• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

baron said:
Quantum physics falseifies it. If you won't read a book, at least Google 'materialism' and 'quantum mechanics' or something. You seem to be stuck in a groove and I don't have the motivation to engage much further.
Click to expand...
bovine feces. I'd rather use the colloquial expression but somehow this is considered offensive. My closest friend teaches physics at UW. Your understanding of quantum mechanics is nonsense and I don't care how many times you suggest that you are backed up etc by some line is an esoteric textbook. Also, I have never been arguing materialism from the original concept of that word.

baron said:
I never suggested the physical world is not real, either. I said our model of it does not and cannot reflect reality.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this means.

baron said:
Fundamental reality cannot be observed. HTH.
Click to expand...
What makes reality fundamental? I don't believe almost anyone shares your view on this.


baron said:
I genuinely pity you.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt he wants your pity. Have you ever thought that perhaps arrogance isn't a particularly likable trait in a human being?
 
No, he pities you because you don't understand that the solidity of rock is illusory if a neutrino can pass right through it.

Or if a sledgehammer can crack it.

Or if heat can conduct right through it.

Or if a diamond drill can bore a hole right into it.

Or if atmospheric gases can permeate right through it (though this might take thousands of years).

Or if sonic vibrations pass right through it.

Or if high-energy gamma rays pass right through it.

Or if gravitational fields pass right through it.

Because apparently "solid" actually means "invulnerable and totally opaque to all physical effects." Who knew?
 
acbytesla said:
I seriously doubt he wants your pity. Have you ever thought that perhaps arrogance isn't a particularly likable trait in a human being?
Click to expand...

In his view his arrogance does not reflect reality (apparently nothing does) so it is meaningless, as is his pity.
 
Myriad said:
No, he pities you because you don't understand that the solidity of rock is illusory if a neutrino can pass right through it.

Or if a sledgehammer can crack it.

Or if heat can conduct right through it.

Or if a diamond drill can bore a hole right into it.

Or if atmospheric gases can permeate right through it (though this might take thousands of years).

Or if sonic vibrations pass right through it.

Or if high-energy gamma rays pass right through it.

Or if gravitational fields pass right through it.

Because apparently "solid" actually means "invulnerable and totally opaque to all physical effects." Who knew?
Click to expand...

There is a lot to understand about quantum mechanics and since Baron's posts, I've read a few articles that seem to argue his position. But ONLY at a micro level and even that is questionable with noted physicists Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krause strongly dismissing this argument.

I am trying to understand the argument but it seems like bull to me. It also reeks of an attempt to introduce some kind of silly mysticism and for that reason I can't help but roll my eyes. But maybe the 5th or 6th time I read this it might make sense to me. But I doubt it.
 
acbytesla said:
There is a lot to understand about quantum mechanics and since Baron's posts, I've read a few articles that seem to argue his position. But ONLY at a micro level and even that is questionable with noted physicists Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krause strongly dismissing this argument.

I am trying to understand the argument but it seems like bull to me. It also reeks of an attempt to introduce some kind of silly mysticism and for that reason I can't help but roll my eyes. But maybe the 5th or 6th time I read this it might make sense to me. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Myriad sums it up. It is hardly profound.
 
acbytesla said:
There is a lot to understand about quantum mechanics and since Baron's posts, I've read a few articles that seem to argue his position.
Click to expand...

That's odd, because you've just spent three pages stating that everything I posted is "bull ****" and that I know "nothing" about quantum physics (apparently having a friend who works at a university qualifies you to make that judgement). "Hey, I'm a bit bored of talking about something I know literally nothing about, I guess I'll read an article... oh hang on, what's this?" Pathetic.

acbytesla said:
But ONLY at a micro level and even that is questionable with noted physicists Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krause strongly dismissing this argument.
Click to expand...

That would be Krauss, then. Yes, some scientists tend towards materialism. Many more do not. Of course, when I post quotes from the pioneers of quantum mechanics that undermine your faith - sorry, position - on materialism you ignore them. Perhaps one day you'll read a book and deem the acquisition of knowledge more important than arguing for the sake of it from a position of ignorance. You and several others on this thread.

acbytesla said:
I am trying to understand the argument but it seems like bull to me. It also reeks of an attempt to introduce some kind of silly mysticism and for that reason I can't help but roll my eyes. But maybe the 5th or 6th time I read this it might make sense to me. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I doubt it too.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
For breaches of rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still want to know what it is that science can't explain about consciousness, and the actual definition for consciousness that's associated with the claim.

Strongly suspect folk don't even know what they really mean when they say "Science can't explain consciousness", akin to those that say "You can't say god doesn't exist" but then when asked can't give a definition for "god".
 
baron said:
That's odd, because you've just spent three pages stating that everything I posted is "bull ****" and that I know "nothing" about quantum physics (apparently having a friend who works at a university qualifies you to make that judgement). "Hey, I'm a bit bored of talking about something I know literally nothing about, I guess I'll read an article... oh hang on, what's this?" Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, reminds me of how you handled the wiki article on matter, eh?

That would be Krauss, then. Yes, some scientists tend towards materialism. Many more do not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can provide a poll of scientists, then? I really doubt many of them would say that matter doesn't exist.

What's that? Matter and materialism have nothing to do with one another? Again, you should take that up with baron.
 
The idea that physical reality is mind independent cannot be demonstrated because all experiences are mind dependent. This though does
not mean physical reality is not mind independent and indeed everyone apart from solipsists and idealists takes it to be so. The reason for
this is because different minds can reach intersubjective consensus about the reality they experience. If it was mind dependent each mind
would have a different interpretation of reality yet they do not. If ten minds observe an object they can reach consensus on the properties
of that object even if they are viewing it independently of the other minds. Now that does not prove that external reality is definitely mind
independent but does indicate that it is more likely than not on the balance of probabilities to be so. But either way the mind is an internal
reality generator par excellence given that all experience and knowledge comes from within it and nowhere else. As one cannot experience
or think outside of their own mind. For that is simply physically impossible
 
Solipsism is a warm out battle cry-how does solipsism even follow from that post?
 
Solipsism is the idea that physical reality is dependent on the mind. The poster speaks of physical reality being impossible to demonstrate to be independant from the mind.

This isn't rocket science.
 
Argumemnon said:
Not really. Here's the part I was refering to:

The idea that physical reality is mind independent cannot be demonstrated because all experiences are mind dependent.

How did I misrepresent that?
Click to expand...

ISTM that the claim is that solipsism is unfalsifiable. Since it's unfalsifiable, it falls outside the realm of scientific enquiry.

Dave
 
Fudbucker said:
Did you want a serious discussion or not?
Click to expand...

There is no useful conversation/discussion to be had. There is no evidence for one side (soul/equivalent) and plenty for the other (no soul just brain doing what it evolved to do and still evolving.

An animating spirit (soul) is just an explanation of primitives wanting to explain things prior to any science and thinking past their pay grade. Just like current religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom