Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Kielicious,

Quote:

What gives them this function? Call it infinite whatever.... it is the question that bgegs to be answereed Zeth.

you make it sound so simple, the sperm just does it! But why does the sperm perform this function, where does it get its programming? What causes it to do this? How do I ask the question so that it becomes valid?

you say the sperms function is to seek the egg? What do you mean "the sperms function is to...?" That is not an answer. And just because the answer involves infinite regression doesnt mean that it doesnt deserve to be asked or answered

You could do this with anything. People can provide you an answer about anything, and you can always ask "why" again. There comes a point when you will stump a person, as there's no way to answer all the "why's". There also comes a point, perhaps surprisingly for you, where nothing new is learned and overanalyzation begins.

Right now you've received an answer, but you're simply not content with it, so you're asking another "why". This is a vicious cycle that is senseless. Nothing is ever learned or understood because the last proposition rests on the next proposition, and so on and so forth. So, you're just left with a long line of tidbits of information with no conclusion and rarely a context.

Here's an answer you may be content with:

I don't know.

If you ask why I don't know, I think I'll break out in tears.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

It's the unmoved mover, Pathfinder, the life-giving purpose-giving life force up in the empyreon. Oh wait, what created the unmoved mover? What created the force? What created the thing that created the force? What created the thing that created the thing that created the force? What created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created the force? You know what the force is? It's the asymptotic question -- it's a limit (in calculus terms), you approach the answer but never reach it. So have your force. Now go expunge someone's sins, give them hope, cure cancer, or explain the world with it.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

odenskrigare wrote:

it's unfortunately very common

Really? I've never even heard of such a thing. An ethereal consciousness which "engineers" the functions of cells? Are they just using "consciousness" as a synonym for "God"?

Quote:

regrettably, I think Zetherin has clouded the issue somewhat

a sperm cell's sensorium extends no further than its cell membrane. they can't see. that's why there are MILLIONS of them in any given load. it would be an exaggeration to say they are going on a random walk because they get some help from the female reproductive system, but they only "know" they've found an ovum when they actually reach it

Sorry if I did. I guess I unintentionally anthropomorphized sperm in my explanation. Your explanation is clearer.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

But its not about the infinity aspect of it though.

It is about the fact that something is responsible for this movement, this force. What difference does it matter how far back we must go to pinpoint it. The distance between here and there is not the point. The point is that this unknown is the one aspect that biology cannot measure or define and for this reason comes to a barrier it cannot get around when trying to define conscioousness, and this is why I am saying that it is not factual to declare that biology has discovered the reality behind the human consciousness.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;93186 wrote:

The point is that this unknown is the one aspect that biology cannot measure or define

Biology cannot explain "what created biology". The physical universe cannot explain "what created the physical universe".

On the other hand, who cares anyway?

Pathfinder;93186 wrote:

it is not factual to declare that biology has discovered the reality behind the human consciousness.

It has to the degree that most people actually care about it.

Your same unknown, inexplicable variable can be equally applied to anything else other than human consciousness -- like "carrots are a biological problem" -- it's a metaphysical concept without qualities or specificity.

We can agree that science describes the physical constituents of existence. Science cannot answer "what created existence?"... but that's sort of a non-question anyway. Just because something can be asked doesn't make it a real question.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

see, they're stopped short.

So why do you insist on stating that the human consciousness is a biological problem when it is obvious that the matter is yet to be solved and requires much more exploration before we can even begin to make any conclusions like that

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;93191 wrote:

So why do you insist on stating that the human consciousness is a biological problem

I didn't. But I don't go shooting people down just to be a contrarian either.

I think consciousness CAN be explained at a certain level in biological terms.

But biological terms cannot really explain the experience or the meaning of consciousness, nor the conundra these issues raise.

This is why rich's admonition that I'm a "materialist" and a "determinist" is just an absurd misreading of my position. Because even if we could identify and predict all conscious thoughts in all cases in biological terms, it wouldn't make us feel any less in control of our conscious decisions. In other words, our self-image and self-awareness is greater than the sum of its parts, and that doesn't require any creator or life force. Just common sense.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;93190 wrote:

Biology cannot explain "what created biology". The physical universe cannot explain "what created the physical universe".

On the other hand, who cares anyway?

It has to the degree that anyone actually cares about it. Because your same unknown, inexplicable variable, can be equally applied to anything else other than human consciousness -- it's a metaphysical concept without qualities or specificity.

We can agree that science describes the physical constituents of existence. Science cannot answer "what created existence?"... but that's sort of a non-question anyway. Just because something can be asked doesn't make it a real question.

It is an appropriate question considering the topic. Consciousness cannot be contemplated without considering this aspect of origination.

To say science is just doing its job and that we shouldnt question its observations is to deny what science actually is for crying out loud. Nobody is askin for an answer to creation, we are just stating that science should still be observing and not concluding. On the other hand what you are suggsting is that science can now be allowed to conclude and factualize before it has all of the answers.

You are rtrying to suggest that the human consciousness has been completely figured out and it can be seen in full detail under a bioloigical microscope. That is simply not the truth. There are still the basic questioons that require answering.

