Scientist Claims That Consciousness Continues After Death – Life Is Just The Beginning. (Christianity, Christian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The latest Sam Harris "Ask Me Anything" happens to deal with the topic brought up with the OP actually. https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...-me-anything-6
Go forward to 35:55 in the Pod-cast. It continues to about 40:05
I have not been active in this forum for a long time, and I’m coming into this thread rather late in the game. I’ve only read the first few pages, and the last couple of pages. If anyone thinks I’ve missed some post in the middle that is a must-read, please give me the post # and I’ll take a look. Anyway, I’ve acquired a few new analytic tools since the last time I trudge these cyber hallways, so I’d like to take some of them for a test spin here.
Brief preliminaries: I don’t think that consciousness is reducible to brain activity, so I’m not opposed, in principle, to the idea that there could be consciousness after death. I still consider myself to be atheist with some agnostic sympathies insofar as I don’t believe that a Divine Intelligence created the world, or is sustaining the world for some coherent divine purpose. But I do think that the potential for qualitative experience is intrinsic to Reality and that qualitative experiences are not reducible to physical mechanisms as we currently understand them. To put it another way: I’m fairly convinced that reality is not algorithmic in the sense of following the seemingly mechanistic rules of physics. Physics is amazingly useful, but there is still a “hard problem”.
I disagree with some of Robert Lanza’s ideas, but I appreciate the ballpark in which he is trying to play. He says:
"The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal."
I kinda see why he thinks this (roughly following the same sort of logic that leads to diverse interpretations like Copenhagen and Many Worlds), but I don’t think it is a useful approach.
I am more in tune with him when he says this:
"What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality."
Which brings me to my own approach to the question of consciousness, and the possibility that my experiences could extend beyond the coherent information processing of my particular physical nervous system. (I’m up to speed on the Sam Harris podcast and the experimental work of Sam Parnia, linked in the quotes above, so I’m partially responding to these, as well as the OP link.)
Sam Harris is on target when he points to information processing, rather than “energy” as such, when trying to understand the relationship between minds and brains. But if this is right, then how can people in Parnia’s experiments correctly recount anything from the time when their brains were technically dead? Coherent information processing should not be occurring at that point. But I would say that coherent information processing is occurring during that time. The doctors and nurses are awake and perceiving information during that time. If, as the quote from Lanza above suggests, we question “the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality,” then we have a possible way to explain how the revived patient could know what has been happening.
The question then becomes: How the heck does the neural processing of the doctors and nurses contribute to the patient’s neural processing, once revived? Good question. We don’t have a good enough theory of consciousness to explain these connections in mechanistic detail. But I have a philosophical proposal: I suspect that the qualitative aspects of my individual experiences are not reducible to the physical activities of just my own particular nervous system. I would suggest that quantum holism plays a role in the details of neural activity that goes beyond the conceptual toolbox of quantum theory as it is currently understood. In other words, if we are ever able to monitor, in fine detail, the physical activities of neurons in a conscious brain, we will find “mysterious” activity that does not follow from the rules of quantum theory unless we find ways to check for non-local (i.e., holistic) correlations with the activities of other brains.
Qualitative blue is not “in my head” – it is an intrinsic qualitative potential of Reality (with the capital “R” to remind us of the holistic nature of “the Totality of Being” or, perhaps, something like Spinoza’s “Sum-Total of all that exists” given a twist of quantum-holism or Buddhist “One Mind”.) My qualitative experience of blue is not reducible to the activity of my particular brain. “I” don’t experience blue, rather, Reality experience blue from a particular perspective with the phenomenal center of this perspective determined by the neural activity of my particular brain. For phenomenal experience to occur, physical information processing (i.e., brain activity) is necessary. I'm simply denying that "my" experiences always necessarily depend on "my" particular physical brain.
Basically, any qualitative experience of Reality could, in principle, be “my” experience (or remembered by “me”) given some weird circumstances that cause correlations between activity in my brain, and activities of other brains. Maybe the process of brain death is just weird enough to allow non-routine correlations to occur? Just speculating.
I appreciate Lanza's "biocenticism" but I'm proposing something more like "holistic Reality-centricism"
As it turns out, I haven't even introduced my new toys yet. I've just applied some ideas I've already discussed in other threads. Oh well. Maybe next time. This is way more than enough for now ;-)
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-28-2017 at 03:31 PM..
So rather than evidence your claims in any way, which you were asked to do, you simply decide to repeat them. Nice.
The evidence for parting the sea is mentioning the story in the Holy Quran and the Holy Quran is from Allah
and I have posted two samples for knowledge in the Holy Quran that can not be mentioned at that time by any human being and there more evidences in this book Islam Guide: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, Muslims, & the Quran
I have not been active in this forum for a long time, and I’m coming into this thread rather late in the game. I’ve only read the first few pages, and the last couple of pages. If anyone thinks I’ve missed some post in the middle that is a must-read, please give me the post # and I’ll take a look. Anyway, I’ve acquired a few new analytic tools since the last time I trudge these cyber hallways, so I’d like to take some of them for a test spin here.
Brief preliminaries: I don’t think that consciousness is reducible to brain activity, so I’m not opposed, in principle, to the idea that there could be consciousness after death. I still consider myself to be atheist with some agnostic sympathies insofar as I don’t believe that a Divine Intelligence created the world, or is sustaining the world for some coherent divine purpose. But I do think that the potential for qualitative experience is intrinsic to Reality and that qualitative experiences are not reducible to physical mechanisms as we currently understand them. To put it another way: I’m fairly convinced that reality is not algorithmic in the sense of following the seemingly mechanistic rules of physics. Physics is amazingly useful, but there is still a “hard problem”.
I disagree with some of Robert Lanza’s ideas, but I appreciate the ballpark in which he is trying to play. He says:
"The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal."
I kinda see why he thinks this (roughly following the same sort of logic that leads to diverse interpretations like Copenhagen and Many Worlds), but I don’t think it is a useful approach.
I am more in tune with him when he says this:
"What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality."
Which brings me to my own approach to the question of consciousness, and the possibility that my experiences could extend beyond the coherent information processing of my particular physical nervous system. (I’m up to speed on the Sam Harris podcast and the experimental work of Sam Parnia, linked in the quotes above, so I’m partially responding to these, as well as the OP link.)
Sam Harris is on target when he points to information processing, rather than “energy” as such, when trying to understand the relationship between minds and brains. But if this is right, then how can people in Parnia’s experiments correctly recount anything from the time when their brains were technically dead? Coherent information processing should not be occurring at that point. But I would say that coherent information processing is occurring during that time. The doctors and nurses are awake and perceiving information during that time. If, as the quote from Lanza above suggests, we question “the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality,” then we have a possible way to explain how the revived patient could know what has been happening.
The question then becomes: How the heck does the neural processing of the doctors and nurses contribute to the patient’s neural processing, once revived? Good question. We don’t have a good enough theory of consciousness to explain these connections in mechanistic detail. But I have a philosophical proposal: I suspect that the qualitative aspects of my individual experiences are not reducible to the physical activities of just my own particular nervous system. I would suggest that quantum holism plays a role in the details of neural activity that goes beyond the conceptual toolbox of quantum theory as it is currently understood. In other words, if we are ever able to monitor, in fine detail, the physical activities of neurons in a conscious brain, we will find “mysterious” activity that does not follow from the rules of quantum theory unless we find ways to check for non-local (i.e., holistic) correlations with the activities of other brains.
Qualitative blue is not “in my head” – it is an intrinsic qualitative potential of Reality (with the capital “R” to remind us of the holistic nature of “the Totality of Being” or, perhaps, something like Spinoza’s “Sum-Total of all that exists” given a twist of quantum-holism or Buddhist “One Mind”.) My qualitative experience of blue is not reducible to the activity of my particular brain. “I” don’t experience blue, rather, Reality experience blue from a particular perspective with the phenomenal center of this perspective determined by the neural activity of my particular brain. For phenomenal experience to occur, physical information processing (i.e., brain activity) is necessary. I'm simply denying that "my" experiences always necessarily depend on "my" particular physical brain.
Basically, any qualitative experience of Reality could, in principle, be “my” experience (or remembered by “me”) given some weird circumstances that cause correlations between activity in my brain, and activities of other brains. Maybe the process of brain death is just weird enough to allow non-routine correlations to occur? Just speculating.
I appreciate Lanza's "biocenticism" but I'm proposing something more like "holistic Reality-centricism"
As it turns out, I haven't even introduced my new toys yet. I've just applied some ideas I've already discussed in other threads. Oh well. Maybe next time. This is way more than enough for now ;-)
GAYLEN!! Well, well...this is a real treat!
Missed ya, man!
Great contribution, as usual.
Can't wait to see the new stuff! Don't make us wait too long Bro!
My qualitative experience of blue is not reducible to the activity of my particular brain.
It's reducible to how you personally perceive color...which requires the brain for interpretation.
A person's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone cells in the eye.
I have not been active in this forum for a long time, and I’m coming into this thread rather late in the game. I’ve only read the first few pages, and the last couple of pages. If anyone thinks I’ve missed some post in the middle that is a must-read, please give me the post # and I’ll take a look. Anyway, I’ve acquired a few new analytic tools since the last time I trudge these cyber hallways, so I’d like to take some of them for a test spin here.
Brief preliminaries: I don’t think that consciousness is reducible to brain activity, so I’m not opposed, in principle, to the idea that there could be consciousness after death. I still consider myself to be atheist with some agnostic sympathies insofar as I don’t believe that a Divine Intelligence created the world, or is sustaining the world for some coherent divine purpose. But I do think that the potential for qualitative experience is intrinsic to Reality and that qualitative experiences are not reducible to physical mechanisms as we currently understand them. To put it another way: I’m fairly convinced that reality is not algorithmic in the sense of following the seemingly mechanistic rules of physics. Physics is amazingly useful, but there is still a “hard problem”.
I disagree with some of Robert Lanza’s ideas, but I appreciate the ballpark in which he is trying to play. He says:
"The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal."
I kinda see why he thinks this (roughly following the same sort of logic that leads to diverse interpretations like Copenhagen and Many Worlds), but I don’t think it is a useful approach.
I am more in tune with him when he says this:
"What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality."
Which brings me to my own approach to the question of consciousness, and the possibility that my experiences could extend beyond the coherent information processing of my particular physical nervous system. (I’m up to speed on the Sam Harris podcast and the experimental work of Sam Parnia, linked in the quotes above, so I’m partially responding to these, as well as the OP link.)
Sam Harris is on target when he points to information processing, rather than “energy” as such, when trying to understand the relationship between minds and brains. But if this is right, then how can people in Parnia’s experiments correctly recount anything from the time when their brains were technically dead? Coherent information processing should not be occurring at that point. But I would say that coherent information processing is occurring during that time. The doctors and nurses are awake and perceiving information during that time. If, as the quote from Lanza above suggests, we question “the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality,” then we have a possible way to explain how the revived patient could know what has been happening.
The question then becomes: How the heck does the neural processing of the doctors and nurses contribute to the patient’s neural processing, once revived? Good question. We don’t have a good enough theory of consciousness to explain these connections in mechanistic detail. But I have a philosophical proposal: I suspect that the qualitative aspects of my individual experiences are not reducible to the physical activities of just my own particular nervous system. I would suggest that quantum holism plays a role in the details of neural activity that goes beyond the conceptual toolbox of quantum theory as it is currently understood. In other words, if we are ever able to monitor, in fine detail, the physical activities of neurons in a conscious brain, we will find “mysterious” activity that does not follow from the rules of quantum theory unless we find ways to check for non-local (i.e., holistic) correlations with the activities of other brains.
Qualitative blue is not “in my head” – it is an intrinsic qualitative potential of Reality (with the capital “R” to remind us of the holistic nature of “the Totality of Being” or, perhaps, something like Spinoza’s “Sum-Total of all that exists” given a twist of quantum-holism or Buddhist “One Mind”.) My qualitative experience of blue is not reducible to the activity of my particular brain. “I” don’t experience blue, rather, Reality experience blue from a particular perspective with the phenomenal center of this perspective determined by the neural activity of my particular brain. For phenomenal experience to occur, physical information processing (i.e., brain activity) is necessary. I'm simply denying that "my" experiences always necessarily depend on "my" particular physical brain.
Basically, any qualitative experience of Reality could, in principle, be “my” experience (or remembered by “me”) given some weird circumstances that cause correlations between activity in my brain, and activities of other brains. Maybe the process of brain death is just weird enough to allow non-routine correlations to occur? Just speculating.
I appreciate Lanza's "biocenticism" but I'm proposing something more like "holistic Reality-centricism"
As it turns out, I haven't even introduced my new toys yet. I've just applied some ideas I've already discussed in other threads. Oh well. Maybe next time. This is way more than enough for now ;-)
Interesting read. I tend to agree with you about a Reality-centrism, obviously, since I see the center of it as God. I look forward to your elucidation of these ideas and the "new toys." Really good to see you back, Gaylen. Truly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
GAYLEN!! Well, well...this is a real treat!
Missed ya, man!
Great contribution, as usual.
Can't wait to see the new stuff! Don't make us wait too long Bro!
I have not been active in this forum for a long time, and I’m coming into this thread rather late in the game. I’ve only read the first few pages, and the last couple of pages. If anyone thinks I’ve missed some post in the middle that is a must-read, please give me the post # and I’ll take a look. Anyway, I’ve acquired a few new analytic tools since the last time I trudge these cyber hallways, so I’d like to take some of them for a test spin here.
Brief preliminaries: I don’t think that consciousness is reducible to brain activity, so I’m not opposed, in principle, to the idea that there could be consciousness after death. I still consider myself to be atheist with some agnostic sympathies insofar as I don’t believe that a Divine Intelligence created the world, or is sustaining the world for some coherent divine purpose. But I do think that the potential for qualitative experience is intrinsic to Reality and that qualitative experiences are not reducible to physical mechanisms as we currently understand them. To put it another way: I’m fairly convinced that reality is not algorithmic in the sense of following the seemingly mechanistic rules of physics. Physics is amazingly useful, but there is still a “hard problem”.
I disagree with some of Robert Lanza’s ideas, but I appreciate the ballpark in which he is trying to play. He says:
"The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal."
I kinda see why he thinks this (roughly following the same sort of logic that leads to diverse interpretations like Copenhagen and Many Worlds), but I don’t think it is a useful approach.
I am more in tune with him when he says this:
"What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality."
Which brings me to my own approach to the question of consciousness, and the possibility that my experiences could extend beyond the coherent information processing of my particular physical nervous system. (I’m up to speed on the Sam Harris podcast and the experimental work of Sam Parnia, linked in the quotes above, so I’m partially responding to these, as well as the OP link.)
Sam Harris is on target when he points to information processing, rather than “energy” as such, when trying to understand the relationship between minds and brains. But if this is right, then how can people in Parnia’s experiments correctly recount anything from the time when their brains were technically dead? Coherent information processing should not be occurring at that point. But I would say that coherent information processing is occurring during that time. The doctors and nurses are awake and perceiving information during that time. If, as the quote from Lanza above suggests, we question “the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality,” then we have a possible way to explain how the revived patient could know what has been happening.
The question then becomes: How the heck does the neural processing of the doctors and nurses contribute to the patient’s neural processing, once revived? Good question. We don’t have a good enough theory of consciousness to explain these connections in mechanistic detail. But I have a philosophical proposal: I suspect that the qualitative aspects of my individual experiences are not reducible to the physical activities of just my own particular nervous system. I would suggest that quantum holism plays a role in the details of neural activity that goes beyond the conceptual toolbox of quantum theory as it is currently understood. In other words, if we are ever able to monitor, in fine detail, the physical activities of neurons in a conscious brain, we will find “mysterious” activity that does not follow from the rules of quantum theory unless we find ways to check for non-local (i.e., holistic) correlations with the activities of other brains.
Qualitative blue is not “in my head” – it is an intrinsic qualitative potential of Reality (with the capital “R” to remind us of the holistic nature of “the Totality of Being” or, perhaps, something like Spinoza’s “Sum-Total of all that exists” given a twist of quantum-holism or Buddhist “One Mind”.) My qualitative experience of blue is not reducible to the activity of my particular brain. “I” don’t experience blue, rather, Reality experience blue from a particular perspective with the phenomenal center of this perspective determined by the neural activity of my particular brain. For phenomenal experience to occur, physical information processing (i.e., brain activity) is necessary. I'm simply denying that "my" experiences always necessarily depend on "my" particular physical brain.
Basically, any qualitative experience of Reality could, in principle, be “my” experience (or remembered by “me”) given some weird circumstances that cause correlations between activity in my brain, and activities of other brains. Maybe the process of brain death is just weird enough to allow non-routine correlations to occur? Just speculating.
I appreciate Lanza's "biocenticism" but I'm proposing something more like "holistic Reality-centricism"
As it turns out, I haven't even introduced my new toys yet. I've just applied some ideas I've already discussed in other threads. Oh well. Maybe next time. This is way more than enough for now ;-)
Nice to see you again, and would be fascinated to see your new toys.
P.s Matadora, dear....tread carefully. As Gaylen once put it -he has a Masters' degree in this crap.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-01-2017 at 08:08 AM..
The evidence for parting the sea is mentioning the story in the Holy Quran and the Holy Quran is from Allah
and I have posted two samples for knowledge in the Holy Quran that can not be mentioned at that time by any human being and there more evidences in this book Islam Guide: A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam, Muslims, & the Quran
Many of those 'evidences' have been debunked. One was debunked right here. You simply ignore them and present the same claims again and again like a wind -up toy. If just a couple of those 'evidences' are shown to false (not mistakenly presented as evidence but scientifically False) the Quran is debunked as divine authorship. You are wasting everyone's time.
My qualitative experience of blue is not reducible to the activity of my particular brain. “I” don’t experience blue, rather, Reality experience blue from a particular perspective with the phenomenal center of this perspective determined by the neural activity of my particular brain. For phenomenal experience to occur, physical information processing (i.e., brain activity) is necessary. I'm simply denying that "my" experiences always necessarily depend on "my" particular physical brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
It's reducible to how you personally perceive color...which requires the brain for interpretation.
A person's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone cells in the eye.
Thanks. This provides a nice segue to one of my "new toys" (the application of C.S. Peirce's notion of "icon" to the problem of qualia).
First a quick reminder: I consider myself to be a "physicalist" insofar as I believe that everything is physical, but I tend to wander off the reservation because I also believe that not everything is reducible to physics (or, at least, it is not reducible to the mostly mechanistic/algorithmic form of current physics).
Also note: The word "reducible" is often ambiguous insofar as it can imply either explanatory reduction, or metaphysical reduction, or both. As a physicalist, I believe that qualia are metaphysically reducible to physical properties of Reality, and I use the term 'physical' to get at the ideas of "objectively real" and empirically verifiable (tho I'd say that not every aspect of a physical thing is necessarily 3rd-person verifiable). I reject the explanatory reduction of subjectively-experienced blue qualia to the concepts of current physics because physics is currently limited to 3rd-person verifiability, but the qualitative dimensions of subjective experience elude this sort of reduction. I say that the qualitative aspects of Reality are fundamental. To say that something is fundamental is to imply that it cannot be explanatorily reduced to anything "more fundamental". Rock bottom is rock bottom.
Now concerning my qualitative experience of blue: Presumably, if we achieve the physicist's dream of a "Theory of Everything", then everything that exists should be, in principle, explanatorily reducible to the mathematically-rendered, 3rd-person verifiable quantities that are, in principle, measurable. (Currently the 4 fundamental forces, along with some basic principles that explain how these forces work.) In principle, all of the activity in my brain (the activity of every quark, every lepton, etc.) ought to conform to the laws of current physics. I'm suggesting that my subjective experience of qualitative blue has some fundamental aspects that are not reducible to the laws of physics. If qualia were "epiphenomenal" then this would not be a big problem, but I do not believe that qualia are epiphenomenal. My behaviors as a conscious creature are, to a great extent, guided by the subjective feel of qualia. If some aspects of qualia can only be known subjectively, and those subjective aspects are responsible for my behavior to some extent, then my behavior will not be, even in principle, reducible to the 3rd-person/mechanistic laws of physics.
I think there are hints of a "new physics" lurking in the intrinsically holistic nature of quantum theory that might possibly bridge most of the explanatory gap, but the details have not yet been worked out. For now, I'm just offering the vague suggestion that if we could somehow track the details of the neural processes in my brain, we would find that my behavioral response to my subjective experience of blue does not fully fit with the 3rd-person describable laws of physics. This is an empirical prediction, of sorts, but not a very helpful one because it might be impossible to track the quantum details of living brain. But if my "Reality-centric" holism is correct, the subjective feel of blue is not something that is generated by my particular brain, nor fully reducible to activity in my brain. Rather, it is a holistic property of Reality that is, in this instance, experienced within the particular historical context of my particular brain.
Thanks to an essay by Marc Champagne ( Referring to Consciousness using Iconicity instead of Indexicality ) I have recently been thinking of qualia in terms of "icons." This dips into a complicated branch of philosophy called semiotics, but I'll try to keep it simple. In other threads (and, so far, in this post) I've been characterizing subjectivity in terms of "indexicality" - terms that can only be referenced in terms of "ostentation" - i.e., "pointing" in a particular context, e.g., "me", "here", "now", "yesterday", "to the left", etc. This is standard procedure in philosophy of mind. But Peirce used a 3-part conceptual scheme of symbol/index/icon.
We generally think that referring to something involves causation. Reference to any x involves some causal influence from x to the physical process of referencing. E.g., if I am referring to "that" object "over there" (notice the indexicals), I am doing so only because of some causal influences between "that" and "me". Champagne suggests that there is, however, a mode of reference that is not mind-dependent and does not rest on causality. This is where icons come into the picture. An icon shares qualities with its referent. E.g., an outline of a foot can be an icon for "feet" because the outline of the foot shares some properties with real feet. These properties (similarity of shape) are objectively real - not mind-dependent. The impression of a foot in wet sand is objectively more "foot-like" than, say, the numeral "7". The numeral "3" is slightly more "foot-like" but not very much so. Sharing a property is not a causal process.
In various threads over the past few years I have tried to explain the idea that your subjective feeling of "seeing blue" and mine are qualitatively identical because they are, in some deep, weird sense, numerically identical. The roots of this numerical identity are in the quasi-Buddhist-style "One Mind" view that I have been preaching - i.e., Reality is always the one-and-same "core experiencer" of blue via numerically distinct brains. Following Champagne, I can now characterize this "sharable" aspect of qualia in terms of iconic reference, and there is no need to explain a causal link. A quale is, in some sense, an icon. There is an objective similarity between your experience of blue and mine, and this similarity (this icon-nature) is ultimately grounded on the fact that each and every experience of blue (no matter where, no matter when) is experienced by Reality Itself via the numerically distinct processes of physical brains.
Keep in mind that not every icon is a perfect replica of every other icon, nor is it a perfect replica of the thing it stands as an iconic symbol for. A child's drawing of a foot might be very crude compared to a professional artist's drawing, but insofar as the child's drawing is even vaguely recognizable as a foot, the similarity is objectively real. Your subjective sense of blue might be rooted in childhood trauma whereas mine is rooted in some joyful experience and, thus, our subjective experiences of blue can be very different. And yet there is still this purely sensory-level objective similarity that allows both experiences to tap into the iconic level of "objective blue" that, ironically, can only be subjectively experienced by particular selves via their particular brains.
This combination of objectively real properties of Reality that can only be experienced (empirically verified) via the particular subjective processes of particular brains gives qualia the weirdness that seemingly prevents them from falling under the purview of 3rd-person-based physics. All science (indeed all human experience) is ultimately based on qualia, but because your experience of blue and mine are both iconic (i.e., they are both objectively similar to a fundamentally subjective/qualitative property of Reality Itself), science cannot reference qualia in terms of 3rd-person measurable properties.
Science is like the cartoon character sitting on the branch of a tree. So long as science just is "sitting on the branch" it cannot logically try to saw the branch off. In this metaphor, 3rd-person verifiability is "sitting on the branch" and subjectivity is sawing off the branch. There is nothing mysteriously "non-physical" going on with the qualia; there is just a rather mundane logical problem that is reminiscent of the logical problem of self-reference. This limits the reach of 3rd-person-based scientific theory, but it doesn't defeat physicalism in a broader sense and it doesn't require a concept of "Divine Creator" to explain anything (although it does leave some logical room for a Spinoza-style "God" as the "Totality of Existence" if this Totality happens to be conscious, but I personally see no reason to think that Reality has any God's-Eye awareness of Itself as a Totality, beyond the limited perceptions of individual physical brains - some of which might occasionally tap into a mystical feeling of Oneness that could ultimately be rooted in the actual subjective unity of Being.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-01-2017 at 10:32 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
