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

[MikeG]

......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.

I've highlighted the only important words in these two sentences.

Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.

You are projecting your ignorance here, in the course of stating something as fact for which there is no evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

I think, therefore, I am

This is all I need to know about conciousness

 

[acbytesla]

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.

This makes no sense at all. Materialism is the only thing that explains the conscious pieces of meat. We know of NO such thing as a conscious that exists without an organic entity associated with it. Consciousness is NOT an Achilles heel of materialism.

 

[smartcooky]

This makes no sense at all. Materialism is the only thing that explains the conscious pieces of meat. We know of NO such thing as a conscious that exists without an organic entity associated with it. Consciousness is NOT an Achilles heel of materialism.

Well, it could be, for those who are obsessed with knowing why consciousness exists (usually the same people who accept the existence of invisible sky deities without any evidence or proof).

For mine, conciousness is something I experience. It exists, and I don't much care why. If it didn't exist, well we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Fudbucker]

This makes no sense at all. Materialism is the only thing that explains the conscious pieces of meat.

Actually, materialism has so far failed to explain this, which is the whole point of the thread.

We know of NO such thing as a conscious that exists without an organic entity associated with it.

Which does not mean that no such thing exists. There are a lot of things whose existence, when we learned of it, surprised us.

Consciousness is NOT an Achilles heel of materialism.

I disagree.

 

[Fudbucker]

But as Fudbucker said, "the problem is that there should have been hints of an explanation after all this time." And religion has had a lot more time than science to come up with a hint of an explanation.

This is wasted on me, I'm not a theist. My point is that materialist-based science has failed on this. Some people are hypothesizing a possible consciousness field that permeates the universe. Research along those lines might turn up interesting results.

 

[ynot]

This is wasted on me, I'm not a theist.

You sure smell like one.

My point is that materialist-based science has failed on this.

And I thought you don’t fail until you give up. I don’t see materialist-based science giving up any time soon.

Some people are hypothesizing a possible consciousness field that permeates the universe. Research along those lines might turn up interesting results.

Only if The Universe turns out to be an omnipresent brain.

Keep looking, I’m sure you will eventually find the god you desperately seek (if you haven't already).

Cosmic consciousness - A god by any other name . . .

 

[acbytesla]

Actually, materialism has so far failed to explain this, which is the whole point of the thread.

Of COURSE IT HAS. Can you identify a single item anywhere that you KNOW to have a conscious that doesn't have a living organism associated with it? Therefore the material is necessary for consciousness.

Which does not mean that no such thing exists. There are a lot of things whose existence, when we learned of it, surprised us.

By that logic, you can postulate that fairies, Big Foot and cow farts are the source of consciousness. There IS ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe that these things are true anymore than the horse manure you are putting stock in.

I disagree.

So what? So you disagree? You can believe in all kinds of things. That doesn't make them true.

 

[abaddon]

This is wasted on me, I'm not a theist. My point is that materialist-based science has failed on this. Some people are hypothesizing a possible consciousness field that permeates the universe. Research along those lines might turn up interesting results.

Well, since you claim that materialism cannot explain consciousness, let's hear your explanation. Do you have one? Of course not.

 

[acbytesla]

A perfect analogy

Fud seems to believe because we don't have a detailed answer for what causes consciousness and despite every clue pointing toward a material association that we look for an answer in the universe instead.

This is like proposing that since you can't find your keys, you should look half way around the world in places you have never been as opposed to continuing your search in the places you frequent.

Granted you may be frustrated since you haven't found them, but that doesn't justify going off on a wild goose chase.

 

[Loss Leader]

Or you can keep spinning your wheels and hoping that the answer is coming someday...

... as opposed to religion where new information comes never.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Really? I know I'm conscious because of science? I kind of took that for granted. Most of the important things I know are through self-discovery. Those truths are heard-earned. What flavor quarks make up a proton? Kind of trivial.

I don't claim to know I am conscious.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't claim to know I am conscious.

According to Richard Linklater, flip the lightswitch. You can't turn lights on or off in your dreams.

I have no idea if this is true or how anybody could possibly know it. Still, it's in a Richard Linklater movie, so it must be genius.

 

[Minoosh]

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

Because we experience our own personalities, and the personalities of our loved ones, so powerfully that it's hard to believe that all of this dies with brain death. You sit with someone dying; at some point they're "gone," and maybe we instinctively believe they've gone somewhere?

I never saw the "big problem" nature of consciousness. I wasn't sure there was anything to explain. I did not know of any reason that an organism would not become self-aware, maybe as an evolutionary strategy.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not sure consciousness is such a big deal anyway. It obviously seems important to us, but most animals manage perfectly well without it. The more we find out about how the brain works the less of a big deal it becomes, seeming to be little more than a thin veneer on the unconscious workings of the brain with far less of a role to play in decision making, for example, than we'd previously assumed.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

So, Fudbucker, all you have to discount materialism is your personal incredulity.

Could you perhaps explain why you think science will never be able to research consciousness?
Your previous 'explanation' that science isn't equipped for it isn't an explanation, just a rephrasing of your claim.

And could you point us to a system with a better track record for finding answers about the way things work?

 

[Mojo]

This is wasted on me, I'm not a theist. My point is that materialist-based science has failed on this. Some people are hypothesizing a possible consciousness field that permeates the universe. Research along those lines might turn up interesting results.

How do you plan researching it without involving materialism?

 

[ynot]

Because we experience our own personalities, and the personalities of our loved ones, so powerfully that it's hard to believe that all of this dies with brain death. You sit with someone dying; at some point they're "gone," and maybe we instinctively believe they've gone somewhere?

Nothing more than an emotionally comforting denial of an unpalatable reality.

 

[ynot]

How do you plan researching it without involving materialism?

Don’t think metaphysical enlightenment is the result of research.

 

[Mojo]

Don’t think metaphysical enlightenment is the result of research.

But it produces marvellously detailed descriptions of the Emperor's feathered hat. It might even finally answer the question of what colour Russell's teapot is.