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

[Fudbucker]

And what then turned you from an agnostic (weak atheist) to a theist?

Perhaps you should've chosen to use the "hard problem " of "love" instead of "consciousness"? After all, as all good theists know, science can't explain love either.

I'm happy for members of any ilk to comment in this thread.

I'm not a theist.

 

[Fudbucker]

Man, there are so many other threads for you to genuinely comment in and you have commented in than this one regarding your pet-theory. Now you come up with some tenuous at best reason for derailing this one back to your pet-theory.

Seriously. What's the problem that you cannot bump another of the other half-dozen more-related threads?

I don't see how it's tenuous. I was a hardcore atheist for a long time. Then I started to really examine the hard problem of consciousness. Now I've concluded science (or specifically, science based on a materialist foundation) won't solve it, and that failure of science has bled over into my other science-based beliefs, like atheism.

You are free to ignore my posts, if they disturb you, which they seem to do. God knows why.

ETA: and you're really going to complain about me when BobTheCoward is currently gumming up the works in about a dozen threads? That's kind of amusing. No offense, Bob.

 

[MikeG]

.......You are free to ignore my posts, if they disturb you, which they seem to do. God knows why.

Why would using every single post for 5 pages or more to climb back on your same-old-same-old hobby horse, utterly off topic, disturb anyone? I mean, we're all so grateful you've chosen here of all places to propound repetitively and endlessly your personal predelictions, when you could have, for instance, done it in a thread on consciousness. Heaven forefend.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, I see. Talking about my atheism and how science has affected it is hijacking a thread called "Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

And conscious machines? Link?

Self driving cars

The real question is how do you define consciousness? Are there different levels of consciousness?

Here is a link to a Japanese machine that is self aware.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this...hat-only-humans-could-handle-until-now-2015-7

 

[ynot]

I'm not a theist.

Well you certainly don’t have the smell of an atheist. Perhaps in truth you see yourself as an agnostic that’s neither theist nor atheist? (Please let’s not have that debate in this thread).

In the beginning you were a hard-atheist but then you realised science couldn’t answer the hard question of conciseness so you became a weak-atheist. Why? Science doesn’t know, therefore perhaps some goddidit? Your disappointment in science makes a god of magic and miracles more likely? Why?

Science is a knowledge system, theism is a belief system, why does your perceived failure of a knowledge system drive you toward a belief system? Are you really that desperate for an immediate answer that you're prepared to abandon the credibility of credibility (I guess so). Theism awaits you if it doesn't already have you.

ETA - I have you down as a weak atheist due to weak science success. You happy with that?

 

[applecorped]

It's a side effect from reading a lot.

 

[ynot]

It's a side effect from reading a lot.

And over-thinking it.

 

[acbytesla]

Well you certainly don’t have the smell of an atheist. Perhaps in truth you see yourself as an agnostic that’s neither theist nor atheist? (Please let’s not have that debate in this thread).

In the beginning you were a hard-atheist but then you realised science couldn’t answer the hard question of conciseness so you became a weak-atheist. Why? Science doesn’t know, therefore perhaps some goddidit? Your disappointment in science makes a god of of magic and miracles more likely?

Science is a knowledge system, theism is a belief system, why does your perceived failure of a knowledge system drive you toward a belief system? Are you really that desperate for an immediate answer that you're prepared to abandon the credibility of credibility (I guess so). Theism awaits you if it doesn't already have you.

I don't get him either. It comes off as phony or illogical or both. Fud says he's not a theist and perhaps in a pure sense of the word he's not. But nevertheless, his advocacy of looking beyond the material world reeks of the same kind of superstitious nonsense that accompanies theism. He suggests that because science has of yet been unable to answer questions that beings have thought about long before the advent of the scientific method is a reason to abandon it and look elsewhere. I don't fathom that.

I know of NOTHING that is not material and have never seen any proof of anything that is immateral does or could exist. And I'm sure that Fud doesnt have a clue how to test for this and if we could test for it it would cease to be immaterial. There in lies his conundrum.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well you certainly don’t have the smell of an atheist. Perhaps in truth you see yourself as an agnostic that’s neither theist nor atheist? (Please let’s not have that debate in this thread).

OK.

In the beginning you were a hard-atheist but then you realised science couldn’t answer the hard question of conciseness so you became a weak-atheist. Why? Science doesn’t know, therefore perhaps some goddidit? Your disappointment in science makes a god of magic and miracles more likely? Why?

Science doesn't know, but the key is I believe science won't ever know. It's unequipped to solve that one. Specifically, because the foundation it's built upon (physicalism/materialism) is incapable of providing an explanation. When one model of reality takes a hit, other competing models become more credible. So I went from strong-atheist to not sure. Perhaps idealism is true and there's an overarching intelligence at work that you could maybe call a "god". I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

Science is a knowledge system, theism is a belief system, why does your perceived failure of a knowledge system drive you toward a belief system?

There are basically three models of reality: materialism (mind-independent matter/energy), immaterialism (no mind-independent matter/energy), and dualism (a mix of the two). Materialism has no room for gods, obviously, so if materialism leads to an absurdity, as I believe it does, the other two models become more believable.

Are you really that desperate for an immediate answer that you're prepared to abandon the credibility of credibility (I guess so). Theism awaits you if it doesn't already have you.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not the sort of thing science is going to solve, using the methods we have now. We're no closer to figuring out the cause of why things are conscious then we've ever been. That's why you see ideas like IIT and panpsychism gaining ground.

ETA - I have you down as a weak atheist due to weak science success. You happy with that?

Sure.

 

[ynot]

my other science-based beliefs, like atheism.

I assume you mean “hard-atheism’ as in “I believe there are no gods”, as opposed to default-atheism (what you call “weak-atheism”) which is no god beliefs at all.

 

[Fudbucker]

I assume you mean “hard-atheism’ as in “I believe there are no gods”, as opposed to default-atheism (what you call “weak-atheism”) which is no god beliefs at all.

Right.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't see how it's tenuous. I was a hardcore atheist for a long time. Then I started to really examine the hard problem of consciousness. Now I've concluded science (or specifically, science based on a materialist foundation) won't solve it, and that failure of science has bled over into my other science-based beliefs, like atheism.

Okay, well, I have several follow up questions but I don't really wish to continue the derail here, so I'll leave you with this last word.

You are free to ignore my posts, if they disturb you, which they seem to do. God knows why.

Disturb? Eh, maybe. But we're all here working within a specific set of rules which we're all supposed to follow and we're also told that much of what goes on here is member-driven, so I'm doing my part as I see it. I'm not sure why you're so driven to continue posting in this particular thread when you've already contributed and discussed the exact issue in other threads.

ETA: and you're really going to complain about me when BobTheCoward is currently gumming up the works in about a dozen threads? That's kind of amusing. No offense, Bob.

I actually have pointed out in-thread and reported his off-topic nonsense as being such in the past and when I see it again I will most likely continue pointing it out and reporting it.

I'm not a theist.

When you don't care enough to be precise in your terminology (you have said many times you will use the word 'god' as an accurate description of your beliefs) why would you care enough to claim being an atheist over a theist?

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't get him either. It comes off as phony or illogical or both. Fud says he's not a theist and perhaps in a pure sense of the word he's not. But nevertheless, his advocacy of looking beyond the material world reeks of the same kind of superstitious nonsense that accompanies theism. He suggests that because science has of yet been unable to answer questions that beings have thought about long before the advent of the scientific method is a reason to abandon it and look elsewhere. I don't fathom that.

I know of NOTHING that is not material and have never seen any proof of anything that is immateral does or could exist. And I'm sure that Fud doesnt have a clue how to test for this and if we could test for it it would cease to be immaterial. There in lies his conundrum.

That's pretty strong considering we only know what 5% of the universe is.

 

[acbytesla]

Science doesn't know, but the key is I believe science won't ever know. It's unequipped to solve that one. Specifically, because the foundation it's built upon (physicalism/materialism) is incapable of providing an explanation. When one model of reality takes a hit, other competing models become more credible. So I went from strong-atheist to not sure. Perhaps idealism is true and there's an overarching intelligence at work that you could maybe call a "god". I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

Total Nonsense. You simply do not know this and the fact is science has been the singular most effective method of knowing anything conclusively.

There are basically three models of reality: materialism (mind-independent matter/energy), immaterialism (no mind-independent matter/energy), and dualism (a mix of the two). Materialism has no room for gods, obviously, so if materialism leads to an absurdity, as I believe it does, the other two models become more believable.

While there may be three models, there is in fact only one model that isnt simply a hypothetical.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not the sort of thing science is going to solve, using the methods we have now. We're no closer to figuring out the cause of why things are conscious then we've ever been. That's why you see ideas like IIT and panpsychism gaining ground.

And no matter how many times you say it, it is nothing more than bad air. I'd argue that we generally know what is involved in consciousness and only a few details remain and there is very little reason..No, no reason to look outside the material for the answer.

 

[acbytesla]

That's pretty strong considering we only know what 5% of the universe is.

So? And the ONLY reason we know what we do know is from science.

But since you think there is another way I CHALLENGE YOU to tell us how. Please expound on this other method to learn about the universe. Should we pray for an answer?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

First of all, any statement in the lines of "Science cannot explain X" should always end with the word "...yet"

 

[Fudbucker]

This must have taken some work. Thanks mods!

 

[Fudbucker]

First of all, any statement in the lines of "Science cannot explain X" should always end with the word "...yet"

Why? Why are you so sure there's an explanation to everything? Science is running up against some hard limits in cosmology and particle physics. When it comes to proving whether other universes exist, there probably won't be a "yet". they're likely causally disconnected fro us. It will just be inferred from inflationary theory.

 

[Fudbucker]

So? And the ONLY reason we know what we do know is from science.

But since you think there is another way I CHALLENGE YOU to tell us how. Please expound on this other method to learn about the universe. Should we pray for an answer?

I never said anything about praying, but perhaps taking seriously Gregory Matloff’s proto-consciousness field would be a start. And other ideas that are off-the-wall.

 

[acbytesla]

I never said anything about praying, but perhaps taking seriously Gregory Matloff’s proto-consciousness field would be a start. And other ideas that are off-the-wall.

Yea, I think it's another version of woo. Sounds like a tech version of astrology. Bovine excrement piled high for the 21st century.