ones published in the last 18 months.

In fact, 'unknown mechanism'? Consciousness, you mean? Consciousness does operate via an unknown mechanism. That's not even in serious dispute (unless you believe the title of Dennett's book 'Consciousness Explained', in which he waffles on about peripheral irrelevances before announcing he doesn't actually have a clue what consciousness is; I did consider getting a refund on the basis of false advertising). The general consensus, in my view, is that right now we know there is more we don't know that at any point in our history.



Of course it's changed, that's my whole point! It changes every five years, when its followers realise the current flavour fails miserably to describe the prevailing scientific consensus yet don't have the wit or the honesty to admit they are wrong and re-evaluate their worldviews.

I was a materialist once, I have no qualms about admitting it. But then I did the research. Materialism wasn't a religion to me so I had no issues about letting it go.

How we define matter is different then what it was 150 years ago and the term materialism has evolved. Some people prefer physicalism, but I'm afraid somebody will get picky over that one as well.

What I am describing with the word materialism in this context is observable phenomena.

I don't believe a God or a universal mind exists, but if one can design a test for these concepts that is repeatable and verifiable, I would have no choice to concede the existential claim.

Holding such a philosophy doesn't make it a religion either. I don't pray to it or worship it either. It simply is the reality I interact with.

 

[smartcooky]

A test for the existence of matter

a. push your keyboard (or laptop) back about a foot.

b. place your hands about a shoulder width apart on the front edge of the desk or table

c. smash your forehead down hard against the desk between your hands

If that hurt, then matter exists!

 

[baron]

How we define matter is different then what it was 150 years ago and the term materialism has evolved. Some people prefer physicalism, but I'm afraid somebody will get picky over that one as well.

Again, exactly my point. The definition branches and changes to fit the scientific consensus, becoming more convoluted and equivocal every time it is forced to accommodate fresh knowledge.

What I am describing with the word materialism in this context is observable phenomena.

I'm not sure what observable phenomenon would be. If you're defining materialism as things we know then it's a pretty useless concept, although that would account for the way the definition changes on a regular basis. In any event, it's not a definition I'm familiar with, you could even say that the definition of 'phenomena' is diametrically opposed to the fundamental concept of materialism, which is centred on the solid stuff, not the process.

I don't believe a God or a universal mind exists, but if one can design a test for these concepts that is repeatable and verifiable, I would have no choice to concede the existential claim.

Well, unless you disbelieve in consciousness (as some people do, incredibly) then you already believe in a concept for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. Not only that, but for which there is not even a hypothesis on how such evidence might be obtained.

Holding such a philosophy doesn't make it a religion either. I don't pray to it or worship it either. It simply is the reality I interact with.

It's a religion in that people have faith in it despite overwhelming evidence that is it not true.

And I agree, the materialist world is the world you interact with, and me too, but our macro world is an illusion, as quantum mechanics so clearly demonstrates.

 

[LarryS]

There is no evidence of a universal consciousness or spirit. And more importantly, why would anyone think there is?

We only have evidence for 'a universal consciousness or spirit' - every experience and measurement occurs as an object in consciousness. We assume the existence of a shared physical material world. It's a rational assumption, but an assumption.

 

[caveman1917]

The idea that getting a better understanding of what matter consists of disproved materialism is ... odd. I sort of understand what baron is getting at, but I don't think it really stands up.

The wavefunction exists. Which is an abstract mathematical structure and not a material object. That's more like platonic realism than materialism.

 

[Donn]

If current physics are not labeled "materialism", what label should be used?

 

[acbytesla]

Again, exactly my point. The definition branches and changes to fit the scientific consensus, becoming more convoluted and equivocal every time it is forced to accommodate fresh knowledge.

This is what science does. It changes with new data. That's how you can distinguish it from a religion.

I'm not sure what observable phenomenon would be. If you're defining materialism as things we know then it's a pretty useless concept, although that would account for the way the definition changes on a regular basis. In any event, it's not a definition I'm familiar with, you could even say that the definition of 'phenomena' is diametrically opposed to the fundamental concept of materialism, which is centred on the solid stuff, not the process.

Useless to you. But in terms of this conversation, it is entirely useful.

Well, unless you disbelieve in consciousness (as some people do, incredibly) then you already believe in a concept for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. Not only that, but for which there is not even a hypothesis on how such evidence might be obtained.

Nonsense, there is evidence for it all around us.

It's a religion in that people have faith in it despite overwhelming evidence that is it not true.

Its not Faith. 'faith' is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. No way does that describe the world we interact with. And if the repeatable verifiable almost universally shared perception of the world is not true, then nothing is.

And I agree, the materialist world is the world you interact with, and me too, but our macro world is an illusion, as quantum mechanics so clearly demonstrates.

That the quantum world requires a different kind of understanding doesn't make the world we interact with an illusion.

 

[Fudbucker]

A test for the existence of matter

a. push your keyboard (or laptop) back about a foot.

b. place your hands about a shoulder width apart on the front edge of the desk or table

c. smash your forehead down hard against the desk between your hands

If that hurt, then matter exists!

The problem is the materialists who used to think in depth about this stuff (Pixymisa, Rocketdodger, Piggy, etc.) are gone, and so instead of SRIP and rope-brains and simulated consciousness, the above is what passes for discussion now. It was old during Berkeley's time and it hasn't aged well.

 

[caveman1917]

If current physics are not labeled "materialism", what label should be used?

Nothing. Physics does not rely on any ontological narrative, it never has. Just because materialism has been - and for some reason still is - a fad doesn't mean other ontologies (such as platonic realism, solipsism, "we live in a simulation", ...) are not just as good. Physics might exclude certain ontologies when they become inconsistent with it (such as materialism in its standard form pretty much has) but there's always still a ton of other ones available. All of which are inherently just as good as the rest, and it's basically just a fad which of them is popular.

 

[Belz...]

The definition branches and changes to fit the scientific consensus, becoming more convoluted and equivocal every time it is forced to accommodate fresh knowledge.

Reality sucks compared to comfortable fantasy, right?

 

[Myriad]

The problem is the materialists who used to think in depth about this stuff (Pixymisa, Rocketdodger, Piggy, etc.) are gone, and so instead of SRIP and rope-brains and simulated consciousness, the above is what passes for discussion now. It was old during Berkeley's time and it hasn't aged well.

Are you only here for the entertainment, then? Or do you have some insights to share, regarding the nature of consciousness, that can be gained via dualistic or theistic models?

 

[IanS]

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.

What do you think "consciousness" is? What sort of processes do you think are occurring to produce the effect that you call "consciousness? ... what is the mechanism that is causing "consciousness"?

I'm asking you, because you seem to have automatically assumed that "consciousness" cannot be explained as simply the end result of a sensory system (sight, touch, smell, hearing etc.) that is rapidly exchanging "information" (i.e. chemical, electrical and other physical changes) with the brain, limbs, and other organs.

If I had to guess at a likely scientific explanation, I would say that all known evidence probably points to a mechanism similar to the above description. So that what may seem to us to be a seamless continuous "awareness" of our surroundings, is actually composed of hundreds/thousands/millions of individual "bits" of that information (i.e. electrical, chemical, physical changes) being exchanged very rapidly back and forth between the sensory system, the brain, and the limbs and other organs ... it's happening so rapidly, and being updated so rapidly with small alterations, that it seems to us like what we rather vaguely call consciousness ... but it is actually that rapidly updating back-&-forth exchange of millions of individual bits/snapshots of input-output information.

As I said - that's just my guess as to what's really happening. But I don't think anyone should be surprised if science finally decides that it's something very much like that.

 

[abaddon]

The problem is the materialists who used to think in depth about this stuff (Pixymisa, Rocketdodger, Piggy, etc.) are gone, and so instead of SRIP and rope-brains and simulated consciousness, the above is what passes for discussion now. It was old during Berkeley's time and it hasn't aged well.

Does Langton's Ant have a soul?

 

[smartcooky]

This is what science does. It changes with new data. That's how you can distinguish it from a religion.

This.

Religion's response to new data is

a. reject it out of hand if it does not accord with existing dogma*

b. Claim "God did it" and/or "God works in mysterious ways"

*(I saw a great example of this in a recent documentary called "The Jesus Strand: A Search for DNA". Here is a brief "about" for those who haven't seen it.

Now for the first time in history a man of faith and a man of science are teaming up to search for Jesus' DNA. Using the latest advances in DNA technology Oxford University geneticist George Busby and biblical scholar Pastor Joe Basile are investigating the world's most famous holy relics including the Shroud of Turin, The Sudarium of Oviedo and the newly discovered bones of Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist. Their journey takes them to holy sites around the world from Spain and Italy to Israel and the shores of the Black Sea. By extracting and analyzing samples of each of these holy relics they hope to retrieve a sample of DNA that possibly belongs to Jesus or a member of his family. They believe that if they can find a strand of Jesus' DNA it could help identify who among us today are descendants of Jesus and provide us with new insight into the man many consider to be the most important person in history, Jesus.

I approached it with an open mind (the scientifically correct thing to do), however, very early on, Pastor Joe Basile made a statement in narration that was so offhand, I almost missed it....

"any evidence we find must accord with the Biblical account"

For mine, this statement put an end to any pretence of it being a scientific study. No scientist would pre-emptively dismiss undiscovered evidence. A TRUE scientist is open to the possibility that their theory (no matter how dearly they hold it) might be wrong; they will go where the evidence, the testing and the results take them.

 

[Donn]

Nothing. Physics does not rely on any ontological narrative, it never has. Just because materialism has been - and for some reason still is - a fad doesn't mean other ontologies (such as platonic realism, solipsism, "we live in a simulation", ...) are not just as good. Physics might exclude certain ontologies when they become inconsistent with it (such as materialism in its standard form pretty much has) but there's always still a ton of other ones available. All of which are inherently just as good as the rest, and it's basically just a fad which of them is popular.

That doesn't scan.

Materialism is not a fad or a competing hypothesis in the ring with gods, magic or navel-gazing. Materialism is a noun that groups the whole of what science has learned.

I am trying to get at why games are being played here with the name "materialism" without any sensible replacement being mooted.

 

[caveman1917]

That doesn't scan.

Materialism is not a fad or a competing hypothesis in the ring with gods, magic or navel-gazing. Materialism is a noun that groups the whole of what science has learned.

I am trying to get at why games are being played here with the name "materialism" without any sensible replacement being mooted.

No, the noun that groups the whole of what science has learned is science. Materialism is a fad which asserts a) the existence of matter and b) the non-existence of non-matter.

 

[smartcooky]

Just because materialism has been - and for some reason still is - a fad...

Materialism is not, never has been, and never will be "a fad"

I have another name for it, I call it "actualism"

doesn't mean other ontologies (such as platonic realism, solipsism, "we live in a simulation", ...) are not just as good.

Materialism doesn't require the assumption of anything else other than itself for it to be reality, and as for "we live in a simulation", well, this is just nuts. It has to be just about the most ridiculous concept of them all. What about those who run the simulation? Are they in a simulation too? What about those who are running THAT simulation? Are they also in a simulation? This is almost as ridiculous as "turtles all the way down".

 

[baron]

This is what science does. It changes with new data. That's how you can distinguish it from a religion.

It's bizarre you should ascertain that science, instead of discarding old hypotheses in favour of new ones, clings grimly to the same concept and tries to shoe-horn into it into the ever-changing evidential framework of reality. That's not a behaviour of science I've ever encountered but you know, it does ring a bell...

...of course, religion. There's even a phrase for it - 'the god of the gaps'. As evidential explanations become impossible to ignore so the opportunity for god's influence reduces, making a mockery of the whole concept, but that doesn't phase the religionists. God is still out there doing his thing despite having to revise on a regular basis what it is he actually does. It's exactly the same with materialists except instead of narrowing their definition of materialism they widen it.

Useless to you. But in terms of this conversation, it is entirely useful.

Unless you're having a conversation with yourself then by your own definition, it's useless.

Nonsense, there is evidence for it all around us.

Feel free to elucidate, I'm eager to see this evidence.

Its not Faith. 'faith' is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Are you seriously telling me that you rely on your own senses to form a full conceptual theory of reality?

No way does that describe the world we interact with.

No, it describes how materialists, and religionists, view it.

And if the repeatable verifiable almost universally shared perception of the world is not true, then nothing is.

That the quantum world requires a different kind of understanding doesn't make the world we interact with an illusion.

What are you talking about? The world as we observe it is created in its entirety inside our heads from a vanishingly small set of electrical impulses. It is a wholly fabricated model, the sole purpose of which is not for us to understand the universe, but for us to survive in our limited environment long enough to reproduce. You think the real 'out there' world possesses attributes of colour, or sound, or solidity, or even movement in the strictest sense? You think we are capable of processing more than a crazy small fraction of the information around us?

Quantum mechanics tells us what reality is fundamentally like. You can't reasonably deny that. What you experience with your almost non-existent macro senses in your immediate environment is wholly irrelevant. Materialism, regardless of what contrived definition it is operating under today, must define the fundamentals of existence, otherwise why even invent the term?