Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
A physical interpretation of awareness is silly.
Silly? I'm pretty sure that most of the greatest minds studying the phenomenon of mind would disagree with you. I see this kind of awareness as not so far from everyday, normal animal consciousness. The biochemical basis for long and short term memory is understood pretty well, and it basically works the same across a wide range of animals. Read something by Eric Kandel. I have no doubt that people who mediate properly can having seemingly transcendental experiences. That, in no way, makes the phenomenon ACTUALLY transcendental. The default position should be that all mind IS the result of physical phenomenon. The burden of proof is on you, and so far, I have not read anything that is remotely convincing (with all due repect).
|
|
Flanders!
Trad climber
June Lake, CA
|
|
Jstan writes: "And those who do want to be Christians have a real problem. There are a huge number of people claiming to be Christian out there pushing their own agendas using religion as a
cover. A huge credibilty problem."
No disagreement here. Given that you are on the forum I'll guess that you are a climber, assuming that is true you no doubt have seen a few folks back at camp, or maybe the bar talking about their
conquests of the day. Ever heard someone tell the bros what a cool pitch it was, sinker hands, etc......The only problem is that you just happened to be on a nearby route and saw the debacle. The guy hanging all over the pitch, cussing up a storm, calling BS on the ratings, oh! it's too
greasy today, etc.....
point being we all know that some say they climb 5.11 or 12 or whatever, BUT it doesn't appear to be so in reality, they want to be part of the club for some reason.
Same in Christianity, Jesus said "in that day some will say Lord, Lord, but we did this or that in your name.... And Jesus will say to them, depart from me, I never knew you.
Not everyone who likes the club is a card carrying member apparently.
Doug
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Go Climb-
I haven't forgotten your question but it's complicated and I have a set of papers to grade.It does relate though to your latest post about there being multiple species of Homo around at any one time. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Largo and Ed-
I understand you both and I believe you are both right within the parameters which you both operate. As a person specializing in the material and the measurable, Ed is never going to accept a non material entity or dimension that he can't link to the physical. As a philosopher and I assume meditator, who has experience of a presence or state of awareness permeating the universe, John is never going to change his understanding to exclude that dimension. Perhaps in the distant future (hundreds or thousands of years from now?) these two dimensions will be understood in a common way by both philosophers and physicists, but certainly not in our lifetimes.
I think that Ed is right in the sense that even the experience of a non verbal energy/ intelligence / presence is processed through the human brain. To be aware that one is aware without verbal thought, is still to make use of the brain. I say this somewhat reluctantly as a person who has had a number of extraordinary internal experiences and pondered their source. However, just because the brain can not be excluded does not mean that a universal awareness does not exist. One can't prove that it does, one also can't prove that it doesn't.
Lately though I've begun to think that those of us favoring a non physical dimension to the universe need to change our paradigm. The push since the 1960's has been to try to find a reconciliation with science, to restore what was lost 500 years ago beginning with Galileo. Perhaps the new era we are entering is one in which we accept both as valid but separate ways of understanding the world which nevertheless can and from the awareness/presence point of view should be used simultaneously? The danger and fear of course is that science and technology will overwhelm the spirit. However, if both sides accept that whether true or not, the intuition of a non physical dimension to the universe is beneficial to our species in a practical evolutionary way, this would offer a way forward. It will of course leave the awareness group somewhat unsatisfied since it will sense itself to have succumbed at least partially to a mechanistic view of the universe, but will benefit from the freedom to carry on without having to always justify itself.
I'm groping here so not sure if this will be intelligible or not.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The logicians have fun with materialism:
1) If we are going to explain consciousness, then we have to find some way of defining this thing we are trying to explain. If we can't define it then there is nothing to explain.
(2) When we talk about explanations of consciousness, we are really asking about "How would a materialist explain consciousness in terms of brains", since idealists, dualists or neutral monists don't need any "explanations of consciousness" any more than materialists need "explanations of matter."
(3) If we try to define consciousness directly in terms of neural structure/function then the question we refered to in P2 becomes "How would a materialist explain [some neutral structure/function] in terms of brains?" This can be rejected on two grounds. First, the materialist would be assuming his conclusion. Second, when he talks about consciousness then he isn't refering to the thing most people mean by that word. If consciousness usually meant "neural activity" then this debate would not even be happening. There would be no mind-body problem and no history of ontology.
(4) (from 1, 2 and 3) We have established that we need to define consciousness and that we can't define it in terms of neural function or activity (or behaviour, for that matter.)
(5) We can define consciousness privately, in terms of our own experiences.
(6) We can inductively infer from other people's behaviour that they can do the same thing with in terms of their own experiences. By this method we can end up with consciousness as a word which is usable in this argument and which refers to the thing we are actually trying to explain. At no point in 5 or 6 did we make any assumptions about consciousness not being material. All we did was define it in a way which did not explictly claim it was material.
(7) There are no additional possible means of defining consciousness.
(8) (from 4, 5, 6 and 7): Consciousness cannot be defined without refering to entities which (a) have no material definitions and which (b) have not been assumed to be material with a claim of "materialism is true so they must be material".
(9) If you don't define consciousness as something neural and you don't assume consciousness is material by claiming "it must be, because everything is" then there is no way of defending the claim that consciousness is a material entity.
(10) The existence of consciousness cannot be estabilished without using non-material entities.
Materialists usually complain that the non-materialists have to assume their conclusion in order to falsify materialism. This is not in fact true. The materialists really are dependent on assuming their conclusion, as shown above. But non-materialists have an option that the materialists do not have - they can employ a private ostensive definition to define consciousness subjectively. Simply saying "I know I'm conscious, and that is why I know how to use the word "consciousness"" doesn't actually make any assumptions about the nature of reality.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Given that you are on the forum I'll guess that you are a climber,
No, as most of us here know, "jstan" is just an avatar chosen by a group of Japanese schoolgirls for an English class project. They know nothing about climbing. Probably have never climbed.
Man, but this retardnet is a strange place. Never know who you're talking to.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
"No disagreement here. Given that you are on the forum I'll guess that you are a climber, assuming that is true you no doubt have seen a few folks back at camp, or maybe the bar talking about their conquests of the day. Even heard someone tell the bros what a cool pitch it was, sinker hands, etc......The only problem is that you just happened to be on a nearby route and saw the debacle. The guy hanging all over the pitch, cussing up a storm, calling BS on the ratings, oh! it's too
greasy today, etc....."
You are not going to believe this but I never did encounter a climber behaving this way.
Climbers are a special crew and we have to take that into consideration when constructing our arguments. We also have to allow for the fact, pick any topic, and you will find a half dozen people out there on ST who have made a life study of that topic.
Daunting to say the least. That also has to be taken into consideration.
I believe Thomas Jefferson was one of the people who tried to reconstruct Christ's sayings. We have had quite a slew of mid-eastern scrolls discovered since then. I think there is a real opportunity today for a rebirth. And a rebirth is what is required.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
"you are incapable of explaining"
Wes, here your reach may have exceeded your grasp.
Lo these many posts ago I proposed a functional definition of "consciousness". To wit the present moment holds within it the expectation that another moment shall follow. The biological data supporting this is substantial.
Now
if we here are talking about another consciousness can someone provide a link to the functional definition of that consciousness and the supporting material data?
Ta,
Edit:
A recent biography of Einstein recounts his reply when told he would die were an aneurism not surgically repaired.
I die today or I die tomorrow. What difference?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
A little off topic, but since the discussion has drifted from Ardi to religion to god to consciousness to whatever, I thought I'd pass along the following. A letter Einstein wrote a year before he died was recently auctioned off and in he he wrote the following:
"...I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
I'd say the dead physicist pretty much nails it.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin' place
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
I don't think there is a hard problem. Humans, worms and even lower forms have awareness and reactions that can be expained mechanistically, so those seem subjective, but can be explained objectively.
Our "inner-lives" and experience of awareness and self-consciousness will eventually be shown to be an objective product of our higher level brains.
The fear, among some scientists and sci-fi buffs, that once computers reach a certain number of computations per second threshold they will become conscious and self-aware, reflects this.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Apogee, "Religion is for those who need it." Unknown
bc, "product of human weakness".
Something transports each one of us through this life. Whether it's ourselves alone or ourselves coupled with something else. My vehicle of choice is jesus. lynnie
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin' place
|
|
Lynne,
I'm trying to get by on my own two feet (and hands).
It must be nice for all those individuals riding on the Christian bus or the Muslim bus--I just don't want to get run over.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Wanda, I said jesus, no Christian bus he and he doesn't run people over :D That's why he's my best friend. He cares about Everyone, even me.
Wes, good to have that great sense of humor brandished at Lynnie.....laughin' :DD
Edit: enjoy your ride :)
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
I haven't read all the above postings (who could - I have a life after all)but I can surmise the argument goes on and on between Christians and materialist. Anyway, I just finished a book that I for one really appreciated; "Misquoting Jesus" (Ehrman). The guy was an enthusiastic born again fundamentalist as a youth, but then went to school and got a PhD in New Testament Studies (he's one of the foremost textual scholars today) and came to understand that the Bible IS in fact a product of human thought. That doesn't mean necessarily that it isn't inspired, but that humans in their profound humanness where involved in its writing and in its modifications over the millennia. In the end he seems to have become more of an Episcopalian (just guessing); faithful but thoughtful and open ended all at the same time. Personally I get tired of fundamentalists reading the Bible their way, and also get tired of anti-Christians assuming that is the only way it is or can be read. Shooting down a straw man of your own creating isn't much of a victory. 6000 years doesn't necessarily mean 6000 years in a scientific sense, but "God created the world" is IMHO an idea well worth standing on.
Anyway, whatever your position is, materialist, fundamentalist, or liberal intellectual Christian (or Hindu, as in my case) the book is well worth a read. The nuance factor in your understanding of these "the Bible says" issues will definitely be increased.
Oh, and by the way, if you aren't into old fashioned reading, Audible.com has an audio version on sale right now. Only $5 I believe.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin' place
|
|
Okay Lynne, so you carpool.
To continue the analogy, in a faith-based transportation system everyone and no one has the right (of) way. It's a comfortable ride until you encounter a busload of folks who insist on driving on the left side or who want to drive you off the road because they don't like your make and model. And then evidence-based pedestrians like myself are caught in the pileup.
Basically, I'm saying that I think reliance on faith can comfort individuals, but it is bad for the progress of society.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
"Basically, I'm saying that I think reliance on faith can comfort individuals, but it is bad for the progress of society."
Bingo!
Near perfectly phrased.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
Jan wrote: I haven't forgotten your question but it's complicated and I have a set of papers to grade.It does relate though to your latest post about there being multiple species of Homo around at any one time. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Cool, thanks! I eagerly await your response. And of course, first things first, so good luck with the papers. With that said, back to work for me, too.
Cheers!
GO
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I'd just like to say that I think this thread, although starting off with a rather inflammatory title, has been a particularly good one. It has wandered off topic a fair bit, has presented plenty of differences of opinion of course, but, for the most part the participants have been civil and thoughtful. There are some pretty sharp and interesting people here on Supertopo.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2009 - 04:31pm PT
|
Well, I was going to call the topic title "Strike THREE for the Creationists",
but I felt they should be allowed unlimited swings at the anthropological pitches, just as a matter of "faith".
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Wanda, I don't carpool either :D I was talking solely about individuals. When you begin to extrapolate out to "people" and groups of people you lose me and the point I was trying to make.
It's me and jesus
It's you and you
No generalizations, they are just that.
AOBTW, How in the world is having jesus as my best friend bad for the progress of society. I might argue that jesus encourages me to be the best to others, my planet and myself. He's anti selfish. jess sayin', Lynnie
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!