4 ms·

Well yes OK. I guess I'm jumping from 'being an atheist' to 'general distrust of the so called supernatural'. Do you mean 'impossible for scientific investigat

Well yes OK. I guess I'm jumping from 'being an atheist' to 'general distrust of the so called supernatural'. Do you mean 'impossible for scientific investigation to tackle' because its just too complex (in the same way we can't predict the weather very accurately) or do you mean more like: because you suspect there is some outside-of-known-physics involvement that we wont ever be able to get a grip on?

axguscbklp 6y ago
Not because it is too complex, but because I suspect that there may be something to consciousness that is outside of knowable physics. There is no reason to assume that scientific investigation is in principle capable of getting a grip on all of reality. That does not mean that consciousness is some mystic woo-woo, it just means that scientific investigation may in principle be limited. Consciousness might well turn out to be impossible in principle to tackle using mathematical modeling, reproducible experiment, theories of physical mechanisms, etc. - but that would not mean that consciousness is not real. It does not require scientific inquiry to show that consciousness is real. Subjective experience is immediately obviously real, as subjective experience.
- codeulike 6y ago
  I agree that what you say is possible, but it's also possible that consciousness does lie inside known physics, so I reckon it's worth people investigating that angle, as formidable as it seems. I've edited my comment above to be a bit less absolutist
  - axguscbklp 6y ago
    I wouldn't say it's impossible, although honestly I cannot even begin to imagine how consciousness could lie inside known or even knowable physics. But if people want to try, more power to them. I'm open to my suspicion being wrong.
    - hnick 6y ago
      I personally feel largely the same. We need measurement to do science, and if the best we have is the Turing Test that's not good enough.

axguscbklp 6y ago

Not because it is too complex, but because I suspect that there may be something to consciousness that is outside of knowable physics. There is no reason to assume that scientific investigation is in principle capable of getting a grip on all of reality. That does not mean that consciousness is some mystic woo-woo, it just means that scientific investigation may in principle be limited. Consciousness might well turn out to be impossible in principle to tackle using mathematical modeling, reproducible experiment, theories of physical mechanisms, etc. - but that would not mean that consciousness is not real. It does not require scientific inquiry to show that consciousness is real. Subjective experience is immediately obviously real, as subjective experience.

codeulike 6y ago
I agree that what you say is possible, but it's also possible that consciousness does lie inside known physics, so I reckon it's worth people investigating that angle, as formidable as it seems. I've edited my comment above to be a bit less absolutist
- axguscbklp 6y ago
  I wouldn't say it's impossible, although honestly I cannot even begin to imagine how consciousness could lie inside known or even knowable physics. But if people want to try, more power to them. I'm open to my suspicion being wrong.
  - hnick 6y ago
    I personally feel largely the same. We need measurement to do science, and if the best we have is the Turing Test that's not good enough.