The Enigma of Consciousness — challenges for Evolutionists and Materialists

_{Salvador Cordova

November 28, 2013

Mind, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I had accepted the evolutionary story since elementary school. I think I accepted it after seeing diagrams and visiting the Air and Space Museum and learning of our supposed origins. I didn’t find the story revolting. I found it kind of cool we were evolving and getting better and better.

But as a freshman in high school, I began to doubt evolution when I considered the problem of consciousness. I remember sitting in class and the biology teacher gave the standard talking points. But for some reason, the fact I was conscious did not seem reducible to evolutionary explanations. Strange that I would even be perplexed about it as a high school student, but I was. That was the beginning of my doubts about Darwin…

Years later, when I related the story to Walter ReMine, he explained to me consciousness poses a serious problem for evolution.

He said something to the effect, “Say an animal has to flee a predator — all it has to do is run away. Why does it have to evolve consciousness in order to flee predators?” Mechanically speaking the animal can be programmed to flee or even hunt without having to be self-aware. Why does it have to evolve consciousness to do anything for survival?

Why would selection favor the evolution of consciousness? How does selection select for the pre-cursors of consciousness? I don’t think it can. Ergo, consciousness didn’t evolve, or it’s just a maladaptation, or an illusion — or maybe it is created by God. Materialists can say consciousness is an illusion all they want, but once upon a time, when my arm was broken in a hang gliding crash, I felt real pain. It would have been nice if consciousness were an illusion back then, it wasn’t. Even with the questions of split-brain patients, something tells me that even if my consciousness had been split, there would still be a conscious entity feeling the pain from that shattered arm.

If we consider the two cells (one from the mother and the other from the father) that conceive a human, are those cells conscious, sentient beings? Most will say they are not. But then these cells join and somewhere along the way, a conscious being emerges from a mechanical process? Something seems wrong with this picture. Something seems paradoxical. How can a purely mechanical process create consciousness?

One way the paradox is resolved is to assume consciousness is more fundamental than matter and energy. That is the view of some physicists. Shockingly, the journal Nature allowed such a bold proposal in its prestigious pages:

The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental.
…
According to Sir James Jeans: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
….
The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual.

Richard Conn Henry
The Mental Universe: Nature Volume 436

The Quantum Enigma of Consciousness and the Identity of the Designer

I suppose we cannot formally prove that view, but I sympathize with it, I accept it as true — if consciousness exists, it is in a separate realm than the mechanical, material universe.

Can a Darwinist explain how selection selects for the pre-cursors of consciousness? Can a computer engineer say what number of bits is needed to implement it? I don’t think so. Logically it seems to transcend pure materialism (matter and energy). It is reassuring some physicists share this view as well. MIND and spirit, more than matter and energy, could well be the ultimate reality.

Photo credits superstock

Comments

While interacting in day-to-day life, we need to act or react to bodily processes and the happenings in our environment/world, sometimes instantly, to provide us beneficial outcomes. Consciousness is designed by the evolutionary process to filter out data from such interactions that may require power of making judgments to become available for the decision making process, thereby benefiting from such interactions. The process is explained in detail here http://www.whatismind.com/WIDN.aspx and here http://www.whatismind.com/WIDN2.aspx (free membership)ignoramus99_{December 7, 2013
December
12
Dec
7
07
2013
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PST}

Mapou, you tell me that you have learned nothing. What you should have learned is that you run away from tough questions. Your theory makes little sense and you know it. At least I bet your knower knows it. Don't try to deny it, because you cannot know :)Box_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST}

Box:
Summary: We cannot know the knower because my theory says so.
No, it's not my theory. It's the nature of opposites, of yin and yang. It's an age-old truth. PS. I think you are a man/woman of bad faith, whoever you are. You've been wasting my time in this thread. I learned absolutely nothing from you. This is my last reply to you. Adios.Mapou_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

Mapou #45
Box: what is the basis for the knower’s decisions?

Mapou: And how many times have it said that the knower cannot be known and the known cannot know by definition?
So how do we even know that there is a knower? This is getting ridiculous. What do we even mean with ‘I’?? Not the knower I presume … because the knower (sigh) cannot be known. Contrary to your belief, that we cannot know anything about the knower, you were willing to share with me that the knower examines neural pathways and makes decisions. You cannot know that by definition right? But when I ask you for the basis of these decisions you reply with: ‘the knower cannot be known’.
Mapou: We can only infer that the knower has some grounding in the spiritual realm but the spiritual realm is forever beyond direct scrutiny. Why? because that is its nature by yin-yang necessity. Only the known can be known.
‘Some grounding in the spiritual realm’ or whatever. Surely, we cannot know this … why? Because my theory says so. Summary: We cannot know the knower because my theory says so.Box_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PST}

box:
Mapou: The neural pathways are the thoughts.
Simply asserting something doesn’t make it so. How are chemical processes thoughts? How is that obvious?
Well, neural pathways don't have to be chemical. They could be electro-mechanical. They just happen to use electrochemical processes in the brain for whatever reason. Are you telling me that this is not obvious and that the brain could be using some other form of processing? That's news to me.
Mapou: Thoughts cannot make decisions on their own. It takes two to tango.
According to you, the knower chooses between neural pathways. By doing so it needs a basis / grounding. You did agree with this analysis. For the third time in a row I ask you: what is the basis for the knower’s decisions?
And how many times have it said that the knower cannot be known and the known cannot know by definition? We can only infer that the knower has some grounding in the spiritual realm but the spiritual realm is forever beyond direct scrutiny. Why? because that is its nature by yin-yang necessity. Only the known can be known.
Then there is also the question ‘how does the knower do this’, which you forgot to answer.
If I knew everything, I would be some kind of exalted guru sitting on top of some holy mountain somewhere but, fortunately, I'm not. I'm just a researcher and I like it that way. However, there can be no doubt that there is some form of physical arrangement of matter that makes it possible for knower and known to interact. If I had the money, I would set up some kind of biological lab to look for it. Unfortunately, I am not a multi-millionaire. Hopefully, Bill Gates or some other fortunate soul is reading this thread and may fork up the money to investigate the matter. I have some ideas on how to conduct the search but they're just ideas.Mapou_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST}

Mapou: The neural pathways are the thoughts.
Simply asserting something doesn’t make it so. How are chemical processes thoughts? How is that obvious?
Mapou: Thoughts cannot make decisions on their own. It takes two to tango.
According to you, the knower chooses between neural pathways. By doing so it needs a basis / grounding. You did agree with this analysis. For the third time in a row I ask you: what is the basis for the knower's decisions? Then there is also the question ‘how does the knower do this’, which you forgot to answer.
Mapou: I suspect you’re trying to pull a Zen trick on me, the sound of one hand clapping and all that nonsense.
I don’t know what you are talking about here, I have lost interest in eastern religion a long time ago.Box_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST}

Box:
Generally worded: The knower can translate chemical processes into thoughts, feelings, will and can consequently select on them? If so, how did the knower acquire this translating ability?
Nope, the knower translates nothing. The neural pathways are the thoughts. Thoughts cannot make decisions on their own. It takes two to tango.
You try to separate thinker and thoughts and I’m arguing that this is not logically possible.
But I am not doing that at all. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. It takes two things to think, the thinker and the thought, i.e., the knower and the known. Neither the thinker nor the thought can think by itself. The two are complementary opposites. I, more than anyone I know, am a firm believer in a yin-yang reality. Opposites are ONE but they are not the same thing. I suspect you're trying to pull a Zen trick on me, the sound of one hand clapping and all that nonsense.Mapou_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PST}

Mapou #41
Box: When I asked you about memories, thoughts, feelings and will, you told me that “all the things you mentioned are in the brain’s cortex”, so on what does the knower bases its decisions? Because if the knower makes decisions for the brain, as you seem to say, there must be a ground for decisions external from the brain.

Mapou: Absolutely. Decisions are like pathways in the brain. The knower examines them and selects which one to take.
So the knower somehow knows what different neural pathways are ‘thinking’ about. Generally worded: The knower can translate chemical processes into thoughts, feelings, will and can consequently select on them? If so, how did the knower acquire this translating ability? The knower examines neural pathways, you say, with … its eyes? The knower translates chemical processes into thoughts with … reason? The knower makes decisions based on .. thoughts?
Mapou: To borrow from Blaise Pascal, the knower has its reasons, which reason does not know. I think this is where free will comes in. Again, the knower cannot be known. We can only observe its choices.
You cannot strip the knower of the ability to think and then let the knower make decisions based on free will without grounding. First your theory strips the thinker of the ability to think. After that you realize that you still need an agency to explain decision-making. Then you propose a ‘knower’ - NOT a thinker - whose primary job is making decisions. However by definition the knower’s decisions - selecting on different neural pathways - are based on nothing. Not because ‘we cannot know the knower’, but because the knower is bereft of all the necessary mental capacities to make informed decisions. You try to separate thinker and thoughts and I’m arguing that this is not logically possible.Box_{November 30, 2013
November
11
Nov
30
30
2013
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PST}

Box @40:
Mapou: The knower chooses what to focus on and what to do.
The knower chooses this based on .. what? When I asked you about memories, thoughts, feelings and will, you told me that “all the things you mentioned are in the brain’s cortex”, so on what does the knower bases its decisions? Because if the knower makes decisions for the brain, as you seem to say, there must be a ground for decisions external from the brain.
Absolutely. Decisions are like pathways in the brain. The knower examines them and selects which one to take. To borrow from Blaise Pascal, the knower has its reasons, which reason does not know. I think this is where free will comes in. Again, the knower cannot be known. We can only observe its choices.
You try to separate thinker and thoughts and I’m arguing that this is not logically possible.
Well, I agree but there are conscious thoughts and there are unconscious thoughts. There is an amazing number of things that occur all the time in the brain that we are completely unaware of. As I said earlier, the cerebellum is an automaton, our trusted robot helper in the back of the brain that performs all sorts of complex tasks for us without our being conscious of them. If we did not have a cerebellum, we would not be able to think or talk while walking or even sitting in a chair.Mapou_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PST}

Mapou: The knower chooses what to focus on and what to do.
The knower chooses this based on .. what? When I asked you about memories, thoughts, feelings and will, you told me that "all the things you mentioned are in the brain’s cortex", so on what does the knower bases its decisions? Because if the knower makes decisions for the brain, as you seem to say, there must be a ground for decisions external from the brain. You try to separate thinker and thoughts and I'm arguing that this is not logically possible.Box_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PST}

Box @38:
So the knower is not a thinker – it is the brain that thinks independently from the knower. Likewise the knower is not actually feeling – it is the brain/ nervous system that feels independently from the knower. Likewise the knower is not willing something – it is the brain who is doing the willing independently from the knower. So our conception of ourselves is invalid. The knower – or the combination knower-brain – is deceiving us to believe that we are in control and have free will, that we are persons who think, feel and act on will. But in fact there is a totally passive knower and a brain who is responsible for about everything?
In my opinion, the brain does all the hard work of learning and building a model of the world automatically. However, it cannot make decisions about what to learn and which courses of actions to take. The knower chooses what to focus on and what to do. What you call "feeling" is what I call "sensing". Unless the knower is focusing on a phenomenon, it can have no conscious knowledge of it. In my research I have found that knowledge is organized hierarchically, like a tree. Each branch of the tree represents an object or concept. Only one branch can be active at any one time; that's the mechanism of attention. In humans, it's the knower/spirit that decides which branch to activate. Even then, our focus on a particular subject can last no more than about 12 seconds and then it is forced to switch to something else (another branch). This is almost always true except when innate programming takes over, usually in situations having to do with pain, injury, reproduction, etc.Mapou_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST}

Mapou #34
BOX #33: Why do we perceive our memories, thoughts, feelings and will directly – internal? We do in fact, don’t we? Are they not part of your alleged invisible knower?

Maopou #34: In my opinion, no. All the things you mentioned are in the brain’s cortex, i.e., in memory. We know them precisely because they are in the brain and are what I call the “known”. What you and I call an “intention” is really a sequence of potential actions in memory that may or may not be activated at a later date.
So the knower is not a thinker – it is the brain that thinks independently from the knower. Likewise the knower is not actually feeling – it is the brain/ nervous system that feels independently from the knower. Likewise the knower is not willing something – it is the brain who is doing the willing independently from the knower. So our conception of ourselves is invalid. The knower – or the combination knower-brain – is deceiving us to believe that we are in control and have free will, that we are persons who think, feel and act on will. But in fact there is a totally passive knower and a brain who is responsible for about everything?Box_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PST}

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-195-after-pentecost 7. The Vulnerability of Materialism (2078.4) 195:7.1 How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith — human belief in spiritual realities and divine values. (2078.5) 195:7.2 Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The “scientific method” is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences. (2078.6) 195:7.3 The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe. (2078.7) 195:7.4 Paradise values of eternity and infinity, of truth, beauty, and goodness, are concealed within the facts of the phenomena of the universes of time and space. But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values. (2078.8) 195:7.5 The realities and values of spiritual progress are not a “psychologic projection” — a mere glorified daydream of the material mind. Such things are the spiritual forecasts of the indwelling Adjuster, the spirit of God living in the mind of man. And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of “relativity” disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self. (2079.1) 195:7.6 If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled. (2079.2) 195:7.7 The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic. (2079.3) 195:7.8 The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine. (2079.4) 195:7.9 A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit. (2079.5) 195:7.10 The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it. (2079.6) 195:7.11 If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status. (2079.7) 195:7.12 If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation. (2079.8) 195:7.13 If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts. (2079.9) 195:7.14 The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual. (2079.10) 195:7.15 Art proves that man is not mechanistic, but it does not prove that he is spiritually immortal. Art is mortal morontia, the intervening field between man, the material, and man, the spiritual. Poetry is an effort to escape from material realities to spiritual values. (2080.1) 195:7.16 In a high civilization, art humanizes science, while in turn it is spiritualized by true religion — insight into spiritual and eternal values. Art represents the human and time-space evaluation of reality. Religion is the divine embrace of cosmic values and connotes eternal progression in spiritual ascension and expansion. The art of time is dangerous only when it becomes blind to the spirit standards of the divine patterns which eternity reflects as the reality shadows of time. True art is the effective manipulation of the material things of life; religion is the ennobling transformation of the material facts of life, and it never ceases in its spiritual evaluation of art. (2080.2) 195:7.17 How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons! (2080.3) 195:7.18 Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it. (2080.4) 195:7.19 Mechanists — humanists — tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams. (2080.5) 195:7.20 Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical. (2080.6) 195:7.21 In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals — of love and hate, of cowardice and courage — represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment. (2080.7) 195:7.22 The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal. (2080.8) 195:7.23 The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity.LuisMarco_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PST}

The Urantia Papers 5th epochal divine revelation (published 1955):
LuisMarco_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

Which story are you referring to? I believe that animals possess consciousness without self-reflection.
From: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%205&version=ESV
5 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes.[a] 2 And when Jesus[b] had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, 4 for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” 10 And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, 12 and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea.
As far as atheists and ghosts, here is a discussion. Buried in the comments, we have some atheists reporting ghost sightings: http://www.atheistrev.com/2010/05/atheists-who-believe-in-ghosts.html scordova_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

Box @33:
I don’t understand your position at all. How does one explain being conscious of e.g. ones intentions? Intentions do not necessarily lead to actions, besides we have direct access to our intentions. Why do we perceive our memories, thoughts, feelings and will directly – internal? We do in fact, don’t we? Are they not part of your alleged invisible knower? Please explain.
Are they not part of your alleged invisible knower? In my opinion, no. All the things you mentioned are in the brain's cortex, i.e., in memory. We know them precisely because they are in the brain and are what I call the "known". What you and I call an "intention" is really a sequence of potential actions in memory that may or may not be activated at a later date. PS. I realize that my understanding of consciousness and intelligence goes contrary to that of many here at UD and the Christian and materialist communities at large but these are things that I have meditated on for many years and they form the basis of my research on intelligence and the brain.Mapou_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PST}

Mapou #32: In my opinion, what we call “the self” consists of all the things that we know. Nobody can reflect directly on the knower, in my view. (..) a spirit can only be known by its actions, i.e., indirectly.
I don't understand your position at all. How does one explain being conscious of e.g. ones intentions? Intentions do not necessarily lead to actions, besides we have direct access to our intentions. Why do we perceive our memories, thoughts, feelings and will directly - internal? We do in fact, don't we? Are they not part of your alleged invisible knower? Please explain.Box_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

Box @30:
Mapou, if the knower cannot be known how does one explain self-consciousness? Self-consciousness means that the knower reflects on the knower, right? ~ BTW I’m asking you this question for the third time now. Maybe this time you will feel inclined to answer.
Box, I'm sorry. I must have missed your previous requests. It happens. This forum's software leaves a little to be desired because it has no email notification mechanism. In my opinion, what we call "the self" consists of all the things that we know. Nobody can reflect directly on the knower, in my view. As a Christian, I believe that not even God can know the knower directly. This is why the scriptures teach us that every spirit must be tested and that a spirit can only be known by its actions, i.e., indirectly.Mapou_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST}

Scordova #26: My own personal theological speculation. When the cells from mother and father unite to create a new life, in terms of the material substrate what is forming is essentially a storage container and a radio like receiver for signals from the immaterial world.
We can agree that something like this must be happening, because a bottom-up explanation from the two cells is inconceivable (see my 4 arguments in post#16).
Scordova #26: If one is a Christian, and one accepts the story of the demon possession and how a legion of sentient, self-conscious, self-aware demons migrated from a demon possessed man into a herd of pigs, and the pigs went over the cliff, then the receiver/storage contain model seems to depict this.
I’m no Christian and believe in reincarnation so I don’t have any problems with your speculation.
Scordova #26: Are animals sentient, well if one accepts the story, their bodies are capable of being multiply-sentient!
Which story are you referring to? I believe that animals possess consciousness without self-reflection.
Scordova #26: Keiths at TSZ thought his split brain essay somehow disproved the existence of souls, I interpreted it to mean it showed multiple souls can exist in one body or a single soul can exist in multiple persons (hmm, Keiths unwittingly lent support to one certain Christian doctrine of more than one persons in one essence ).
As usual I like Bornagain77’s input in this thread. And Eugen (post 37) makes a profound observation about split brains: “Cutting connections between two cooperating processors is quite an event. If anything, it’s amazing how it all still works after something severe as that.” Indeed, the fact that it all still works points towards the strength of unity and consciousness – contrary to Keiths claim that split brain symptoms indicate that there is no such thing.
Scordova #26: Curiously, lots of atheists have reported they’ve seen ghosts. I wonder why? :shock:
Can you give me a link? :)Box_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PST}

Mapou #28 (..) the undeniable fact is that it takes two things for consciousness to exist: the knower and the known. The two are opposites by definition. That is to say, the knower cannot be known and the known cannot know.
Mapou, if the knower cannot be known how does one explain self-consciousness? Self-consciousness means that the knower reflects on the knower, right? ~ BTW I'm asking you this question for the third time now. Maybe this time you will feel inclined to answer.Box_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

selvaRajan:
No. Surely you will agree that there is a difference between giving God as reason for a phenomenon (which hinders science)-
You've been called on this nonsense many times before. This is like saying that we should not study an archaeological artifact because we know it was designed by a human designer. Wake up.Mapou_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST}

selvaRajan:
Well,there is consciousness. If there is no evolutionary precursor to consciousness, then obviously it has to have come from the body, and the most likely part is brain – neurons in brain. All we need to do is explore and find what creates consciousness from those neurons or find a field which influences neurons to create consciousness. Even if you believe God created consciousness there has to be a mechanism by which consciousness arises, so what is mechanism of consciousness? We don’t have enough knowledge yet, but we will get there.
We will not get there if we assume a priori, as materialists cluelessly do, that consciousness is simply the result of some kind of brain chemistry. The salient point of scordova's article is that consciousness cannot be selected for by evolution because it affords no survival advantage to a living organism. In fact, it's a hindrance to survival because a conscious organism becomes preoccupied with activities (such as music and the arts) that have nothing to do with survival. As I've said elsewhere, the undeniable fact is that it takes two things for consciousness to exist: the knower and the known. The two are opposites by definition. That is to say, the knower cannot be known and the known cannot know. We can safely assume that the known is part of the brain's neural networks. The knower cannot be part of the brain because it cannot be known by definition. That being said, there has to be something (a physical or chemical property) about the parts of the brain that are involved with consciousness that makes it possible for knower and known to interact. This "something" is what we should be searching for. As an aside, we need not look in the cerebellum because we already know it's not involved with consciousness. The cerebellum is an automaton that handles routine tasks such as posture and balance.Mapou_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PST}

bornagain77, Thank you for the links. More food for thought. Box,
I take it that by ‘superfluous’ you mean incorrect?
No. Surely you will agree that there is a difference between giving God as reason for a phenomenon (which hinders science)- which is what I am objecting to, and belief in God for spiritual guidance but going about exploring and discovering universe's many secrets as scientifically as possible - which is what most scientists do and which is what I advocate.
Why not start off with a more simple question, like by which mechanism was the universe created?
I think both are difficult ! No one is satisfied with origin of universe theory - least of all the physicists. Every one is still searching for a better theory to fit the data or discover new evidence to fit the theory. The universe is vast and does not yield to experimentations. At least the progress is satisfactory.selvaRajan_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PST}

Box, My own personal theological speculation. When the cells from mother and father unite to create a new life, in terms of the material substrate what is forming is essentially a storage container and a radio like receiver for signals from the immaterial world. If one is a Christian, and one accepts the story of the demon possession and how a legion of sentient, self-conscious, self-aware demons migrated from a demon possessed man into a herd of pigs, and the pigs went over the cliff, then the receiver/storage contain model seems to depict this. Are animals sentient, well if one accepts the story, their bodies are capable of being multiply-sentient! Keiths at TSZ thought his split brain essay somehow disproved the existence of souls, I interpreted it to mean it showed multiple souls can exist in one body or a single soul can exist in multiple persons (hmm, Keiths unwittingly lent support to one certain Christian doctrine of more than one persons in one essence ). Physicists suggests quantum wave-functions must be collapsed non-material entity somewhere in the regress. We build such machines already like the double-slit delayed choice experiments. That was the quantum enigma I described here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ Penrose, sort of suggest this too, but of course, being a materialist, he has to frame his description in guarded ways.... Curiously, lots of atheists have reported they've seen ghosts. I wonder why? :shock: These are theological speculations. They are not amenable to observation, hypothesis, and testing. They may be true, but outside the reach of science. Like non-computable numbers, there are truths that our minds will never comprehend, and as Gödel showed, some truths must simply be received on faith. Salscordova_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

Selvarajan: niwrad, I agree. I think that was a superfluous statement by me that I shouldn’t have used.
I take it that by 'superfluous' you mean incorrect?
Selvarajan: I can’t reconcile to the fact that we just say ‘evolution can’t do it’ and sit back. If Intelligent agent infused consciousness, we need to figure out how it was done.
That is quite ambitious ... Why not start off with a more simple question, like by which mechanism was the universe created?Box_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

as to "If Intelligent agent infused consciousness, we need to figure out how it was done. What is the alternate mechanism to evolution? What does ‘infuse’ mean in terms of a process?" Perhaps Rieper's and Stuart Hameroff's work? Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ In the following article, Dr. Hameroff expands on the quantum computation aspect of Rieper, Anders and Vedral paper: Is DNA a quantum computer? Stuart Hameroff Excerpt: DNA could function as a quantum computers with superpositions of base pair dipoles acting as qubits. Entanglement among the qubits, necessary in quantum computation is accounted for through quantum coherence in the pi stack where the quantum information is shared,,, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/dnaquantumcomputer1.htm Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information) - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578 Brain ‘entanglement’ could explain memories - January 2010 Excerpt: In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later. They were also much more complicated than the simple phase-locked oscillations and always matched each other in amplitude as well as in frequency. (Perfect clones) “The precision with which these new sites pick up on the activity of the initiating group is quite astounding – they are perfect clones,” says Plen https://uncommondescent.com/mind/mind-quantum-mechanics-provides-clues-to-human-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-399098 Hameroff's infamous Orch-Or model for quantum consciousness has preliminary confirmation from first direct test for it: Evidence for Quantum Consciousness - video Excerpt: Fascinating new study. The chemical anesthetic 1-azidoanthracine was administered to tadpoles and found to work by disrupting microtubules in the nervous system. A second chemical which repaired the microtubules was found to restore consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wxtzpp4Gts Quantum Cognition and Brain Microtubules - Hameroff - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6Mt9BoZ_M Stuart Hameroff defends Orch-OR (Quantum Consciousness) theory at TSC 2010 - Pt 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAVQjMf2fEQbornagain77_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PST}

niwrad, I agree. I think that was a superfluous statement by me that I shouldn't have used. bornagain77, I can't reconcile to the fact that we just say 'evolution can't do it' and sit back. If Intelligent agent infused consciousness, we need to figure out how it was done. What is the alternate mechanism to evolution? What does 'infuse' mean in terms of a process?selvaRajan_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST}

as to: "All we need to do is explore and find what creates consciousness from those neurons or find a field which influences neurons to create consciousness." Good luck with all that, Surely a Nobel Prize awaits :) Perhaps we can have someone work on the origin of life problem while you are busy with solving the consciousness enigma??? :) More modestly, I'd be happy if someone could just explain how a single neuron randomly 'emerged'. a few notes: Self-awareness in humans is more complex, diffuse than previously thought - August 22, 2012 Excerpt: Self-awareness is defined as being aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors. Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex. However, a research team led by the University of Iowa has challenged this theory by showing that self-awareness is more a product of a diffuse patchwork of pathways in the brain – including other regions – rather than confined to specific areas. The conclusions came from a rare opportunity to study a person with extensive brain damage to the three regions believed critical for self-awareness. The person, a 57-year-old, college-educated man known as "Patient R," passed all standard tests of self-awareness. He also displayed repeated self-recognition, both when looking in the mirror and when identifying himself in unaltered photographs taken during all periods of his life. "What this research clearly shows is that self-awareness corresponds to a brain process that cannot be localized to a single region of the brain,",,, http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-self-awareness-humans-complex-diffuse-previously.html Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem" Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.' David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html The Hard Problem (Of Consciousness) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRG1fA_DQ9s "We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good." Matthew D. Lieberman - neuroscientist - materialist - UCLA professor "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.) "quantum theory entails and irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view." On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories - Sachs - 1986bornagain77_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

selvaRajan
I hope now you can see what happens when we bring God into science-we lose the passion to explore and discover.
Are you joking, aren't you? There were (and still there are) countless scientists who believed in God and in the same time had the passion to explore and discover sciences. For them, whatever they found was sign of God's designs. Evolutionists/materialists/atheists do claim that God is a science-stopper. I don't believe you are one of them.niwrad_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST}

Well,there is consciousness. If there is no evolutionary precursor to consciousness, then obviously it has to have come from the body, and the most likely part is brain - neurons in brain. All we need to do is explore and find what creates consciousness from those neurons or find a field which influences neurons to create consciousness. Even if you believe God created consciousness there has to be a mechanism by which consciousness arises, so what is mechanism of consciousness? We don't have enough knowledge yet, but we will get there. I hope now you can see what happens when we bring God into science-we lose the passion to explore and discover. Science is (base jumping)^infinity, Science is the rush, Science is infinite Dopamine. Experience Science !selvaRajan_{November 29, 2013
November
11
Nov
29
29
2013
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply