Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Pathfinder,

paulhanke;84827 wrote:

... a tour in the Army will do that to you :bigsmile: ...

when were you in the Army? where did you tour?

leave a PM please

Pathfinder;84842 wrote:

My problem is not with science, it is with people who do not understand science and follow it religiously

as an aspiring scientist, what is it I "don't understand" about my field

Pathfinder;84842 wrote:

For instance, the common acceptance of the teaching of evolution in schools today as though it is a factual science

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Pathfinder;84842 wrote:

when it is still being argued by many reputable scientists around the world

who

Pathfinder;84842 wrote:

There is a bias in that community that their science cannot be refuted, and that anything extra physical is a danger to their scientific environment

it is when people start tangling legit knowledge with metaphysical fantasy, like rich with his quantum mysticism

otherwise it's mostly just irrelevant

Pathfinder;84842 wrote:

I place this community in the same level as religious fanatics and extremists that go out of their way to promote their agendas as well.

you're kidding right

has a skeptic ever bombed a faith healer convention

not to my knowledge

the zeal is not even close

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;84864 wrote:

i personally have not experienced or detected anything that would be called 'intent to create', and i dont feel it is necessary that there be one.

Here is a brief list of some of those that I have observed that seem to have the intent to create:

1) Artists
2) Musicians
3) Scientists
4) Mathematicians
5) Writers
6) Actors, directors, producers
7) Construction workers
8) Architectures
9) Teachers
10) Commentators
11) Bloggers
12) Forum participants
13) Children
14) Plants
15) Insects
16) The Sun
17) Galaxies
18) And I guess the universe
19) And I guess quanta objects and quanta subjects

I don't know what everything is doing other than creating. As humans, I guess, we are all creating new roles for ourselves and then creating things within those roles.

Rich

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

ya so what what does that mean

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84854 wrote:

, we are part of the engine of creation ... maybe that doesn't hold a candle to the poetry of the mystics, but I think it's poetry nonetheless

Hi Paul,

I think it is very nice and poetic mysticism. This is pretty much my interpretation of stuff also. Things are being created all the time.

Only I give some intent to it emanating from Consciousness, because I don't think things randomly come together in order to cook barbecues, watch football games, observe through telescopes and microscopes, or teach rats to run through mazes. In any case, I see no reason to make all these events simple random events. It may indeed be just random stuff but then I would expect a lot more disorder in the universe, like everything just flying apart in every which direction. But we do have gravity and other forces bringing things together.

So let's just say that what we call order is the work of Consciousness. This is what I think is bringing those pesky little neurons together to learn.

Rich

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

From what I have observed here, which by the way is the essence of science, Paul and Salime see the universe in some sort of a continuing trip through reality, its trajectory carrying everything around it in its wake and having no fixed destination.

Everything along the way is random and mishap, a result of the energy flowing along with that initial explosion of first cause. They see no reason to consider that within that wave of energy that there might be anything other than what they have already proven to exist through scientific means, and yet they readily admit that it is all one great mystery with regard to its origin.

To my mind that is like observing a space ship of some sort fly across the sky and convincing yourself that there is no sense in thinking that some alien might be steering the craft because you have not actually seen one in the drivers seat.

The main difference between them and myself then would be that when I observe the great craft of creation fly across the sky, I don't need to see the driver under a microscope to know one is there, I can logically conclude that something is there because something is directing it and it had a point of origin. I certainly do not jump to the conclusion that because I cannot see the driver that there must not be one, or that because its origin remains a mystery that it must not have began at some point in time.

When they are in the city and see one of those cars with the tinted windows drive by, do they apply the same logic?

As for Oden, well, he has convinced himself that evolution has been proven a fact. Nuff said! I rest my case.

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 03:24 AM ----------

richrf;84866 wrote:

Here is a brief list of some of those that I have observed that seem to have the intent to create:

1) Artists
2) Musicians
3) Scientists
4) Mathematicians
5) Writers
6) Actors, directors, producers
7) Construction workers
8) Architectures
9) Teachers
10) Commentators
11) Bloggers
12) Forum participants
13) Children
14) Plants
15) Insects
16) The Sun
17) Galaxies
18) And I guess the universe
19) And I guess quanta objects and quanta subjects

I don't know what everything is doing other than creating. As humans, I guess, we are all creating new roles for ourselves and then creating things within those roles.

Rich

Well said Rich. However I am afraid that you are preaching to someone who flatout chooses to believe that a car with tinted windows must therefore have no driver because none can be seen.

4 Replies

@Pathfinder,

^^^ the driver can be observed by breaking into or otherwise opening the car

you're being deliberately dense now

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

To my mind that is like observing a space ship of some sort fly across the sky and convincing yourself that there is no sense in thinking that some alien might be steering the craft because you have not actually seen one in the drivers seat.

why would you assume that? even we humans can build unmanned probes

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

The main difference between them and myself then would be that when I observe the great craft of creation fly across the sky, I don't need to see the driver under a microscope to know one is there, I can logically conclude that something is there because something is directing it and it had a point of origin. I certainly do not jump to the conclusion that because I cannot see the driver that there must not be one, or that because its origin remains a mystery that it must not have began at some point in time.

there gots to be some pilot!!

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

When they are in the city and see one of those cars with the tinted windows drive by, do they apply the same logic?

your reasoning already doesn't make sense

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

As for Oden, well, he has convinced himself that evolution has been proven a fact. Nuff said! I rest my case.

Observed Instances of Speciation

yeah yeah I'm a real dope for believing evolution is a fact hurr durr

btw I have some doubts about whether the moon landings and the Holocaust happened

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 04:38 AM ----------

I mean people around the world dispute whether these events happened you have to see both sides of the issue

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84878 wrote:

^^^ the driver can be observed by breaking into or otherwise opening the car

you're being deliberately dense now

why would you assume that? even we humans can build unmanned probes

there gots to be some pilot!!

your reasoning already doesn't make sense

Observed Instances of Speciation

yeah yeah I'm a real dope for believing evolution is a fact hurr durr

btw I have some doubts about whether the moon landings and the Holocaust happened

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 04:38 AM ----------

I mean people around the world dispute whether these events happened you have to see both sides of the issue

He makes it too easy for me to rest my case. he does all the hard work for me by simply opening his mouth. Sorry Oden , I shouldn't be so condescending. I guess its your deliberation that causes such response.

But at least you have admitted two points here, one, that you for some reason would now choose to dissect the craft to see what is driving it, and than two, that you would have no reason to assume that there is a driver because you know of instances where there are unmanned probes.

Wait, isn't that contradicting yourself? I give up! I don't think you know what you believe. My advice to you is to make a deliberate attempt to use the internet to search for arguments against darwin's theory of evolution and see who is debating that theory and what scientific reasoning and logic they provide to support their theories.

Maybe such an effort might cause you to learn something valuable. But you are not going to dissect that craft are you, because of course you know that some crafts are unmanned.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84882 wrote:

He makes it too easy for me to rest my case. he does all the hard work for me by simply opening his mouth. Sorry Oden , I shouldn't be so condescending. I guess its your deliberation that causes such response.

well the actual neuroscientist in this thread, KaseiJin agrees with me (although not with my tone, but we're from two way different cultures)

and I'm an aspiring neuroscientist

so idk man

Pathfinder;84882 wrote:

But at least you have admitted two points here, one, that you for some reason would now choose to dissect the craft to see what is driving it, and than two, that you would have no reason to assume that there is a driver because you know of instances where there are unmanned probes

no I wouldn't have any reason to assume an alien spacecraft would have a living pilot, for two reasons

I've never seen even one alien ship before and therefore have no idea of the probability that one will be "manned" or not
unmanned craft like the Voyagers are a definite possibility

in the case of terrestrial cars, I have a more sound idea of the probability that a car whose driver I cannot identify will be manned (very close to one)

although unmanned cars exist now

Pathfinder;84882 wrote:

Wait, isn't that contradicting yourself?

no

Pathfinder;84882 wrote:

I give up! I don't think you know what you believe. My advice to you is to make a deliberate attempt to use the internet to search for arguments against darwin's theory of evolution and see who is debating that theory and what scientific reasoning and logic they provide to support their theories

the burden of proof is on you
they're called "creationists" and they lie and distort facts consistently

the theory of evolution has such a titanic body of evidence behind it, including observed instances of speciation (although I shouldn't even dignify the creationists' arbitrary distinction between "micro-" and "macroevolution") that it's innocent until proven guilty

so prove it guilty

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84866 wrote:

Here is a brief list of some of those that I have observed that seem to have the intent to create:

1) Artists
2) Musicians
3) Scientists
4) Mathematicians
5) Writers
6) Actors, directors, producers
7) Construction workers
8) Architectures
9) Teachers
(..etc etc)

I don't know what everything is doing other than creating. As humans, I guess, we are all creating new roles for ourselves and then creating things within those roles.

Rich

i see it more along the lines of expression rather than creation. but you are right that whatever i see is only a reflection of that one field of consciousness-then again, i dont intend to create. it just happens. does that mean there is an intent beyond me that works through me? some people believe that. i dont rubbish the idea just yet. i am not saying it isnt there, i am only saying i have not sensed or experienced 'intent' in my other-worldly meanderings.

and i am not saying the craft is unmanned either-i just get the impression that whoever is in there is going along for the ride rather than driving. i also get the impression the essence of being isnt destructive or malevolent. but none of this is worth mentioning to anyone because it is only my experience. off topic anyway...by the way, i know i dont know what i believe...jury is still out.

you are reading me wrong, pathfinder. i have occasional intents-but i am going through life without any, going along for the ride so to speak. this all-pervading consciousness may be doing just that. it may be watching itself like watching a drama on television and occasionally making a cup of coffee during the commercials. (those are the barbecues we humans intend to create sometimes) i dont think the consciousness knows how it is going to end either...

i dont equate randomness with natural selection either. it is quite obvious to me that if the selection was detrimental to existence the species or cosmos would cease to exist. we are still here, so the selection process is a good one. maybe i am not liking the term 'intent' or 'create'. but natural selection is hardly random.

perhaps you misunderstand me because i try to incorporate all avenues of thought, therefore i can relate to science as well as mysticism. i see them as different paths leading to the same goal.

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

As for Oden, well, he has convinced himself that evolution has been proven a fact. Nuff said! I rest my case.

Please read the link "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" in Oden's post #401. Then tell us what specific points in it you disagree with, and why.

If you know of any recent biological texts doubting the fact (rather than just disputing the mechanisms) of evolution, can you please give details, including the reasons for these doubts. Then we'll have something to bite on.

1 Reply

@ACB,

Is the debate about the seat of consciousness or not. Its gone on for so long and been diluted by so many other debates, I just cant remember.

Kj you asked me what I called observable brain activity, when a patient is under observation, you could tell me more about that, than I. I thought it meant frontal lobe activity and did not record neocortex activity. Is this disputed, this fact, by you, when nde's are reported?

Im no expert but if consciousness could be precisely placed it could possibly be the electromagnetic field produced by this cortex, am i wrong? The neocortex, i believe, is the evolutionery invention that humans have that lower primates dont have. Im not afraid of examining this evidence Kj, as I believe the self interested approach to understanding is counter productive, I just need to know what we really know about consciousness.

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

From what I have observed here, which by the way is the essence of science, Paul and Salime see the universe in some sort of a continuing trip through reality, its trajectory carrying everything around it in its wake and having no fixed destination.

Yes, I would agree there is no fixed destination, no more than there is a fixed destination when I child plays with blocks or children play hide and seek. What happens, happens, though there is a continuous process of bringing order from disorder.

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:

As for Oden, well, he has convinced himself that evolution has been proven a fact. Nuff said! I rest my case.

It is interesting how proven facts can materialize simply when enough people agree that it is a fact. Of course, within a given evangelical congregation, Creationism is a fact. Facts apparently depend upon who one hangs around with. There appears to be among humans a desire to be accepted, and acceptance means that you adhere to the facts of the majority within the group that one wants to be accepted within. This is one of the issues facing anyone who wants to belong. But, this would be more appropriately discussed under epistemology within science. e.g., How does group pressure affects facts and what do leaders of groups do to bring conformity to ideas within a group?

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

We all adhere to our beliefs and seek reassurances from like minded souls, the scientist are no different, even if they like to think of themselves of the upholders of the true truth. It is a continuing battle with ones ego to avoid such pitfalls..

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;84926 wrote:

We all adhere to our beliefs and seek reassurances from like minded souls, the scientist are no different, even if they like to think of themselves of the upholders of the true truth. It is a continuing battle with ones ego to avoid such pitfalls..

I agree. Everyone seems to be seeking to belong to a group. And each group has its central tenets which one must adhere to in order to belong. Anyone who challenges such central tenets (e.g. evolutionary theory), gambles on subjecting oneself to ridicule and banishment - the operative mechanism within a group to maintain order and control. You can witness these mechanisms actively used all of the time within any kind of group whether it be religious or scientific, or whatever.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 10:28 AM ----------

ACB;84905 wrote:

Please read the link "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" in Oden's post #401. Then tell us what specific points in it you disagree with, and why.

If you know of any recent biological texts doubting the fact (rather than just disputing the mechanisms) of evolution, can you please give details, including the reasons for these doubts. Then we'll have something to bite on.

If you are saying that everything is evolving (changing) I would agree. However, it is precisely the mechanisms that are begin disputed. If you would state the facts about evolution, other than everything is changing (Heraclitus: All is in flux), then I would be happy to find the disputes surrounding what you claim to be facts.

The nice thing about science is that everything is always being researched and disputed. The problem is that everyone in science is at the same time claiming that it is all facts. A bit of a problem for someone who is reading science. It begins to sound more like a religion. Personally, I spend lots of time reading medical science, and am somewhat bemused by the day to day changes in facts.

In any case, present your facts and we shall see where it goes.

Rich

1 Reply

@xris,

To Quote Karl Popper
'The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities - perhaps the only one - in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there.'

This image people seem to portraying of Science is a fundamentally incorrect one. Scientific theorys are held tentatively until observable evidence arises that falisfies a theory (Poppers falisfication) or we make changes to our hypothesis to ones which fit with the observable evidence or we may even go through a revolutiony Kuhnian paradigm shift.

One simple example of how Science has to change in the face of observable evidence would be the move away from the hypothesis 'Water Boils at 100 Celcius' which is falisfied by an observation where Water boils below 100 Celcius or on occasions when the boiling point of Water in excess of 100 Celcius, leading to the creation of a general law of the boiling point of Water in relationship to pressure and soluble substances contained within the Water.

The Demarcation between Metaphysics and Science, is what turns many people sour towards Science as they feel that their pet metaphysical theories are not being given the stamp of Scientific approval. And different solutions to how we should solve the problem of Demarcation have been proposed by various different Philosophers of Science with mention to Carnap and Popper certainly deserving of honourable mentions. In active Scientific cirlces demarcation occurs in a more ad-hoc way than outlined by theorists. But what it essentially comes down to is that metaphysical statements are not testable and do not lie within the realm of Science, not to say the statements are in themselves meaningless as Popper pointed out that many now Scientific theorys grew out of metaphysical theorys.

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

1 Reply

@RDanneskjld,

R.Danneskjöld;84939 wrote:

To Quote Karl Popper: But science is one of the very few human activities - perhaps the only one - in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.

Ok. So let us observe this sentence and be critical of it. Is this true? Is it fact? Is it an opinion? Is it false?

There is no reason to discuss the subject here. Discussion belongs in another thread. I just wanted to ask the question for some later discussion.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84931 wrote:

If you are saying that everything is evolving (changing) I would agree. However, it is precisely the mechanisms that are begin disputed. If you would state the facts about evolution, other than everything is changing (Heraclitus: All is in flux), then I would be happy to find the disputes surrounding what you claim to be facts.

I was referring specifically to the evolution of biological species, and the dispute between Darwinism and biblical creationism. The link I referred to argues that evolution per se (the theory that all species evolved from earlier species) has been verified beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore deserves to be called a 'fact', like the theory of gravity, or the idea that the Earth is round. (Of course, only mathematical and logical propositions can be true beyond all doubt.)

If anyone claims that the vast majority of biologists are wrong to accept evolution, they need to provide specific counter-evidence.

richrf;84931 wrote:

The nice thing about science is that everything is always being researched and disputed. The problem is that everyone in science is at the same time claiming that it is all facts. A bit of a problem for someone who is reading science. It begins to sound more like a religion. Personally, I spend lots of time reading medical science, and am somewhat bemused by the day to day changes in facts.

You say that everything is always being researched and disputed. Isn't that the exact opposite of a religion?

I would say that scientists change or dispute theories, not facts. When a theory (e.g. that the Earth is round) has been verified beyond reasonable doubt, the content of the theory is said to be a fact. It is always possible that a totally unexpected piece of new evidence can reintroduce reasonable doubt and cause scientists to rethink a previously accepted theory, but it is irrational to do so in the absence of such evidence.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;84951 wrote:

You say that everything is always being researched and disputed. Isn't that the exact opposite of a religion?

Within religions there is always disputes, criticism, and evolution of ideas. I would say that when I was a child, and first began playing baseball, there was similar conversations between my friends and I - e.g. how to throw a baseball, how to hit one, etc. Systematic inquiry, disputes, reconciliation of ideas has been around as far back as I can imagine. You should witness how people within the singing community argue about the right way to sing. Some say use imagination. Others, the more scientific ones, say control your vocal chords. And they argue and frequently ridicule the other ideas.

Within any framework (groups) that I have ever been involved with there has been always: 1) basic tenets that are beyond dispute and are upheld by the leaders of the framework, and 2) people who are challenging the framework. Within certain bounds, within the rules, criticism is encouraged, since it keeps the group interesting, but there are boundaries and when one steps outside of the boundaries then they are ridiculed and banished.

For example, within the scientific community, the rule is that no one can suggest that there are supernatural forces. This would be outside the boundaries and would submit someone to banishment. Therefore, instead of using the word supernatural, scientists just invent new words: e.g. gravity, gravitons, electro-magnetic forces, self-induced actions, probabilities, spontaneous, etc. Concepts such as love, hate, greed, etc. are just not allowed. But it is permissible for a scientist to measure a little thing-a-ma-jig called a neuron that goes diddity-dit, and that can be called love. Quantum effects are not allowed to bleed into real life. Science, has made up all kinds of fuzzy ways to deal with the unknown, just so the group can maintain a cohesive structure/framework. But it is really no different than any other group.

So, every group has its agreed upon framework and ridicules those who have a different framework. You walk into a group of football players and they have a blast ridiculing nerdy science majors. Science has its revenge by developing and providing harmful substances for football players to use to increase their performance via medical science. And the games go one.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;84953 wrote:

For example, within the scientific community, the rule is that noone cannot suggest that there are supernatural forces. This would be outside the boundaries and would submit someone to banishment. Therefore, instead of supernatural, scientists just invent new names: e.g. gravity, gravitons, electro-magnetic forces, self-induced, probabilities, etc. Concepts such as love, hate, greed, etc. are just not allowed. But it is permissible for a scientist to measure a little thing-a-ma-jig called a neuron that goes diddity-dit, and that can be called love.

Not at all. Love is not some occult thing hidden from view. When we say that someone is in 'Love' we are talking about them being a disposition to act in certain ways when presented with certain situations. If you look how people talk about 'Love' and 'Loving' other people they often talk about very physical signs of affection whether that is kissing, compliments, moral support or many other things that are related to Love. There is behavioural criteria for Love, maybe not a very clear scientific one, but one used by many people in there everyday life and I would suggest it works just fine, with people often talking about whether other people love them or not based on the behaviour of the other person in question.

And actually Love is allowed in Science with there being several approaches to building a Scientific view of Love, with research being undertaken in both Evolutionary Psychology and in neuroscience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(scientific_views)

When people talk about Supernatural forces they way they describe these forces are normally untestable (making them metaphysical rather than Scientific utterings) and when supernatural claims can be tested there is no compelling evidence to accept these claims. Just take the James Randi Educational Foundation which offers a $1,000,000 reward to anyone who can 'demonstrate evidence of any supernatural or occult power or event'.

1 Reply

@RDanneskjld,

R.Danneskjöld;84959 wrote:

Not at all. Love is not some occult thing hidden from view. When we say that someone is in 'Love' we are talking about them being a disposition to act in certain ways when presented with certain situations. If you look how people talk about 'Love' and 'Loving' other people they often talk about very physical signs of affection whether that is kissing, compliments, moral support or many other things that are related to Love. There is behavioural criteria for Love, maybe not a very clear scientific one, but one used by many people in there everyday life and I would suggest it works just fine, with people often talking about whether other people love them or not based on the behaviour of the other person in question.

And actually Love is allowed in Science with there being several approaches to building a Scientific view of Love, with research being undertaken in both Evolutionary Psychology and in neuroscience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(scientific_views)

Yes, you have made my case of what is acceptable within the scientific community. I was simply trying to underscore this. You have your belief systems, your acceptable practices, your framework, and you are comfortable with it. And you have your enforcers (e.g. Randi). It is no different than any other group. It is a way to manage and bring order to one's life.

I agree, that there are all kinds of ways to talk about love. For me it is an emotion. None measurable. Immaterial. Varying from person to person. Someone can talk about loving a dog, loving a house, loving their boat, etc. Some people sometimes suppose that when they are punishing someone or some animal, they are doing it out of love. So, can you give me the scientific definition of Love?

Rich

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know