4 ms·

> Modern science hasn't even started to appreciate the existence of consciousness let alone validating which is the better method. Wow, you sure don't know wha

> Modern science hasn't even started to appreciate the existence of consciousness let alone validating which is the better method. Wow, you sure don't know what you're talking about. David Nutt, Albert Hoffman, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Charles Darwin... every single one of these scientists has both made statements about the nature of consciousness and done research which has significantly furthered our understanding of consciousness. And I'm not even bringing up the field of psychology in that list because arguably the entire field of psychology is about consciousness, so I wouldn't know what scientists to pick from that field. What you said was both ignorant and insulting to a lot of people's hard work.

kr4 10y ago
so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. The current stance is to try to define consciousness in physical terms (as a matterial substance) but with no success. As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance. Non-material is where science hasn't taken a single step AFAIK yet.
- devishard 10y ago
  > so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. A great deal of the context around quantum mechanical study has been to validate the existence of free will; whether consciousness can be ascribed to deterministic processes or not. > Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. It would be a great starting point if you decided to bother to inform yourself on what these people have said about consciousness. > As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. Some scientists take this few. Many don't. > It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, That's because the law of thermodynamics deal with heat and entropy. If you're expecting laws about heat and entropy to apply to consciousness I'm not sure where your thought process has gone so horribly wrong, so I can't really help you.
- tpm 10y ago
  Do read Stanislas Dehaene: Consciousness and the Brain
- vixen99 10y ago
  "It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance." is a non sequitur as is "As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain". You cannot give an example of consciousness in the absence of matter. Perceptions are always demonstrably linked to material entities - ask a brain surgeon who can tweak your perceptions with an electrode. I think you make a categoric mistake in insisting on separating perception from the activities which are responsible for it. Might a software daemon one day in the far future report consciousness? I can see no reason why not; we have kinship with that hypothetical daemon! Searle's Chinese translation argument is related to your thoughts on this and has been (as far as I can see) comprehensively demolished though I guess there will always be a rear-guard protest. I think the problem arises from the fuzzy definitions and assumptions used.
dfraser992 10y ago
Look up the field of transpersonal psychology. Ken Wilbur is one name that comes to mind. It is sort of the scientific study of spirituality - I don't have a degree, only a well read layman and can make heads and tails of what the research involves (as well as a informed amateur in religious studies, etc). To the HN crowd, it will seem like New Age woo-woo, but one has to really experience trance states in a Vodoun ceremony (Umbanda specifically) to grok the scientific materialism point of view is overlooking some components of consciousness. The OP sounds like a hard line anti-science type. Merging the two points of view is the best idea. He is somewhat correct, but to say science will never have anything useful to add is shortsighted

kr4 10y ago

so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. The current stance is to try to define consciousness in physical terms (as a matterial substance) but with no success. As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance. Non-material is where science hasn't taken a single step AFAIK yet.

devishard 10y ago
> so tell me any theory that tries to validate the existence of non-material consciousness. A great deal of the context around quantum mechanical study has been to validate the existence of free will; whether consciousness can be ascribed to deterministic processes or not. > Giving loads of names of scientists won't help in establishing what modern science says about consciousness. It would be a great starting point if you decided to bother to inform yourself on what these people have said about consciousness. > As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain. Some scientists take this few. Many don't. > It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, That's because the law of thermodynamics deal with heat and entropy. If you're expecting laws about heat and entropy to apply to consciousness I'm not sure where your thought process has gone so horribly wrong, so I can't really help you.
tpm 10y ago
Do read Stanislas Dehaene: Consciousness and the Brain
vixen99 10y ago
"It's impossible so far to articulate consciousness in The law of thermodynamic, so hence the material hypothesis has never stood a chance." is a non sequitur as is "As per scientists consciousness behaves to be more than the sum total of neurons in the brain". You cannot give an example of consciousness in the absence of matter. Perceptions are always demonstrably linked to material entities - ask a brain surgeon who can tweak your perceptions with an electrode. I think you make a categoric mistake in insisting on separating perception from the activities which are responsible for it. Might a software daemon one day in the far future report consciousness? I can see no reason why not; we have kinship with that hypothetical daemon! Searle's Chinese translation argument is related to your thoughts on this and has been (as far as I can see) comprehensively demolished though I guess there will always be a rear-guard protest. I think the problem arises from the fuzzy definitions and assumptions used.

dfraser992 10y ago

Look up the field of transpersonal psychology. Ken Wilbur is one name that comes to mind. It is sort of the scientific study of spirituality - I don't have a degree, only a well read layman and can make heads and tails of what the research involves (as well as a informed amateur in religious studies, etc). To the HN crowd, it will seem like New Age woo-woo, but one has to really experience trance states in a Vodoun ceremony (Umbanda specifically) to grok the scientific materialism point of view is overlooking some components of consciousness. The OP sounds like a hard line anti-science type. Merging the two points of view is the best idea. He is somewhat correct, but to say science will never have anything useful to add is shortsighted