"Scions of Apes", from the chapter "Children of Gods"Originally Posted by Eric12407
I've decided to change my signature now. To something from, y'know, something I actually understand the background behind, or at least have read.
Order of Kilopi
"Scions of Apes", from the chapter "Children of Gods"
I've decided to change my signature now. To something from, y'know, something I actually understand the background behind, or at least have read.
Established Member
Yep.
Sounds like you haven't actually looked into this very well. Scientists are constantly looking at the brain to figure out how it reacts to certain situations/stimulus.Or do we just "accept it as it is" ... without really investigating how consciousness can arise from non consciousness. Sounds like science is again more in tune with faith than it realizes ...
(link: http://www.assc10.org.uk/)
Order of Kilopi
Yeah, the terminology is a bit shaky. I wanted a one liner, so it is a bit loose on the useage.
Established Member
Hello Everybody ...
If consciousness is an effect ... why would you want to try and find the cause in the effect of consciousness on the body? I'm not saying this research is not extremely valuable ... but it is misdirected.
The action and movement of the body, and functioning of the mind is the effect ... consciousness the cause .... so what could be the cause of consciousness. Obviously not from the effects it produces ... that is looking in the wrong direction.
Of course looking the other way takes us to the realm that science is reluctant to contemplate ... faith based logic regarding the invisible forces.
Established Member
Cite the scripture, Eric. As far as I know, the opposite position was taken by Paul. Faith has nothing to with logic.
Established Member
You've got it backwards. What you're saying is like assuming that the flow of blood through the body causes the heart to beat.
Muscles in your legs respond to your conscious* desire to walk. However, that conscious desire comes from somewhere. If you observe the brain scientifically, it comes from the patterns of neurons in the brain as they fire back and forth. The exact reason why they do this is not yet known, but we've got ample evidence that they are where the conscious thoughts come from.
* Muscles also respond to subconscious thoughts and to reflex actions as well, but this was the clearest analogy I could think of off the top of my head.
Which is not science. That's why scientists are reluctant to go there. The minute you replace observation, calculation and experimentation with "And then a miracle occurs," it's no longer within the realm of science.Of course looking the other way takes us to the realm that science is reluctant to contemplate ... faith based logic regarding the invisible forces.
Banned
If you define religion as subjective faith then I would have to agree.
The central issue is at where you draw the line between faith (of the subjective variety) ... and theory.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Black Holes are perhaps the Holy Trinity of modern day 'science.' They are hypotheticals, and at very best mathematical abstractions! This is the harsh reality, and it can scarcely be denied by all but the most dogmatic!
"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." Jim Peebles, Princeton Cosmologist
Established Member
Hello Kesh ...
Originally posted by Kesh ...
"You've got it backwards. What you're saying is like assuming that the flow of blood through the body causes the heart to beat."
That's not how I perceive it ... the "flow" of consciousness through the body causes the mind to function and thereafter the body ... so you cannot "dissect" consciousness. You have to study it as a phenomena itself that is superior to its "vehicle". It is not a result of the vehicle.
Originally posted by Kesh ..
"Which is not science. That's why scientists are reluctant to go there. The minute you replace observation, calculation and experimentation with "And then a miracle occurs," it's no longer within the realm of science."
These invisible forces can be proved "logically" through deduction .... No miracles are necessary ... although there's no shortage of them around.
How does science "examine, dissect, and experiment with all the invisible matter that it says makes up the universe? It doesn't .... it studies their effects ... You can do the same with the spiritual forces .. consciousness is a good place to start because as I said it is a thing we can all objectively agree exists ...
I think I better qualify "Faith" here as " a belief in spiritual forces".
I think you can use reason and logic to attain this belief ...
I believe that Science and Faith are both logical pursuits of the truth ... both based on "invisible" evidence at the present.
Order of Kilopi
And I perceive that humans are essentially unconscious - that is, we have no real conscious awareness of most of the interesting stuff that goes on in our brains. In my view, what we call consciousness is simply another specialized brain function that, with the help of other brain functions, models the world based on sensory data and interacts with that model. I believe it is somewhat like a computer's operating system.