---------- Post added 09-23-2009 at 08:52 PM ----------

Aedes;93192 wrote:

I didn't. But I don't go shooting people down just to be a contrarian either.

I think consciousness CAN be explained at a certain level in biological terms.

But biological terms cannot really explain the experience or the meaning of consciousness, nor the conundra these issues raise.

This is why rich's admonition that I'm a "materialist" and a "determinist" is just an absurd misreading of my position. Because even if we could identify and predict all conscious thoughts in all cases in biological terms, it wouldn't make us feel any less in control of our conscious decisions. In other words, our self-image and self-awareness is greater than the sum of its parts, and that doesn't require any creator or life force. Just common sense.

Who is shooting anyone down Aedes? Have I said something to you that gives you that impression?

What do you mean by "..CAN be explained at a certain level..."

Dont you think that is a little vague?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Pathfinder wrote:

see, they're stopped short.

Scientists are not short stopped. The question is just out of the realm of science. Science cannot answer the question not because science is lacking, but because the question is not scientific in nature; it's not a question with which the scientific method can explore.

Quote:

So why do you insist on stating that the human consciousness is a biological problem when it is obvious that the matter is yet to be solved and requires much more exploration before we can even begin to make any conclusions like that

What do you mean by biological "problem"? Frankly, I still don't understand the thread title. What makes consciousness a "problem" at all? It's a phenomenon, if anything.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Aedes, have you and the mods seen the post by Oden above? why do you keep taking offense to my posts and accusing me of shooting people down??

---------- Post added 09-23-2009 at 08:58 PM ----------

Zetherin;93195 wrote:

Scientists are not short stopped. The question is just out of the realm of science. Science cannot answer the question not because science is lacking, but because the question is not scientific in nature; it's not a question with which the scientific method can explore.

What do you mean by biological "problem"? Frankly, I still don't understand the thread title. What makes consciousness a "problem" at all? It's a phenomenon, if anything.

Zetherin, to bring you up to date, this is a discussion about the human consciousness being a purely bioloigical function or not.

Of course the non biological aspect of it falls into the realm of science. That is what science is trying to deduce. Whether or not there is some aspect to the human consciousness that is beyond mere biological function, and they have not been able to conclude that there isnt.

---------- Post added 09-23-2009 at 09:00 PM ----------

Aedes;93190 wrote:

Biology cannot explain "what created biology". The physical universe cannot explain "what created the physical universe".

On the other hand, who cares anyway?

It has to the degree that most people actually care about it.

Your same unknown, inexplicable variable can be equally applied to anything else other than human consciousness -- like "carrots are a biological problem" -- it's a metaphysical concept without qualities or specificity.

We can agree that science describes the physical constituents of existence. Science cannot answer "what created existence?"... but that's sort of a non-question anyway. Just because something can be asked doesn't make it a real question.

Oh I see Aedes, so now you speak for the entire population of the planet do you? I think you know that carrots and consciousness are not going to be requiring the same sort of evaluations.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;93193 wrote:

To say science is just doing its job and that we shouldnt question its observations is to deny what science actually is for crying out loud.

Questioning its observations is a scientific question unto itself. You are not doing that. You are questioning the epistemology of science as a whole, and by this you're saying that science's observations may be 100% sound but they don't matter anyway.

Pathfinder;93193 wrote:

On the other hand what you are suggsting is that science can now be allowed to conclude and factualize before it has all of the answers.

I'm not sure you're responding to my posts.

Pathfinder;93193 wrote:

You are rtrying to suggest that the human consciousness has been completely figured out and it can be seen in full detail under a bioloigical microscope.

I think you and I may be done here. Read my posts before responding to some invention of yours.

Pathfinder;93193 wrote:

Who is shooting anyone down Aedes?

Rich is.

Pathfinder;93193 wrote:

What do you mean by "..CAN be explained at a certain level..."

What are the necessary biological correlates of consciousness? THAT level. :brickwall:

Pathfinder;93196 wrote:

Oh I see Aedes, so now you speak for the entire population of the planet do you? I think you know that carrots and consciousness are not going to be requiring the same sort of evaluations.

Oh I see, Pathfinder. So consciousness has a "force" but carrots do not? Carrots are alive, and they can submit to biological analysis just as can the human brain. They're tasty too and have vitamin A.

---------- Post added 09-23-2009 at 10:16 PM ----------

Pathfinder;93196 wrote:

Aedes, have you and the mods seen the post by Oden above? why do you keep taking offense to my posts and accusing me of shooting people down??

1) I missed his post. 2) He has been reprimanded publicly and privately for his posting technique, so stop feeling sorry for yourself 3) I think your posts are being made without ANY effort to reach common ground with people -- as opposed to some of the ones I just made but you intentionally misread 4) It was not you whom I was accusing of shooting people down.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Pathfinder wrote:

Of course the non biological aspect of it falls into the realm of science

Huh? Non science does not fall into the realm of science...

Quote:

That is what science is trying to deduce

No, it's not.

Quote:

Whether or not there is some aspect to the human consciousness that is beyond mere biological function, and they have not been able to conclude that there isnt.

Biology can only analyze the functions known to be biological. It's not biology's job to entertain and analyze speculation.

Pathfinder, I think your definition of "science" varies greatly from mine. You seem to view "science" as this epic, over-arching entity which is the source of all knowledge held within humanity. It's really not. Science is a method to obtain knowledge, but definitely not all knowledge. I think you convolute the matter when you address science in such a way; you put more weight on science's shoulders than should be.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Exactly. Science is a technique.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Pathfinder, I really do apologize if you're feeling singled out here. You shouldn't feel as though we're ignoring malicious posts and attacking you. Truly, I'm sorry if you do. Just because I don't understand or agree with your viewpoint doesn't mean I don't respect you.

I'm sorry if my respect hasn't been showing.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Science is simply scientists experimenting and testing various curiosities that intrigue them. Their process has always been one of observation and experimentation to determine what the results will be when particular activities are performed.

In many cases they will recreate experiments many many times before they even begin to draw conclusions because an experiment can fail the very next try proving all the others prior to it wrong.

Science has always been the attempt to understand what they did not understand. To try to discover the unknown and probe the interesting. They do not search for answers they already know. They seek the unknown.

What is this science that you guys are talking about where they are doing nothing except poking at what they already know.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Pathfinder wrote:

Science has always been the attempt to understand what they did not understand. To try to discover the unknown and probe the interesting. They do not search for answers they already know. They seek the unknown.

Scientists don't try to discover all of the unknown, but rather the things that can be explored through the scientific method. They don't deal with everything that doesn't have an answer, is the point. And it seems like you think they do.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;93210 wrote:

Science is simply scientists experimenting and testing various curiosities that intrigue them. Their process has always been one of observation and experimentation to determine what the results will be when particular activities are performed.

In many cases they will recreate experiments many many times before they even begin to draw conclusions because an experiment can fail the very next try proving all the others prior to it wrong.

Science has always been the attempt to understand what they did not understand.

This is largely accurate, except you've strangely ignored the basic driver of science, which is the hypothesis.

I know that various things that affect the brain will secondarily affect consciousness -- smash the brain with a hammer or pump it full of sedatives and consciousness is lost.

It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that consciousness as we observe it depends on the physiology of the brain. Simple -- and the ensuing answers describe the nature of the processes that result in consciousness. That is the scientific approach to this or any other question.

Pathfinder;93210 wrote:

To try to discover the unknown and probe the interesting. They do not search for answers they already know. They seek the unknown.

What is this science that you guys are talking about where they are doing nothing except poking at what they already know.

Because sample sizes are finite, because studies have flaws, and because the results of studies cannot necessarily be generalized, many research studies ARE in fact duplicated. I myself am working on studies that are very similar to ones that have been done before, but the population and geography of my subjects are different -- and therefore will expand the scientific understanding of the subject.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93212 wrote:

Scientists don't try to discover all of the unknown, but rather the things that can be explored through the scientific method. They don't deal with everything that doesn't have an answer, is the point. And it seems like you think they do.

Great. So, if science has nothing to say on the subject then it has nothing to say. What I am exploring is the unknown and setting about scenarios to explore. What I resist is science trying to impose its own self-imposed limitations on my exploration.

People, anyone, should feel free to explore their ideas as they wish, without a bunch of scientists roving the forums calling people quacks. The faith that scientists put in their perspective in life is no different than those that they mock - though I know that they would like to believe otherwise. I believe that consciousness has been evolving for millions of years and in the process is creating all that we observe - consciousness is observing its own creation.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;93215 wrote:

Great. So, if science has nothing to say on the subject then it has nothing to say. What I am exploring is the unknown and setting about scenarios to explore.

Rich

And that's not only perfectly fine but encouraged. Let's just refrain from calling it scientific until we are able explore your propositions through a scientific lens.

Quote:

People, anyone, should feel free to explore their ideas as they wish, without a bunch of scientists roving the forums calling people quacks. The faith that scientists put in their perspective in life is no different than those that they mock - though I know that they would like to believe otherwise. I believe that consciousness has been evolving for millions of years and in the process is creating all that we observe - consciousness is observing its own creation.

Explore your ideas, but expect criticism on a philosophy forum. We won't call you a quack, but we will force you to elucidate your position. There's nothing wrong with that.

My main criticism not just for you, but for anyone, is to try to make a reasonable hypothesis. Don't just imagine some wild speculation; anyone can do that. Instead, try to make it contingent with what we already know - something that makes sense logically with the constituents that you're exploring.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;93216 wrote:

And that's not only perfectly fine but encouraged. Let's just refrain from calling it scientific until we can able explore your propositions through a scientific lens.

For heaven sakes, I never for a moment thought that what I was doing was scientific! Smile

I would think that by know, you would realize that my method is anything but - and I am quite comfortable and pleased with the results in my life. But it is my life and it certainly isn't for everyone. I am an explorer that is observing similarities in differences and differences in similarities and with this creating notions of the nature of Nature. For me, I need no proof - just a fundamental understanding that fits all of the pieces of the puzzle together.

Rich

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know