Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

Science does not understand our consciousness of God…

Spread the love

The City Summer 2016…but not for the reasons we might think. Let’s start with consciousness in general to see why.

From Denyse O’Leary (O’Leary for News) at The City (Houston Baptist U):

Science writer Margaret Wertheim, reflecting on why consciousness is such a hot topic now, notes that Giulio Tononi has described the idea that mere matter could generate mind as a mystery “stranger than immaculate conception… an impossibility that defie[s] belief.” (Phi, 2012) Nonetheless, he and many others appear resolved to believe and act on that admitted impossibility. Given their commitments, they have no choice. And given current research directions, there may never be a good theory of consciousness. More.

See also: Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

and

Science fictions series 4: Naturalism and the human mind

Follow UD News at Twitter!

One Reply to “Science does not understand our consciousness of God…

  1. 1
    redwave says:

    Denyse O’Leary. Your article was an excellent brief overview of the subject. And providing links to underlying articles was very helpful. Much appreciated.

    Physicalists, whether reductive or non-reductive, will not “come near” to a resolution for their problem with consciousness and the consciousness of God for many reasons. One reason is the current difficulties with bridging the gulf between quantum physical reality and the reality we experience as a “bulk” or complex ensemble of quanta of actions. The difficulty is not one from the contiguity of reality, except in analytic terms, because our experience of reality is imbued, saturated, with or by the fundamental reality of quanta … simply we can not objectivify ourselves to a sufficient extent to form incontrovertible evidence for an absolute physicalism. If we are only a complex ensemble of quanta, any and all propositions for physicalism are irretrievably metaphysical. We would need to reasonably treat the paradoxes encountered at every layer of inquiry. Noting: “Absolute physicalism” is physicalism “set free” from nonphysicalism (Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve. OED, 2014).

    Physicalists have no place to go beyond the boundaries of thirteen point seventy nine billion years, of ninety three billion light years, beyond the boundaries of spacetime. Physicalists have not found themselves in the journey toward the one nanometer sized atomic layer and beyond reaching the ten to the minus thirty five Planck length. The boundaries are stretched so broadly that physicalists appear to believe there is sufficient “room to move” toward a well-defined resolution. This is a hope for the future, a belief in the possibilities, a metaphysical orientation, and even an otherwise “hidden” teleological course, not unlike the religious beliefs in human experiencing that will not go away through the imposition of the physicalists’ misology. The physicalist’s hope can not become inviolable through denial.

    Mystical experiences are evidence for both physicalism’s near-sightedness and metaphysicalism’s far-sightedness. The “ultimate” conclusion, if such exists, is not residing at the extrema in propositional discourse, in toto, in solo. Rather, somewhere in between dynamic minima and maxima our trajectories turn and penetrate the boundaries, folding and unfolding reality, at critical points for human experiencing.

Leave a Reply