But, that is guesswork. Here's the deal: We can and will study the functions of the brain and will develop better and better "theories of mind" as we go along, but at this time our understanding of the process is quite limited.
So you think that there is a non-physical cause of the brain's functions? You might want to research aphasia and all the interesting effects that brain damage has on a person's "consciousness." For instance, someone might think their parents are aliens after brain damage causes damage to links to their emotional centers, causing them to still see the people, but not feel any emotion for them. Or someone may no longer recognize their arm as their own.You have to study it as a phenomena itself that is superior to its "vehicle". It is not a result of the vehicle.
I have noted a distinct lack of miracles, myself.These invisible forces can be proved "logically" through deduction .... No miracles are necessary ... although there's no shortage of them around.
No, we can't, since "consciousness" is an ill-defined and very subjective term. I don't even like the word, and believe most people take what they call "consciousness" far too seriously. Also, there is no need to invoke spiritualism in the study of the brain's operation.You can do the same with the spiritual forces .. consciousness is a good place to start because as I said it is a thing we can all objectively agree exists ...
Logic based on what? Science is based on objective evidence and logic. Faith is pure belief, and often contradicts science.I think I better qualify "Faith" here as " a belief in spiritual forces".
I think you can use reason and logic to attain this belief ...
And I would disagree.I believe that Science and Faith are both logical pursuits of the truth ... both based on "invisible" evidence at the present.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Member
Gentle beings:
This thread has continually stated or inferred that religion is only faith, please read the article Testimony of the Evengelists by Simon Greenleaf 1783-1853 one of the founders and professors of the Harvard Law School he treats Christian documents as court evidence you might be surprised at the outcome of his 26 page finding. You can Google it without any trouble.
Doug
Honored Member
Wrong.
A correct rewrite would be "science is the objective analysis of matter and energy and their interrelationship." To science there are no "invisible forces", just phenomena, some of which can be detected by normal human senses, and some of which can be detected by instruments whose range is beyond or different than normal human senses.
Once this bogus "invisible forces" claim is removed from your proposal, your argument crumbles quickly.
As Wolverine mentioned, and to paraphrase, science is a methodology for understanding the Universe using objective evidence available to all and experiments that can be reproduced by anyone.
Order of Kilopi
Hum,
this is of course illogical, and flawed; consciousness is subjective and therefore we all have different `consciousnesses` so we cannot be sure that they are similar.
Therefore how can Faith, which is presumably a product of consciousness, be logical.
Do you have any `logical faith` examples?
And what exactly are `spiritual forces` , it implies something that can do work or spread out. Is this not a relic from the 17th century that needs a major update? (We have no evidence that they are physical)
You should also clarified what you mean by `exists`. Of course we can't all objectively agree that consciousness or faith exists in a similar fashion even if we agree if it even exists.
Consciousness i imagine is an abstract idea like the `number one` it does not `really exist` in the solid `reality` of tables and chairs. ie we have no evidence that it is physical.
Modern medicine and psychology all point to the brain as the `source` of thoughts and ideas; if consciousness has a different source where would it be?
Switching off the brain, switches off consciousness is the normal way of looking at it.
It is the result of the vehicle.
Honored Member
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
The Greenleaf paper is an opinion, not a legal document. It is heavily dependent on the old and incorrect "they were so sure of their beliefs that they would die for them, therefore their beliefs have to be true" argument. Funny how the only support for this paper is found in xian organizations and individuals, especially apologists. It's also yet another variation on the old "no atheists in foxholes" premise. Completely bogus.
But that's enough on this, it's too close to a becoming a religious debate.
Order of Kilopi
Definitely. This started out as some questions about dark matter/dark energy and the process of science. That moved on to brain function. The process of science has been discussed and recently we've been moving very close to a religious discussion which is not allowed by BAUT rules.
So if there are some questions about the science behind certain issues, I might discuss that, but otherwise I'm backing off in this discussion. I suggest others do likewise.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Member
Maksutov:
The method of reasoning is what i was alluding to, dismissing because it is not law does a disservice to Mr Greenleaf. I tried not to bring it in as a religious confrontation, one does not always have check their head at the door. I am sorry that you construed it as such.
Doug
Established Member
I have read it, and dismiss it because it starts from very debatable premisses. If those are incorrect, then the conclusions are worthless (though not necessarily wrong). The initial assumptions he makes are based purely in faith, and thus only strengthen the image of "religion is faith".
But I'll not discuss it any further, as it is indeed not suitable for this board.
Established Member
Van Rijin already summed up what I would have written in response to Eric12407, so I'll leave it at that.
Established Member
Atheism begins when you crawl out of the foxhole and look around you.
Established Member
Hi Everyone ...
I too do not want to turn this thread into a debate between science and the existence/non existence of God ... religion etc ... that's too simplistic and divisive.
I'm just wondering if there might be different ways to think about what we observe and how we observe them, and how the effects are interpreted.
I'm not trying to force a certain opinion on anyone ... just sharing some thoughts ...
In this vein I'd like to make couple of more comments ...
I surmise by some of the reasoning in the replies… that science might by its own rules of “evidence” refuse to admit the existence of consciousness and the mind.
If so … it finds itself trying to investigate material reality with a non existent entity.
If consciousness is a completely subjective phenomena, how can we have any agreement at all on what we are observing?
I believe consciousness is objective and is described by the term “consensual reality”. This consensus allows us to practice science.
Because consciousness is transcendent to nature .. according to Godels theory it can make accurate observations of the physical world. I also think it is a "force".
You could look at it this way actually .. it is another one of those invisible "forces" that science depends upon to explain material reality .... it's in there with the dark energy, matter etc ... but science is having difficulty accepting consciousness into the equation at present.
Any description of reality that doesn't take consciousness into account is kind of like trying to describe a living, breathing person in terms of a cadaver. Or describing a moving vehicle without taking the driver into consideration. Or describing the universe without taking the observer into consideration.
Ultimately science must deal with the ramifications of the phenomena of consciousness and I am confident it will ...
Established Member
Fair enough.
Very clearly there are, but then you are no longer dealing with science per se and have delved into philosophy. Shall we begin with Thales? How much reading have you done on the subject?
The answer will depend upon the philosophy of the scientist you ask.
See Empericism.
The answer will depend upon the philosophy you hold to be correct. There is a huge number of them, almost none of which agree on the answer to the "Problem of Universals."
Believe me when I tell you that you did not get this idea from nowhere. It has a long, disreputable history.
So if my consciousness is more powerful than yours, it has greater force, right? Guess who used this one to disastrous ends. It is a favorite of every dictator who has ever lived.
Clearly a misapprehension on your part and not on that of most scientists.
You are more than welcome to your confidence, but I suggest that you have a great deal more study to engage in.
Order of Kilopi
No, you're making assumptions and want to find fault with the process if it doesn't agree with your assumptions. Here's a similar example that you may better understand - we still talk about what we "feel in our heart" even though we know very well that the heart is a glorified muscle. But we used to think (and I suspect many still do) that the heart was somehow fundamental to our emotions.
We have "theories of mind," but they are sketchy and will change dramatically as we learn more. One thing is clear: A key reason it appears mysterious is because we aren't conscious of the process. We are only somewhat aware of the results. The only ways we have been able to delve into this process is by experiment, studying the effects of brain damage and duplicating mental processes (such as vision recognition, walking, and so on) through software.
"Consciousness" is a loaded and subjective term. This does not imply that we can't ultimately understand the detailed operation of the brain in an objective fashion and eventually develop a sophisticated theory of mind.If consciousness is a completely subjective phenomena, how can we have any agreement at all on what we are observing?
Believe what you want, but that isn't science.I believe consciousness is objective and is described by the term “consensual reality”. This consensus allows us to practice science.
Because consciousness is transcendent to nature .. according to Godels theory it can make accurate observations of the physical world. I also think it is a "force".
Ultimately, I'm confident that science will develop a detailed theory of mind, but I doubt it will look anything like your concept of "consciousness."Ultimately science must deal with the ramifications of the phenomena of consciousness and I am confident it will ...
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Member
If you feel like science reqires the slightest bit of faith you're confused about the process, or in the case of the example the term "dark matter."
You need no faith to believe that rotational speeds of galaxies and the clumping of matter is occuring due to gravitatioal forces unseen. If you have a problem with the measurements state it, if you think they are probably correct then you can infer that something is causing this gravity. This something has been labled dark matter. What is it? Nobody knows really, we have theories but if you picked one and believed it then it wouldn't make sense until we have done experimentation. I honestly don't see what there is to have faith in? Dark Matter is actually a hole in our knowledge, the opposite of a belief.
Order of Kilopi
As this thread has travelled a very long way from dark energy and modern astronomy, onto the nature of (modern science), I'm moving it to where it will, if it were conscious, feel more comfortable.
Established Member
Nope. All he showed was the no formal logical system is entirely self-consistent. There's no reason to think that the universe is governed by strict formal logic. Indeed, some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that it is not.
Personally, I don't think that a belief in dark energy is necessary to reconcile yourself with the current observations of the universe. There are ways to explain what's going on that don't involve dark energy. There are probably many other ways that no one's come up with yet. One of those is probably pretty close to the truth.
Van Rijn, for your invisible elf, I could set your back yard ablaze. I may not be able to tell if you once had an invisible elf there, but assuming that elves are not fireproof, I can guarantee that he's not there afterward.(On second thought, I could just flood it and look for the indentations in the water left by his feet... that is slightly less violent.)
Established Member
I wrote an exam once, and I couldn't remember one step in some process. I knew what I started with, and knew what I'd end up with, but I couldn't figure out the middle part. So I wrote, "then a miracle occurs," in place of that step.
What could my professor do (but laugh very hard, most likely)? He gave me full marks on that problem.
Order of Kilopi
Aha! You are making assumptions. You can't assume, you must prove! Anyway, at best you could provide evidence that might suggest she wasn't there during your test. You can't prove she wasn't there when I said she was there. Also, I have a strict ban against destructive tests - you aren't the only one who wanted to napalm or otherwise destroy my yard. What is it with you guys anyway?Van Rijn, for your invisible elf, I could set your back yard ablaze. I may not be able to tell if you once had an invisible elf there, but assuming that elves are not fireproof, I can guarantee that he's not there afterward.
My yard has a substantial slope. There actually is an issue of flooding in a back corner and yards behind and next to me. Flooding the yard without destroying the house and flooding other yards would be some trick. And then she would just climb a tree.(On second thought, I could just flood it and look for the indentations in the water left by his feet... that is slightly less violent.)
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
Hee hee... a challenge, eh? Well, I'm up to it! I'll figure out a non-destructive way to decide for certain! This may require figuring out the universe's wave function and solving for the particular time you claim there was an elf there, but since Steven Hawking does it, I see no reason why I can't.
There is an amusing anecdote from Murray Gell-Mann about the universal wavefunction here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week138.html
Also, the second paper mentioned there is one of the coolest things I've ever read.
And speaking of elves, I've always believed that I've had some in my computer. They live in the wires and occasionally commit mischief like switching numbers around and modifying program code that I was sure I'd fixed. Also, one lived under the stone in front of my old house. Not sure if he's still there.
Moderator
You no longer have your elf.
My associates haver her and will be sending the ransom demand in due course.
Meanwhile
Does science act like a faith?
Science say that life must have started from non living compounds. Has science ever succeeded in getting that which is non living to give rise to that which is living?
Not that I am aware
Yet in classrooms and in books, science teaches that this is how life originated.
Where is the objective evidence, where are the repeatable experiments to show how this happens in an open system?
None that I am aware of
You just have to accept that life started by spontaneous generation.
Is that not an example of faith?
Established Member
Science really says that we cannot give a detailed explanation of how life began, however, here's some examples of part of the process that we can reproduce in the laboratory, here's some ideas for how other bits of the process might have worked, we're working on it.
Just because science hasn't got a full explanation for something doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is correct. Science is unfinished and always likely to remain so, but it has made incredible progress in a lot of areas that were once the territory of the supernatural, and it would seem likely that further progress is on the way.
Established Member
Heh! So, you got good marks for humor instead of math?I wrote an exam once, and I couldn't remember one step in some process. I knew what I started with, and knew what I'd end up with, but I couldn't figure out the middle part. So I wrote, "then a miracle occurs," in place of that step.
What could my professor do (but laugh very hard, most likely)? He gave me full marks on that problem.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote