• 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....

If consciousness is the prime component of reality, then why can't we affect the world through thought alone?
And why does the apparently illusory material world produce reliable predictable results? That no amount of focusing, thinking, meditating or being conscious can affect in any perceivable way?
And if you say that's because it's part of our overarching shared consciousness and we have to obey consciousness' rules, then what you have is materialism by another name.
 
LarryS said:
All the evidence we have shows the fundamental nature of consciousness-everything occurs within consciousness.There is no evidence of anything lying outside consciousness.
Click to expand...


I just noticed the above sentence in your earlier post. That above claim is completely wrong. In fact it's the precise & complete opposite of the actual situation.

It is completely untrue to say that any evidence at all shows that "everything occurs within consciousness".

On the contrary, all known evidence shows that everything is taking place outside your consciousness! All that is happing in your so-called "consciousness", i.e. in your brain chemistry, is a reconstructed/pictured/sensed awareness of everything that is taking place outside of your brain!

Lets put that more simply - when you look into the sky at night and see all sorts of stars and planets, it is certainly untrue for you to claim that those stars and planets exist only in your "consciousness" i.e. just as a figment of your imagination. To the contrary - all known evidence shows that your mind/imagination/consciousness is simply reproducing a visual image of stars, planets, and a night sky in a universe that exists outside of and entirely independently of any human brain.

That's what all the known evidence shows. And that's what's shown as the evidence in every scientific paper ever published. What has never been shown, and never been published in any scientific paper, is the opposite situation which you just claimed, where all events in this universe only happen in the human mind/brain/consciousness, and not in any other external reality at all.
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
If consciousness is the prime component of reality, then why can't we affect the world through thought alone?
And why does the apparently illusory material world produce reliable predictable results? That no amount of focusing, thinking, meditating or being conscious can affect in any perceivable way?
And if you say that's because it's part of our overarching shared consciousness and we have to obey consciousness' rules, then what you have is materialism by another name.
Click to expand...

Thoughts arise in consciousness as any other experience, they hold no special powers or capacity. Yes, I’ve stated many times that the materialism model has utility. And yes, consciousness as primary is similar to a matter as primary model. The question is which model best describes your human experience, is your life a sequence of brain states, a discreet parcel of consciousness; or, is your experience a seamless integrated whole, where everything occurs in consciousness?
 
Introducing extra layers of reality that could complicate things, but miraculously work just like the simpler model, justified by wishful thinking because you feel like you're a spirit. Is that really all you have? All your haughty comments in every consciousness thread amount to this?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Introducing extra layers of reality that could complicate things, but miraculously work just like the simpler model, justified by wishful thinking because you feel like you're a spirit.
Click to expand...

On the other side of the equation, sometimes when I'm not really thinking about anything and I zone out, I lose the feeling of 'specialness' that the 'self' usually offers. Seems to indicate that the feeling of being an observer separate from the world is just an illusion that can be turned off at times.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Introducing extra layers of reality that could complicate things, but miraculously work just like the simpler model, justified by wishful thinking because you feel like you're a spirit. Is that really all you have? All your haughty comments in every consciousness thread amount to this?
Click to expand...

I have added nothing, materialism asserts matter and is far more complex.
 
LarryS said:
I have added nothing, materialism asserts matter and is far more complex.
Click to expand...


It's only more complex in contrast to naive solipsism.

If you're disclaiming solipsism, then you need to explain persistence and consistence of perception between different times and observers. If we go to the the same zoo, why do you see the same elephants (and the same zoo) that I do? Matter is one explanation, which adds elements (and elephants). Any alternative model must also add elements (whether those include elephants or not). Unless, of course, it fails to acknowledge and explain the same observations materialism does; but in that case, its simplicity is no advantage.
 
Last edited:
Solipsism / idealism notwithstanding it is generally accepted that reality is mind independent. But this cannot be demonstrated because
all knowledge and experience about reality is filtered through the mind. There is no mind independent testable hypothesis which can be
conducted to show that reality is mind independent. This does not mean it is not mind independent just that it cannot be demonstrated
But the best arguments in favour of mind independence are that everyone experiences the same objective reality rather than their own
individual subjective realities. Also that the observable Universe existed for over 99.99 per cent of its existence before humans evolved
 
David Mo said:
Are you giving me the ball back?
Can I assume that you can't imagine any other kind of explanations that aren't scientific?
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine any other kind of explanations of consciousness that are worthy of any serious consideration. You and some others imply (at the very least) that there are other kinds of non-scientific methods that offer other kinds of explanations of consciousness, and imply (at the very least) that they are worthy of serious consideration. You and those others NEVER define what those methods or explanations are however.

So yes, I’m definitely giving you and some others “the ball back” to explain what those methods and explanations are. A fair and appropriate request.

Your turn . . .
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
Ian, what you are describing is one interpretation of the evidence
Click to expand...
Provide another interpretation that has some credibility beyond being mere unsupported assertion or belief.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one that thinks this . . .
surreptitious57 said:
Solipsism / idealism notwithstanding it is generally accepted that reality is mind independent. But this cannot be demonstrated because all knowledge and experience about reality is filtered through the mind. There is no mind independent testable hypothesis which can be conducted to show that reality is mind independent. This does not mean it is not mind independent just that it cannot be demonstrated
Click to expand...

is a contradiction of this . . .?
surreptitious57 said:
But the best arguments in favour of mind independence are that everyone experiences the same objective reality rather than their own individual subjective realities. Also that the observable Universe existed for over 99.99 per cent of its existence before humans evolved
Click to expand...

ETA - I've removed the inappropriate and annoying line breaks to from the original post to make it easier to read (you're welcome).
 
Last edited:
baron said:
That's right, and that's why after ridiculing me with his sarcastic comment, he has stayed away from the thread.
Click to expand...


Well, his sarcastic comment was a bit off, but so was the absurd physics in the analogy you made that he was being sarcastic about.

baron said:
That doesn't tell the full story. A gravitational field exists independently of mass, but as soon as you remove the mass the field vanishes too (and indeed there will always be a slight delay so that the gravitational field will always exist after the mass has vanished).
Click to expand...


"A gravitational field exists independently of mass." Cite please?

"As soon as you remove the mass..." How do you do that, exactly? You can move the mass, which alters the gravitational field. (Current theory holds that those changes propagate at the speed of light, as gravity waves; perhaps you've heard of those.)

You can also change some of the mass to energy. That in and of itself (until the energy moves, in which case see previous paragraph) has no effect at all on the gravitational field. General Relativity says energy has the same gravitation as the equivalent amount (E/C2) of mass.

If you know a way to make mass-energy vanish, or generate a gravitational field independent of mass, you should indeed receive a Nobel prize.
 
Myriad said:
"A gravitational field exists independently of mass." Cite please?
Click to expand...

It can exist independently of rest mass at least, a spacetime with just a bunch of photons flying in different directions will have a gravitational field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom