• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

Fudbucker

Philosopher
F
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
8,537
This thread was split from Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?.

It may be that some posts were moved which should not have been, and/or that some posts which should have been moved remain in the original thread. Please report any posts that fall into either category so that I or another mod can deal with them. Thank you.
Posted By: Agatha


If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobTheCoward said:
The best part of materialism is that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

It certainly does matter. If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory. I think it reached that point long ago. Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.
 
Fudbucker said:
It certainly does matter. If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory. I think it reached that point long ago. Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.
Click to expand...

It doesn't reach a conclusion. If there is no explanation how it arose, then there is no current explanation. No conclusion to be absurd.

Wait,I think I'm mixing up materialism with just skepticism.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.
Click to expand...
Fudbucker said:
It certainly does matter. If materialism leads to an absurd conclusion, like the existence of conscious pieces of meat, it's devastating for the theory. I think it reached that point long ago. Consciousness has always been the achilles heel of materialism.
Click to expand...
Even if true . . . So what?

My enduring default atheism is the failure of theism to convince me it's true (or even possibly true). I simply don't accept/believe the silly childish tales of magic and miracles and the promises of eternal bliss and threats of eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Complete lack of credibility has always been the Achilles heel of theism.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It doesn't reach a conclusion. If there is no explanation how it arose, then there is no current explanation. No conclusion to be absurd.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there should have been hints of an explanation after all this time. We still can't even agree on what the terms mean. We can't even agree on whether your perception of green is like mine. For materialism, which champions results and progress, to still be this in the dark about something so fundamental is devastating to the theory.

I know materialism adherents think something will eventually pan out, but the top contender right now is ITT, which has tremendous problems. My view is that if progress hasn't been made by now, it probably won't be made at all and materialism will end up on the ash-heap of failed scientific theories.

Wait,I think I'm mixing up materialism with just skepticism.
Click to expand...

Materialism requires adherence to a particular model of reality. A skeptic would question all models.
 
ynot said:
Even if true . . . So what?

My enduring default atheism is the failure of theism to convince me it's true (or even possibly true). I simply don't accept/believe the silly childish tales of magic and miracles and the promises of eternal bliss and threats of eternal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Incredulity has always been the Achilles heel of theism.
Click to expand...

So there are only two other competing models of reality if materialism fails: dualism and theism. Theism gets a huge boost if you knock out materialism.
 
Fudbucker said:
The problem is that there should have been hints of an explanation after all this time. We still can't even agree on what the terms mean. We can't even agree on whether your perception of green is like mine. For materialism, which champions results and progress, to still be this in the dark about something so fundamental is devastating to the theory.

I know materialism adherents think something will eventually pan out, but the top contender right now is ITT, which has tremendous problems. My view is that if progress hasn't been made by now, it probably won't be made at all and materialism will end up on the ash-heap of failed scientific theories.



Materialism requires adherence to a particular model of reality. A skeptic would question all models.
Click to expand...

That is why I said wait. Materialism is actually a philosophy and not just requiring evidence
 
Fudbucker said:
If materialism is true, then consciousness arising from a lump of meat is an ongoing miracle which science has utterly failed to explain. And probably never will.
Click to expand...

How do you define what a miracle iis?

Here is one definition.

'a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency'

Just because science cannot fully explain something at this time doesn't mean it is is divine. The way you use the term miracle is basically a cacthall for what you cannot explain. What's wrong with saying 'it's cool and we just don't know'? By filling in the gaps of human knowledge with words like god or miracle, you have surrendered. You might as well say 'fairies did it', or 'it was magic'. They are totally interchangeable with God and miracles.
 
Fudbucker said:
So there are only two other competing models of reality if materialism fails: dualism and theism. Theism gets a huge boost if you knock out materialism.
Click to expand...
Let's see which would work best to knock you out . . .

Materialism - Hit yourself hard on the head with a material club.

Theism - Do whatever you can with whatever you can find of theism.

:duck:
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Let's see which would work best to knock you out . . .

Materialism - Hit yourself hard on the head with a material club.

Theism - Do whatever you can with whatever you can find of theism.

:duck:
Click to expand...

Did you want a serious discussion or not?
 
Fudbucker said:
Did you want a serious discussion or not?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't realise your post I responded to was meant to be taken seriously. Or to put it another way, I couldn't take it seriously. But do feel free to bang on about "competing models of reality" all you like. But please do it in another thread.
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
Your theories on consciousness and materialism are off-topic for this thread so do us a favor and comment in the correct thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that!

ETA - A friendly reminder . . .

This thread is addressed to atheists and asks them whether their atheism is predominately preserved by either science or the failure of theism to convert them into theists.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Thanks for that!

ETA - A friendly reminder . . .

This thread is addressed to atheists and asks them whether their atheism is predominately preserved by either science or the failure of theism to convert them into theists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so theists... bugger off!
 
acbytesla said:
How do you define what a miracle iis?

Here is one definition.

'a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency'
Click to expand...

I consider a miracle to be a violation of established laws of nature. In that case, consciousness isn't really a "miracle" under materialism (hyperbole on my part), but its existence (and lack of any explanation for it) are enough to rule out materialism (for me at least).

Just because science cannot fully explain something at this time doesn't mean it is is divine. The way you use the term miracle is basically a cacthall for what you cannot explain. What's wrong with saying 'it's cool and we just don't know'? By filling in the gaps of human knowledge with words like god or miracle, you have surrendered. You might as well say 'fairies did it', or 'it was magic'. They are totally interchangeable with God and miracles.
Click to expand...

Because I think it's more than a case of "we don't know, but we eventually will". I don't think any progress has been made on the causal mechanism of subjective experience, nor do I think any will be made. And some materialist explanations that posit conscious rope-brains or a universe of conscious beings simulated by moving rocks around illustrate the weakness of the theory. I know why those materialists have to make those claims: anything that is functionally identical to a working organic brain should be conscious.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I consider a miracle to be a violation of established laws of nature. In that case, consciousness isn't really a "miracle" under materialism (hyperbole on my part), but its existence (and lack of any explanation for it) are enough to rule out materialism (for me at least).
Click to expand...

Then what is the explanation for God's consciousness?
 
I Am The Scum said:
Then what is the explanation for God's consciousness?
Click to expand...

Good question. I don't consider it a knock on theism, because theism doesn't purport to explain the world around us through rigorous methodology. A theist would simply take the existence of god (and its consciousness) as a matter of faith.
 
A John Frumist would simply take the existence of cargo (and its creation by the ancestors) as a matter of faith.

What else can believers do, after all?
 
sackett said:
A John Frumist would simply take the existence of cargo (and its creation by the ancestors) as a matter of faith.

What else can believers do, after all?
Click to expand...

Try to take down non-theistic models of reality. Materialism reminds me of those cocky teenagers who think they know everything:
"I can tell you everything you need to know, using science!"
"OK, how do brains produce consciousness?"
"Eh..."
 
Fudbucker said:
Try to take down non-theistic models of reality. Materialism reminds me of those cocky teenagers who think they know everything:
"I can tell you everything you need to know, using science!"
"OK, how do brains produce consciousness?"
"Eh..."
Click to expand...
Yep . . .
ynot said:
Theists often defend their god beliefs by attacking science with silly comments like - “Science doesn’t know everything, Science isn’t always right, Science can’t explain love”, etc. My response is usually - “So what? I’m an atheist mainly because theism has failed to convince me any god exists. Take away science and I would still be an atheist. Don’t blame science for the failure of theism”.
Click to expand...
You may need to conflate "science" and "materialism" to be able to join the dots.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
A John Frumist would simply take the existence of cargo (and its creation by the ancestors) as a matter of faith.

What else can believers do, after all?
Click to expand...
As children take the actual existence of Santa as a matter of faith in the honesty of parents and other adults.

What else can innocent, gullible, trusting children do, after all?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Try to take down non-theistic models of reality. Materialism reminds me of those cocky teenagers who think they know everything:
"I can tell you everything you need to know, using science!"
"OK, how do brains produce consciousness?"
"Eh..."
Click to expand...

Are you being serious? Really?

Lovely straw man "I can tell you everything.......", as part of a general logic cluster-****. Atheism can be utterly detached from science, and even without any science at all on the planet, the credulous would ask "this god-thing of yours: got any evidence?" That's all it needs for atheism to be the logical position: a search for the evidence behind theistic doctrines and claims. "Got nothing to back that up? OK, then come back to me when you have".....and you've got another atheist.

-

Seems to me that every single thread on atheism boils down to theists getting their knickers in a twist over the word "belief" (or "faith") and when they can't get to redefine it to suit their argument they end up with god-of-the-gaps and science-doesn't-know-everything. Almost like they never learn.
 
MikeG said:
Are you being serious? Really?

Lovely straw man "I can tell you everything.......", as part of a general logic cluster-****. Atheism can be utterly detached from science, and even without any science at all on the planet, the credulous would ask "this god-thing of yours: got any evidence?" That's all it needs for atheism to be the logical position: a search for the evidence behind theistic doctrines and claims. "Got nothing to back that up? OK, then come back to me when you have".....and you've got another atheist.

-

Seems to me that every single thread on atheism boils down to theists getting their knickers in a twist over the word "belief" (or "faith") and when they can't get to redefine it to suit their argument they end up with god-of-the-gaps and science-doesn't-know-everything. Almost like they never learn.
Click to expand...
Theism doesn't need to learn anything as it already "knows" everything by way of belief and faith. A case of theism transposing it's own worst (cocky teenagers who think they know everything) fault on to atheism.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Good question. I don't consider it a knock on theism, because theism doesn't purport to explain the world around us through rigorous methodology.
Click to expand...
Neither does materialism or atheism.

A theist would simply take the existence of god (and its consciousness) as a matter of faith.
Click to expand...
Well that obviously doesn't work. "We hold ourselves to a very low standard" is clearly not a path towards a reasonable belief system.

I don't think you're holding a very consistent standard.
 
Fudbucker said:
I consider a miracle to be a violation of established laws of nature. In that case, consciousness isn't really a "miracle" under materialism (hyperbole on my part), but its existence (and lack of any explanation for it) are enough to rule out materialism (for me at least).
Click to expand...
You seem to contradict yourself in that paragraph.
Fudbucker said:
Because I think it's more than a case of "we don't know, but we eventually will". I don't think any progress has been made on the causal mechanism of subjective experience, nor do I think any will be made. And some materialist explanations that posit conscious rope-brains or a universe of conscious beings simulated by moving rocks around illustrate the weakness of the theory. I know why those materialists have to make those claims: anything that is functionally identical to a working organic brain should be conscious.
Click to expand...
I really don't get this. We may never be able to give ourselves a good explanation for consciousness. I grant you that. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to explain a mystery with another mystery.
 
acbytesla said:
You seem to contradict yourself in that paragraph.
I really don't get this. We may never be able to give ourselves a good explanation for consciousness. I grant you that. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong to explain a mystery with another mystery.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
It's not about theism v materialism.

It's not about theism v science.

It's not about theism v atheism.

It's ONLY about theism v credibility.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

No.

Every other theory is in itself unexplainable.and really is worthless. By calling it a miracle or an act of a God or a spirit is really a cheat. The correct answer to a unexplained question is 'we don't know'. Not unproven bs we couldn't possibly understand.
 
Fudbucker said:
I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
No. I would rather continue looking at self-evident realities. Why wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
I think it would be a catastrophic failure if materialism continues to come up empty trying to explain something as fundamental as consciousness. I would eventually start looking at other theories, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all.

Oh, and theism doesn't explain anything (you said as much yourself), so, by your own argument, wouldn't you start looking around for an alternative?
 
acbytesla said:
No.

Every other theory is in itself unexplainable.and really is worthless. By calling it a miracle or an act of a God or a spirit is really a cheat. The correct answer to a unexplained question is 'we don't know'. Not unproven bs we couldn't possibly understand.
Click to expand...

Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.
 
MikeG said:
No. Not at all.

Oh, and theism doesn't explain anything (you said as much yourself), so, by your own argument, wouldn't you start looking around for an alternative?
Click to expand...

Dualism. Perhaps there is a lot more to the universe than just this material stuff.

ETA: or idealism: perhaps there isn't any material stuff at all and everything is a projection of the mind.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.
Click to expand...
To dualism land and beyond . . . :rolleyes:
 
Fudbucker said:
Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.
Click to expand...

This whole consciousness schtick of yours is tedious, off-topic, and utterly irrelevant. It is also disingenuous, because if you have done any reading on the matter at all (surely you have, as you can't leave the subject alone) you'd know that we actually have pretty good knowledge of consciousness, and, for instance, know the parameters within which its full explanation will fall. It has also been explained to you multiple times (so many times, in fact, that one wonders why you ignore all the explanations other than just to annoy your interlocutors) that not knowing some stuff completely is no reason whatever to cling to makey-uppie magic-man-in-the-sky crap........an idea for which there is zero evidence. You cannot logically argue that all science is bunk because we don't know some stuff but in the next breath claim that theism is a perfectly good alternative despite us not having anything other than "it says so in this old book" as evidence in support.
 
MikeG said:
This whole consciousness schtick of yours is tedious, off-topic, and utterly irrelevant. It is also disingenuous, because if you have done any reading on the matter at all (surely you have, as you can't leave the subject alone) you'd know that we actually have pretty good knowledge of consciousness, and, for instance, know the parameters within which its full explanation will fall. It has also been explained to you multiple times (so many times, in fact, that one wonders why you ignore all the explanations other than just to annoy your interlocutors) that not knowing some stuff completely is no reason whatever to cling to makey-uppie magic-man-in-the-sky crap........an idea for which there is zero evidence. You cannot logically argue that all science is bunk because we don't know some stuff but in the next breath claim that theism is a perfectly good alternative despite us not having anything other than "it says so in this old book" as evidence in support.
Click to expand...

And so you will be telling me how the brain produces consciousness? Or at least a rough sketch of the causal mechanism? Or at least what the word itself actually means?

Until then, I will continue to point out this glaring flaw.
 
Fudbucker said:
Nobody just throws up their hands and says "to hell with it, if materialism can't answer it, I guess we'll just have to give up". What happens is, you look for a conventional explanation. When that doesn't pan out, you start looking at unconventional explanations. When those don't pan out, you start to look at really out-there explanations. It doesn't have to be theism, but it might be something like panpsychism. Or a consciousness "field" that permeates the universe. Or Integrated Information Theory. Before you know it, you're way out in dualism land.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of surrendering. It's about having the intellectual integrity and maturity to admit that you dont know when you don't. No one likes questions that seem unanswerable. But answering them with unproven bovine feces is worse. It's messy and it stinks.

You can't explain Gods, miracles, mysticism or anything supernatural either.
Can you? Answering a mystery with another mystery doesn't get you an inch closer to what the answer is, so why not just admit you don't know?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
And so you will be telling me how the brain produces consciousness? Or at least a rough sketch of the causal mechanism? Or at least what the word itself actually means?

Until then, I will continue to point out this glaring flaw.
Click to expand...

Despite it being off topic? Go ahead. Let's see how that works out.
 
acbytesla said:
It's not a question of surrendering. It's about having the intellectual integrity and maturity to admit that you dont know when you don't. No one likes questions that seem unanswerable. But answering them with unproven bovine feces is worse. It's messy and it stinks.
Click to expand...

Everything is unproven, before it is proven. Little organisms we can't see making us sick? Laughable.

You can't explain Gods, miracles, mysticism or anything supernatural either. Can you? Answering a mystery with another mystery doesn't get you an inch closer to what the answer is, so why not just admit you don't know?
Click to expand...

I am admitting we don't know. I think we should look in areas that might seem ridiculous. Ridiculous things sometimes turn out to be true. Other people (not just cranks) are starting to go this route: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom