Quote:



You don't understand it because of some lack of open-mindedness. If you reserve the term «natural» to material, then consciousness is indeed supernatural. But that's not how I see it. Minds are absolutely part of nature in my book, but they're not material.


Quote:



Your sarcasm shows the limitation of your open-mindedness.


Quote:



Thanks for your intelligent and passably open-minded contribution! I'm sure you did your best...
.

Quote:



That makes sense; I can see how a 2-D object can evolve over time given the third coordinate is time. But I don't see how this factors into your discussion.

Quote:



Who is to say that such things were not part of material reality? We are treading into perilously grey ground here, by discussing things that science has not yet found explanations for. This, however, should not automatically preclude the explanation of such wonders of nature (as in most of our neural functions) as explainable only by a sense of wonderment and abstract concepts.

Quote:



Ah, but what is the mind? Refer to my paragraph above.

I hesitate to quote concepts from R. Dawkins (excellent flame material), but you cannot simply find areas that science has not gotten to yet and claim that the 'unscience' has filled it.

To someone above who claimed that science is a religion, he should carefully review the concepts of both modes of thinking and re-evaluate his statement.

Quote:



Consciousness is an abstraction of something that's material (nothing but people's delusions suggests otherwise). I see no reason for thinking otherwise. There is not a single shed of evidence for anything no material ever existing. I'm not talking about abstract concepts, which are merely simplifications for us to easier make sense of the world. (It's so much easier, and more relevant to our perception of light, to talk about "colour" than specifying a spectrum, wavelength distribution of photons or similar.) In that sense, sure, consciousness exists, as an abstraction for the complex inner workings of our brain.

Not too long ago, the stars were believed to lie outside of our world. They were the work of something supernatural. Or maybe supernatural in themselves. There was no good explanation, because science hadn't been invented yet. So what was people to believe? Thunder, fire, natural disasters, disease, ... Today some people intuitively feel that life or consciousness cannot have a natural/materialistic explanation because they don't understand it.

Could you devise an experiment whose outcome could potentially prove that consciousness is not material? I can't even comprehend the definitions involved here; I don't know what something not material is (unless you're just talking about abstractions like "love", "colour" etc., which are semantic tools). Unfalsifiable theories that are 'not even wrong' are junk, just like my theory on magical farts. Of course, first you would have to define what you mean in more detail. Until then, it's no less gibberish than my magical fart theory.

Listen to yourselves I think someone needs to watch the video again

Not everything is in the domain of science. Not everything can be proven true or false through observation and analysis (actually almost nothing can really be proven in an absolute sense). And not every decision can be made through rational thought! Philosophy and religion are in a different domain. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything beyond our universe (or outside of the physical realm, so to speak), by definition. Religion cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything beyond our universe, because as soon as you embark on such attempts at "proof" you are getting into the realm of science and not philosophy. This is why these kind of debates are an exercise in futility, regardless of whether it is a zealot or an atheist who makes the first assertion.

Let me introduce some of you to Richard Alpert,




ignore the misleading title.

Quote:



I chose this model for illustrating my concept.


Quote:



Why are you saying «material» reality? It would suffice to call it reality and leave it to reality if it's strictly material or a hybrid, where the material level is one of a few or many. That's what I'd call open-mindedness. Of course I can see how it's hard to avoid a world view where the material world is the personification of reality, not just one manifestation of reality among others.


Quote:



Abstract concepts are necessary for the scientific classification of phenomena and reality in general. For instance, the dimensions are such an abstract concept. And the classification of the material aspect of reality as the only possible and valid level of reality is another one.


Quote:



I'm not pretending to know what it is. Moreover there's the language barrier -- in my native tongue there's no exact synonym for it. It can be seen as synonym for consciousness (among others) -- which is by definition immaterial. From a scientific perspective it is of course integrated in the physical world view and as such a consequence of a complicated network of neurons, fed by electric signals from the sense organs and -- by processing those -- reacting to those in a barely foreseeable way according to individual patterns which have formed themselves by means of the constant input during the lifetime of the system and moreover are also determined by genetic predisposition. The whole system is able to identify and analyse complex input-signal patterns and use them as guidelines for behavior control in order to maximize drive satisfaction, chance of survival as well as to cultivate some newly developed drive sublimations...

That's about the scientific concept of the mind/the consciousness. But it's not the whole story. The mind is able to create new worlds -- which «only» exist in its fantasy. It can create almost everything. Where's the difference to the «real», material world? It's easy: in the measurability. That's logical: those measuring instruments are made for measuring the material level, not mind products. Well, the latter is more of a joke, but the argument isn't completely absurd nonetheless. Let's not forget one decisive point: The inner reality is only accessible to the corresponding mind/person. Is this reason enough to competely dismiss it as possible reality? Not in my opinion. E.g. it can easily be brought to paper and in this form it's accessible to other minds.

Now from a strictly material-oriented science such a book just consists of a bunch of different atoms. But in fact those are -- and this aspect is -- secondary with respect to its history of origin and its meaning in reality.

So if I had to picture this book in my 3-dimensional space/time cube, it would certainly make a more important trace within the history of the universe than just a few negligible atoms. And I would treat unprinted ideas the same.
.

Quote:



No, I'm not a scientist anyway. But could you prove that it's material?
.

The dimensions may be abstract, but they are concretely defined. When I say abstract, I am referring more to the use of definitions so vague that one cannot quite fathom them. Bad choice of words on my part.

Interesting point. However, due to the way you defined it - e.g., the measurability of our 'fantasy', I doubt that you will ever be able to 'share' such experiences with others, as everyone is different.

Case and point is illustrated in your book example: without a concrete definition (say, the book gets illustrated with direction of the author, or perhaps made into a movie), everyone will see the same concept differently. This precludes the sharing of "absolutes" like 'increased soundstage.'

Hence why I think people who get mad when others don't seem to share or doubt in the same 'absolutes' (e.g. the sound vocabulary) are irrational.

The concept of consciousness is a tricky subject, as you have alluded to. However, with no evidence to convince me to believe you, I defer to the 'material' side which suggests that to be uniquely individual is to be uniquely physical.

I am, however, open to any alternate explanations, with evidence to convince me so.

Quote:



It's irrelevant if people share exactly the same fantasy with the «author». The main thing is that they have been influenced by it/him. On this level of reality the laws of physics of the material level of reality don't exist anyway -- everything is possible, also individual perceptions of the same immaterial reality.

After all a universe without your and my personal thoughts and ideas would not be the same, no matter how thin the traces in the «space/time/consciousness... continuum» they cause.
.

Quote:



I'm very very sure that our existence has the most infinitesimal impact on the universe, if any at all. : P

I cannot debate on you whether other levels of influenceable reality exist, as I am not well equipped for that. But I cannot disprove it, nor prove it. I'll have to leave that topic as is for now.

Quote:



In practice, yes, science is not always applicable. Problems are usually too complicated too solve. Or accuracy isn't really required. Or you can use rules of thumb. Real life isn't like an episode of "Numbers" where you can magically apply obscure branches of mathematics to solve any given problem.

In principle, though, I'm not so sure we ought to be so humble. We have a very good understanding of the world. There are a lot of details to be worked out, but on a microscopic level, most things we've encountered are understood in principle, except for quantum gravity, which is irrelevant in our everyday lives. Biology is essentially applied biochemistry which is chemistry, and chemistry as we all know is merely an application of physics.

Quote:



Right, but what is outside of our universe? To me, "outside of the physical realm" is an oxymoron. If it influences our world, it's a part of it. And if not, it isn't, and then it's not even wrong and utterly useless except as pure fiction either for entertainment or for controlling sheep.

Why postulate something on no real basis which cannot be observed and explains nothing?

Saying something is supernatural, or "outside of our physical realm" is just substituting an unknown (or undefined) for another unknown.

Quote:



Hmm, am I the atheist here? I haven't been able to refute god yet, although I haven't seen him either. I don't think it would be open minded to believe in god (which one btw?) or any other supernatural thing when there's no evidence.

I think you meant to say inside our universe? If not it doesn't make sense. In that case I think you're right. That's simply a very sensitive way of saying that religion is utterly useless as far as the real, physical world is concerned. Maybe it's futile to discuss science with people who think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, I don't know. At least I don't think telling people the truth does any harm, which is far from what I can say about religion and other forms of superstition and irrational beliefs.

People thought *I* was involved in a long, off-topic, quote-happy, personal discussion of dubious utility.

Well, I didn't mean to interrupt. All this stuff IS fun and thought-provoking.

Quote:



I think so, but it depends on your definition of "consciousness". You would have to be precise. I'm not really sure I know what "consciousness" means.

Self-awareness is maybe something that sets us apart.

That could be examined by making a model of our brain and see if it develops this feature. It could become self-aware and start searching for non-obvious meanings for its existence, or whatever your definition is. Maybe this could come as a result of genetic algorithms. If this happens, I hope they make it look like Summer Glau and not Arnie.

must...not...post...joke...about...self...awarenes s...