Science has much better answers than "God did it" (opinion, consciousness)

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

But (say the theists) what is this power? Who made it? Indeed, it is hard to imagine and even dark matter (when proven) or antimatter (now demonstrated) must be 'made' of this power.

What the theists don't seem to understand (or at least don't accept) is that the metaphysical ground or "Source" does not have to be a "maker" - in fact, using the idea that everything needs a "maker" leads instantly to the problem of infinite regress, because the maker would then need a maker. But if the maker doesn't need a maker ("God" being the maker who does not need a maker), then why does anything need a maker? The point of positing a God was so that God could be the maker that explains the world. But if God does not need a maker, then why does the world need a maker? If God does not need further explanation, then why do the fundamental elements of the world need God for the sake of further explanation? (This should all sound familiar. It's been said by me and others 100+ times in various C-D threads. But theists don't address it.)

This is where the science of cosmology comes into the picture. The name of the game is to posit some "initial conditions" (which can be either temporal or non-temporal) composed of the logically least amount of necessary complexity. Here we have to keep in mind an important distinction between "complex" and "complicated." Chaos is maximally complicated (as in "hard to describe the state of each fundamental element in detail" because it is random), but chaos is initially not complex. A complex system is a highly ordered (i.e, NON-random) system that is highly complicated to describe in detail. We already know the principles by which a chaotic system can go from complicated randomness to complicated orderliness. So, anyway, the winner of the game is the one who can start with the least amount of pre-established order, and derive the world as we know it. Obviously the theists lose the race with their very first step because their first step is to posit the existence of the most highly-ordered entity imaginable - an intelligent Maker who designed all of the complexity that we see.

The pure materialists have the toughest (I would say impossible) job of starting with purely non-qualitative, purely objective elements. This program seems to work up to a point, but seemingly can't explain the qualitative/phenomenal/subjective mental properties. They can't explain why the world isn't a world full of "zombies." This is the realm in which most scientific cosmologists try to do their work. They simply avoid talking about the mental aspect of life.

The pure idealists can account for the mental (since they start with it) but I don't find their attempts to explain the seemingly objective nature of the seemingly physical world to be convincing. Unlike the pure materialist, however, I can at least see some hope for idealism. Their task does not seem impossible to me, but so far they have simply failed to be convincing.

Panpsychists are my close cousins. They account for the mental by saying that matter is intrinsically conscious. Even an electron is conscious to some minute degree. In addition to upfront implausibility, they have the "combination problem." How exactly do low-level conscious atoms explain the high-level consciousness of humans? No good answers yet.

My own ballpark is sometimes called "panexperientialism." This posits experience (I say "qualitative" or "qualia" or "intrinsic subjectivity") at the roots of reality. "Experience" is broader than consciousness. All conscious experiences are experiences, but not all experiences are necessarily conscious (according to folks like me). Thus an electron is not conscious (not even to a "low-degree"), but it is intrinsically qualitative. The challenge for folks like me is to explain in clear, plausible terms exactly what that means. It is all deeply baffling when you get into the nitty-gritty details. It is also part of our task to connect this conception with empirical science, if possible. What I'm searching for is a new paradigm (a whole new set of fundamental metaphors) that helps us to make this connection. Most likely the basic paradigm of empirical science itself will change in the process. Science can survive paradigm shifts. We've already seen it happen several times. My goal is to be the guy that sparks the next one. If I succeed, then "Gaylen Moore" will become a household name, and you can all say you knew me when...

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Current scientific thinking is that it is pure mathematics and, if so, there is your 'nothing' which was always there and which didn't even need to be created.

In my case the "nothing" that does not require a maker is a form of chaos. It is "experiential" in some brute, low-level sense, but it is not conscious. (It is unconscious, as opposed to non-conscious, per my previous distinction.)

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'd look for a different term, though, since primordial implies that it related only to that time.

Technically, in philosophy, primordial does not have to imply temporal. As I use the term, primordial is non-temporal, which means the "chaos" is not a temporal "first cause." It is just as relevant (or irrelevant) to "now" as it is to the moment of the Big Bang. In a manner of speaking, every moment is a full creation of Being. But you are right about the common connotation. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives to "primordial."

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I wonder, also, whether you had any response to my previous posted suggestion that my views about the 'god' label being somewhat along your own lines had any merit.

I'm sorry, but I think I've forgotten exactly what it is that I didn't comment on. Can you give me the post #s you want me to comment on?

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart

*
science said that some kinds of birds can't fly ... but actully they do .
So why is that??
I will tell you why ... Because they don't give a damn about what science said looooooool

#1 An all bold post is sign of immaturity.
#2 There are birds that science says can't fly, and they can't
#3 There are insects that science says they don't understand how they can fly, but they never deny that they actually fly, i.e. the bumblebee
#4 making up nonsense to support nonsense is a sign of immaturity and the absence of rational thinking.

If you have something of value to contribute, please share it, if you want to interject childish fallacious taunts, go to facebook.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

What the theists don't seem to understand (or at least don't accept) is that the metaphysical ground or "Source" does not have to be a "maker" - in fact, using the idea that everything needs a "maker" leads instantly to the problem of infinite regress, because the maker would then need a maker. But if the maker doesn't need a maker ("God" being the maker who does not need a maker), then why does anything need a maker? The point of positing a God was so that God could be the maker that explains the world. But if God does not need a maker, then why does the world need a maker? If God does not need further explanation, then why do the fundamental elements of the world need God for the sake of further explanation? (This should all sound familiar. It's been said by me and others 100+ times in various C-D threads. But theists don't address it.)

Ah GW . . . I don't mind you disagreeing with me . . . but this dismissal and refusal to either understand or credit my views is kind of over the top. Our understanding of the issues is very close . . . but you have to contend with the academic injunction against God to try to justify through jargon and euphemisms. I don't. I have my degree and I have had a full and productive life.

This is where the science of cosmology comes into the picture. The name of the game is to posit some "initial conditions" (which can be either temporal or non-temporal) composed of the logically least amount of necessary complexity. Here we have to keep in mind an important distinction between "complex" and "complicated." Chaos is maximally complicated (as in "hard to describe the state of each fundamental element in detail" because it is random), but chaos is initially not complex. A complex system is a highly ordered (i.e, NON-random) system that is highly complicated to describe in detail. We already know the principles by which a chaotic system can go from complicated randomness to complicated orderliness. So, anyway, the winner of the game is the one who can start with the least amount of pre-established order, and derive the world as we know it. Obviously the theists lose the race with their very first step because their first step is to posit the existence of the most highly-ordered entity imaginable - an intelligent Maker who designed all of the complexity that we see.

::Sigh:: The curse of decompositional analysis and the flawed simplification mandate (William of Ockham), euphemisms for ignorance i.e. "random," and the ID/Creationist fraud obfuscate the true simple answer. Wisdom 13:7,

. . . For they search busily among His works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. But again, not even these are pardonable. For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its Lord?

The stench of religious persecution and totalitarianism renders the true answer intolerable.

The pure materialists have the toughest (I would say impossible) job of starting with purely non-qualitative, purely objective elements. This program seems to work up to a point, but seemingly can't explain the qualitative/phenomenal/subjective mental properties. They can't explain why the world isn't a world full of "zombies." This is the realm in which most scientific cosmologists try to do their work. They simply avoid talking about the mental aspect of life.

Attention Arequipa and company . . . does THIS penetrate?

The pure idealists can account for the mental (since they start with it) but I don't find their attempts to explain the seemingly objective nature of the seemingly physical world to be convincing. Unlike the pure materialist, however, I can at least see some hope for idealism. Their task does not seem impossible to me, but so far they have simply failed to be convincing.

Mea culpa . . . but the conditioned perspectives, gestalts, and academic preferences motivated by the "stench" are too formidable to even begin to break through them.

Panpsychists are my close cousins. They account for the mental by saying that matter is intrinsically conscious. Even an electron is conscious to some minute degree. In addition to upfront implausibility, they have the "combination problem." How exactly do low-level conscious atoms explain the high-level consciousness of humans? No good answers yet.

Try an organismic instead of combinatorial rationale. Ask yourself what is the source of the organizational imperative that maintains life in organisms. When it is removed upon death (especially without any obvious reason . . . i.e. fully functional non-diseased organisms) . . . the inevitable deterioration of cellular decomposition ensues. The Source is Life itself . . . panENtheism.

My own ballpark is sometimes called "panexperientialism." This posits experience (I say "qualitative" or "qualia" or "intrinsic subjectivity") at the roots of reality. "Experience" is broader than consciousness. All conscious experiences are experiences, but not all experiences are necessarily conscious (according to folks like me). Thus an electron is not conscious (not even to a "low-degree"), but it is intrinsically qualitative. The challenge for folks like me is to explain in clear, plausible terms exactly what that means. It is all deeply baffling when you get into the nitty-gritty details. It is also part of our task to connect this conception with empirical science, if possible. What I'm searching for is a new paradigm (a whole new set of fundamental metaphors) that helps us to make this connection. Most likely the basic paradigm of empirical science itself will change in the process. Science can survive paradigm shifts. We've already seen it happen several times. My goal is to be the guy that sparks the next one. If I succeed, then "Gaylen Moore" will become a household name, and you can all say you knew me when...

Fame is a curse, IMO . . . the masses (and the entrenched powers of this world) are not benign to anything that disrupts or potentially alters their world (or reduces their power and control). It is generally best not to attract their attention, IMO.

In my case the "nothing" that does not require a maker is a form of chaos. It is "experiential" in some brute, low-level sense, but it is not conscious. (It is unconscious, as opposed to non-conscious, per my previous distinction.)
Technically, in philosophy, primordial does not have to imply temporal. As I use the term, primordial is non-temporal, which means the "chaos" is not a temporal "first cause." It is just as relevant (or irrelevant) to "now" as it is to the moment of the Big Bang. In a manner of speaking, every moment is a full creation of Being. But you are right about the common connotation. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives to "primordial."

Come on, GW . . . think . . . unconscious is a symptom of our sensory limited in-process (temporal) consciousness. The fundamental underlying characteristic is the same . . . but exists at two different levels of Being . . . sub-light (temporal) and light squared (non-temporal). Your non-conscious and unconscious distinction implies that the unconscious retains some (non-temporal) "awareness" different from what we know as our in-process (temporal) consciousness . . . but evidence indicates it communicates with our consciousness in unknown ways. The only thing that can possibly discredit it as God is the "stench" and bias, period.

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I'M not doing that (bolded above) Maia...that's what the scientists are doing. And even if I was doing that...if "that is fine", as you say...why the attitude?
How is me pointing something out...and completely supporting my contention...seen as "trolling"?
I notice you guys always break out that "trolling" accusation.
Just because my argument falls on the "other side" of your view on the matter...doesn't make it "trolling".
I've admitted, on this board, to putting things in a way "to get a spirited response"...I don't hide that. So, what's with the, "I'm taking my ball, and going home" posture?
I mean, after all...what's "the point" of any of it? We just all contribute what we contribute to this board...from our own viewpoints...I guess you could say it's all "pointless" in the "grand scheme of things".
I don't just come on here and say, "science is a bunch of bunk"...I give it it's DUE props...I just put it into a "Real Life" perspective and don't just automatically genuflect to it.

I do understand your point perfectly...I just see it differently.
Hey...differing viewpoints...that's what makes life interesting.

Since you asked, there are several reasons that I've chosen not to engage in debate with you. First, as GW noted, I engage in conversation that I find interesting. I happened to find this topic of conversation interesting but I don't find your style of debate or conversation as interesting. I know you claim to be just 'having fun' or trying to get a 'spirited reaction' and, as I've noted, that's fine. I, personally, find that style irritating and choose not to engage in it with you. Further, I don't find your arguments compelling and I've noted that you generally don't address the flaws in your arguments but just keep going. Fine again, but I choose not to play the game the way you've set it up. You're right, I'm taking my ball and playing the game that I enjoy. But, occasionally, I'll take notice of your game and shout from the sidelines.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

#1 An all bold post is sign of immaturity.
#2 There are birds that science says can't fly, and they can't
#3 There are insects that science says they don't understand how they can fly, but they never deny that they actually fly, i.e. the bumblebee
#4 making up nonsense to support nonsense is a sign of immaturity and the absence of rational thinking.

Just as a point of interest on the flight of Bumlebees:

I get many strange reactions from people when I tell them I am a scientist

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Maia160

Since you asked, there are several reasons that I've chosen not to engage in debate with you. First, as GW noted, I engage in conversation that I find interesting. I happened to find this topic of conversation interesting but I don't find your style of debate or conversation as interesting. I know you claim to be just 'having fun' or trying to get a 'spirited reaction' and, as I've noted, that's fine. I, personally, find that style irritating and choose not to engage in it with you. Further, I don't find your arguments compelling and I've noted that you generally don't address the flaws in your arguments but just keep going. Fine again, but I choose not to play the game the way you've set it up. You're right, I'm taking my ball and playing the game that I enjoy. But, occasionally, I'll take notice of your game and shout from the sidelines.

Ok...I can dig that. Everybody is into the "style" that appeals to them.

For example...I think Don Rickles is one the most amusing men ever...I love his style of comedy. OTOH...I know a few people that say they hate it. Leaving people like me wondering..."How did you not find that to be hilarious?!"

I have concluded from my experience...People that are basically always happy (I'm one of those) are more apt to be into sarcasm...since they are immune to being miserable, and thus any vibe like that it would create.
As opposed to people that are annoyed/irritated by that "style"...being those prone to being unhappy/bummed-out for whatever reason, and thus more susceptible to being negatively effected by it.

You are right in avoiding things that give you a negative feeling...and engaging in what you enjoy. Just please understand it is more your perception, than the actual core vibe. As illustrated by the fact that people don't pay to go see Don Rickles so they can be upset...but because they find him to be very funny.

All the best...and I look forward to your "shouts from the sidelines".

[Occam's Bikini Wax]

Originally Posted by squall-lionheart

*
science said that some kinds of birds can't fly ... but actully they do .
So why is that??
I will tell you why ... Because they don't give a damn about what science said looooooool

Give us a list of the birds that "science says can't fly". Oh and don't bring up bumblebees; their flight hasn't been a mystery for a long time.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Maia160

as it

When I read about a subject, such as biology or philosophy, and find a word that I'm unsure of how it is used being used for that topic, I try to find a definition of how the word is used in that field rather than using a general dictionary definition. I've found that dictionaries, such as Websters, don't always provide the full picture and/or don't impart the subtleties of meaning that the author is trying to convey. Further, I would argue that scientists would be the final authority on the definition of science as they are using it rather than Websters. During the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the National Academy of Sciences provided a definition that was accepted by the court:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource



Obviously, words can have more than one meaning but it is essential to understand the context in which the word is being used so that the correct definition can be applied. Sure, you can use science to mean 'knowledge' but that is not how scientists use the word and it is disingenuous to attempt to conflate a scientific definition with a layman's definition. The distinction being made by scientists is important as it limits what can actually be considered as science. For example, during the Dover trial Michael Behe was forced to admit that Intelligent Design's definition of science would include the 'field' of astrology. This attempt to strip science of its meaning as it is used by scientists is similar to the creationists ploy of deliberately misusing the word theory so that they can discredit the importance of a theory as used in science. I have to wonder why you are employing the same technique that creationists use. Why are you trying to force science into one narrow definition that does not apply in the actual scientific fields?

This is what I get from your post. Science is knowledge based on empirical evidence. Correct?

And there are some questions that cannot be answered using empirical evidence. For those questions, we have philosophy.

We also have history, mathematics, art...

[tgnostic]

And then there are questions you don't answer. There is also the question of why these Pakistanis don't wish to be threatened in the name of democracy by the drone attacks. I think God did it.

It may also be that the program of correspondence for what NATO is to do is more important to muslims then democracy.


Pakistanis protest drones as 6 die in strikes - CNN.com

[TKramar]

"Democracy" doesn't kill people. People kill people. Doesn't matter what they claim to do it in the name of.