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.
Can science objectively explain how consciousness arose from matter? (Not attacking any views here) but understanding where consciousness came from is just as mysterious. I don't have a one sided view and am still learning both sides of this debate. Interesting, really.
I don't find it particularly mysterious. Consciousness, or self-awareness, strikes me as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain and sufficient intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to accurately and consistently predict the next sequence in a pattern of patterns. The brain stores and compares patterns. When you have enough brainpower for the thought process to observe and reflect upon itself, you have consciousness.
As to whether the above has or can be proven by science, I think it's still somewhat in the realm of plausible hypotheses. For example, the artificial intelligence field still has a majority position that thinks of the brain like a computer. The brain as pattern matching and predicting engine is a minority position although it is gaining ground and I am personally convinced of it because its major proponent is a software developer like myself who sees the disconnect I do between what the brain is capable of and the brain's quite slow processing speed relative to computers.
Consciousness explained as self-reflection or back-propagation is an idea that has been around for awhile and has gained some currency.
Currently, we understand the organization and operation of the neocortex well enough to simulate it in software and to even test assumptions in that simulation against how the actual brain works and use that feedback to refine the operational model.
A lot of progress is being made in these areas and I believe that the brain is becoming less mysterious by the day. Consciousness is only mysterious because we're intensely interested in it and only beginning to understand it. This is not a permanent state of affairs.
William Buhlman Adventures Out of Body. I didn't believe it until I experimented myself after an incident of dream paralysis and migrating to my parents home 20 miles away & confirming what everyone spoke, wore and did one night without me being there physically. People will believe what they want to believe. No harm no foul. No one can take away my personal experiences and convince me it's fake. Perhaps an incident like this or near death experience can open ones mind as it did mind. If not, we will all find out anyway after death.
I would recommend reading the Tibetan Book Of The Dead. The spirit is truly boundless. It is not bound to time, space, or death. Tibetan Buddhists teach that, throughout a Buddha's lifetime, he/she experienced a lot of different kinds of spiritual deaths-inbetweens-and rebirths in preparation for the ultimate death-inbetween-rebirth. The philosophy of reincarnation is derived from having observed what the spirit does throughout their lifetimes.
Can science objectively explain how consciousness arose from matter?
You are walking along the border of making the same error that theist after theist here makes. So worth stepping back and taking a look at that border before you fall off the other side.
So what if science can not explain it? That does not mean the afterlife is real. That would be what is called "An Argument From Ignorance". Basically "You can not explain it, therefore this thing I just made up out of my imagination is true/credible".
Actually our science of mind is progressing slowly but nicely. Everything we know links consciousness to the wet stuff in our head. Nothing we know even begins to suggest a disconnect between them or the ability of the former to survive or operate independently of the latter.
Have we a LOT more to learn in this area? Hell yes. Is there a SINGLE reason at this time to subscribe to the idea of after lives or consciousness existing independently of the brain? No, not a one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiousqueen
"Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form to another." ~Albert Einstein
Curious to know how you feel such a claim is relevant to the thread?
Can science objectively explain how consciousness arose from matter? (Not attacking any views here) but understanding where consciousness came from is just as mysterious. I don't have a one sided view and am still learning both sides of this debate. Interesting, really.
No . . . science hasn't got a clue . . . but they cobble together euphemisms and vague phrases in an attempt to present their non-explanations as explanations. Case in point is mordant's post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I don't find it particularly mysterious. Consciousness, or self-awareness, strikes me as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain and sufficient intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to accurately and consistently predict the next sequence in a pattern of patterns. The brain stores and compares patterns. When you have enough brainpower for the thought process to observe and reflect upon itself, you have consciousness.
QED This euphemistically states only what is observed to "emerge" and describes it. It explains nothing. It refuses to acknowledge that the energy transformed into a composite consciousness in the brain . . . has properties and attributes that cannot reside in the matter of the brain. This composite energy interacts with the universe in unique and identifiable ways . . . much like the flames of a fire interact differently than the combustibles that produce it. The difference is the "fire of consciousness" manifests as a conscious entity not currently measurable . . . unlike fire which is measurable.
No . . . science hasn't got a clue . . . but they cobble together euphemisms and vague phrases in an attempt to present their non-explanations as explanations. Case in point is mordant's post.
QED This euphemistically states only what is observed to "emerge" and describes it. It explains nothing. It refuses to acknowledge that the energy transformed into a composite consciousness in the brain . . . has properties and attributes that cannot reside in the matter of the brain. This composite energy interacts with the universe in unique and identifiable ways . . . much like the flames of a fire interact differently than the combustibles that produce it. The difference is the "fire of consciousness" manifests as a conscious entity not currently measurable . . . unlike fire which is measurable.
That's not even the pot calling the kettle black, more like the pot calling the kettle gray and accusing it of being black. You chastise mordant for providing his opinion and stating as such, while you provide your unproven, unsubstantiated, visions as fact.
No . . . science hasn't got a clue . . . but they cobble together euphemisms and vague phrases in an attempt to present their non-explanations as explanations. Case in point is mordant's post.
QED This euphemistically states only what is observed to "emerge" and describes it. It explains nothing. It refuses to acknowledge that the energy transformed into a composite consciousness in the brain . . . has properties and attributes that cannot reside in the matter of the brain. This composite energy interacts with the universe in unique and identifiable ways . . . much like the flames of a fire interact differently than the combustibles that produce it. The difference is the "fire of consciousness" manifests as a conscious entity not currently measurable . . . unlike fire which is measurable.
I know you greatly dislike any talk of "emergent properties" when talking about chaotic / complex systems but I am not going to stop using a perfectly valid evocative term because it is inconvenient for you. This is basic complex systems theory and has wide applicability. I'm sorry you don't like that.
There are lots of intelligent people who do not see that the properties and attributes of human consciousness "cannot" reside in the human brain. And who feel that there's a lot of evidence that it DOES. I consider it just barely possible, though increasingly unlikely, that the brain is but a transceiver for consciousness that is located "elsewhere" either in this dimension or some other. I don't "REFUSE" to acknowledge some established "cannot" even if you are convinced it's a "cannot".
When a conscious entity is directly measurable these arguments will go away and I will go with the evidence wherever it takes us. As will you. In that regard we are the same. I just think you're jumping the gun, and probably guessing wrong in the bargain.
I think it's pretty fascinating that kids under the age of 5 or even blind people can provide similar accounts of NDE. I appreciate a thread like this to feed my thirst for knowledge even though attacks for what I write is inevitable lol. I'm no expert obviously in both sides of this coin but I like the way this author explains things...
I think it's pretty fascinating that kids under the age of 5 or even blind people can provide similar accounts of NDE. I appreciate a thread like this to feed my thirst for knowledge even though attacks for what I write is inevitable lol. I'm no expert obviously in both sides of this coin but I like the way this author explains things...
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.
