"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[shunyadragon]

" Here's why. "

I find following in ones why. very interesting:
" There is growing suspicion that conventional scientific methods will never be able answer these questions. Luckily, there is an alternative approach that may ultimately be able to crack the mystery. "

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming

One day we will have a science of consciousness, but it won’t be science as we know it today

theconversation.com

Right?

Regards

Right!

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I don't believe they will be able to personally explain it fully though. And whatever


is will be interesting itself.

Fully?!?! science works on the evolving body of knowledge building on previous knowledge. There will likely never be a "fully?"

 

[Comradio251]

Fully?!?! science works on the evolving body of knowledge building on previous knowledge. There will likely never be a "fully?"

Inasmuch that they will explain roughly the other half of the problem which they say they are optimistic they can do sometime in the future. I'm not in this regard. Fine, maybe not 'fully' as there's always room for further growth in knowledge on any particular theory with new discoveries.

 

[Comradio251]

Right!

Sarcastic?

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, but that is not independent, that is a relationship. That you know how water boils is a relationship, not independent of you.

The boiling of water is a phenomenon entirely independent of me. It boils at 100 C at 1 atm whether I am observing it or not. This can be demonstrated directly by letting the water boil when I am in the room and letting it boil when I am not in the room.

My knowledge that water boils at 1 atm at 100 C is a piece of information that is in my brain and is indeed dependent on me. Thus the knowledge is dependent, but the phenomena itself is not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sarcastic?

No, increasing knowledge over time for the nature of human consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

But if there were no humans in the universe it wouldn't be known that there was a universe.
I am talking about knowledge as such. Not just science.

This somewhat adds more to what your view is. I do not believe you can make this distinction in what is the knowledge of science for your comfort and convenience,

But if there were no humans in the universe it wouldn't be known that there was a universe.

Not meaningful. The universe simply exists regardless of our human awareness of it. It is more likely that the universe is indifferent to our existence.

I am talking about knowledge as such. Not just science.

Your personal differentiation of knowledge for your own comfort and convenience doe not define what scientific knowledge is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because we know that values, morality, aesthetics, beauty, meaning, etc are not absolute. They are abstractions that humans adopt and assign meaning to. These are all products of human evolution.

Don’t you know this?

What does absolute have to do with it?
As for evlution accorinding to @shunyadragon e.g. morality just happens.
So we now have 2 claims based on science that contradict each other.
Now for evolution and morality I am with you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No it does not. I directly refuted your claim by showing that the phenomenon of boiling of water does not depend on me observing it or not.

Good God, how are you still missing this? You proposed an experiment. Experiments require observation, and thought experiments - I don’t think you were really intending to boil a pan of water - require, er…thought. An observer, and/or a thinker, are absolute prerequisites for the scenario that supposedly refutes my claim; which is that the observer is integral to the observation, and the observation to the object.

 

[Pogo]

Good God, how are you still missing this? You proposed an experiment. Experiments require observation, and thought experiments - I don’t think you were really intending to boil a pan of water - require, er…thought. An observer, and/or a thinker, are absolute prerequisites for the scenario that supposedly refutes my claim; which is that the observer is integral to the observation, and the observation to the object.

Good Grief, this is just quantum conciousness woo. If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound level of philosophy, not science. It seems the difficulty of explaining consciousness is becoming the new God of the gaps argument for saying we don't know so I can insert my un-demonstrable ideas here.

 

[sayak83]

Good God, how are you still missing this? You proposed an experiment. Experiments require observation, and thought experiments - I don’t think you were really intending to boil a pan of water - require, er…thought. An observer, and/or a thinker, are absolute prerequisites for the scenario that supposedly refutes my claim; which is that the observer is integral to the observation, and the observation to the object.

An the experiments themselves show that the phenomena is totally independent of the observer or the act of observation! How are you missing that!

 

[RestlessSoul]

Good Grief, this is just quantum conciousness woo. If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound level of philosophy, not science. It seems the difficulty of explaining consciousness is becoming the new God of the gaps argument for saying we don't know so I can insert my un-demonstrable ideas here.

Consciousness isn’t woo. It’s absolutely fundamental to our experience of the world. Not only is consciousness fundamental to our experience of the world, it is seemlessly woven into the fabric of the universe.

You are in the universe, and the universe is in you; and you can experience this first hand, for yourself, if only you can learn to set aside for a a few moments, the mental constructs which mediate your experience.

And yeah, we’re doing philosophy here, not science. But then, for science to offer an explanation of the world, physics requires a metaphysics. Maybe you should actually read Berkeley and Kant and Descartes. And David Chalmers, who is often accused of woo by those who prefer to dismiss what he says without having to make the effort to understand it.

Then read what scientists such as Schrodinger, John Wheeler, David Bohm, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Fuchs, Guilio Tononi etc have to say about measurement, observation and consciousness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good Grief, this is just quantum conciousness woo. If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound level of philosophy, not science. It seems the difficulty of explaining consciousness is becoming the new God of the gaps argument for saying we don't know so I can insert my un-demonstrable ideas here.

That we should have evidence for all beliefs, is as for the that norm not a fact and itself an un-demonstrable idea.
Further as far as I can tell you are using subjective feelings, which is not science as such.
So you confirm there is more going on than just science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

An the experiments themselves show that the phenomena is totally independent of the observer or the act of observation! How are you missing that!

Nothing is independent, everything is connected. This perceived division between the self, and the world separate and external to the self, is an illusion caused by perspective; just as the illusion of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is caused by perspective.

This is not solipsism, since I am not arguing that reality depends upon your consciousness, nor mine; consciousness is not yours, nor mine, it is only lent to us. It’s a gift that lasts as long as the convergence of diverse phenomena which we call us, remains in equilibrium.

And in the last century, scientists have begun to understand what philosophers have known for millennia; that pushing consciousness to the margins of the laboratory or the cosmos, is a most unsatisfactory exercise. A complete description of any system necessarily requires a description of context. And context always, without fail, leads back to the consciousness of the observer.

 

[sayak83]

Nothing is independent, everything is connected. This perceived division between the self, and the world separate and external to the self, is an illusion caused by perspective; just as the illusion of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is caused by perspective.

This is not solipsism, since I am not arguing that reality depends upon your consciousness, nor mine; consciousness is not yours, nor mine, it is only lent to us. It’s a gift that lasts as long as the convergence of diverse phenomena which we call us, remains in equilibrium.

And in the last century, scientists have begun to understand what philosophers have known for millennia; that pushing consciousness to the margins of the laboratory or the cosmos, is a most unsatisfactory exercise. A complete description of any system necessarily requires a description of context. And context always, without fail, leads back to the consciousness of the observer.

The science is clear. Consciousness does not impact the observed physical phenomena in any way whatsoever. There was some unfortunate misunderstanding about this in the QM realm due to the use of unclear language initially. But it has since been cleared up. The physical processes like radiation, phase change, fission, fusion...you name it ..have no dependency whatsoever on consciousness. Some are probabilistic, but the probabilities themselves are independent of consciousness. That is clear from the experiments and observations themselves. The theories of physics, chemistry, biology etc which predict successfully what is happening in the physical world have no place or need to put a conscious observer anywhere.

I will reiterate this.
No successful and predictive description of encountered physical phenomena in the world today have any place or requirement to put in a conscious observer anywhere.
Hence the claim that consciousness is required to explain them is just vacuous as of now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your post continue to be obtuse, and too vague to be meaningful. You argue from the perspective of a best in a previous post and the fog it up as there is no best, Best is a comparison which you have not responded to from a previous post as to what is best,

Your argument philosophically is out there somewhere with an illusive slippery Idealism or Vedic view that our physical world is an illusion of our minds, and there is no physical reality.

There is actually no way to respond to this slippery vague argument that does not make since except form the perspective of an obscure reference of a Danish book.

No, but that all of reality is not physical and it is unknown what reality is.
You really don't get - I don't know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The science is clear. Consciousness does not impact the observed physical phenomena in any way whatsoever. There was some unfortunate misunderstanding about this in the QM realm due to the use of unclear language initially. But it has since been cleared up. The physical processes like radiation, phase change, fission, fusion...you name it ..have no dependency whatsoever on consciousness. Some are probabilistic, but the probabilities themselves are independent of consciousness. That is clear from the experiments and observations themselves. The theories of physics, chemistry, biology etc which predict successfully what is happening in the physical world have no place or need to put a conscious observer anywhere.

I will reiterate this.
No successful and predictive description of encountered physical phenomena in the world today have any place or requirement to put in a conscious observer anywhere.
Hence the claim that consciousness is required to explain them is just vacuous as of now.

Now you are resorting once again to semantics; tidy up the unclear language, and close the door before anyone looks outside (or inside).

Okay, my last word and I’ll keep it simple. Theories by definition require consciousness, since theories are conscious constructs. Probability theory absolutely needs consciousness, since probability is a concept, and concepts are the output of mental processes. Moreover, probability, given enough information, can be calculated with great precision, but calculation requires consciousness.

Every experiment which validates - or falsifies - every theory, is by definition the contrivance of a conscious agent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The science is clear. Consciousness does not impact the observed physical phenomena in any way whatsoever. There was some unfortunate misunderstanding about this in the QM realm due to the use of unclear language initially. But it has since been cleared up. The physical processes like radiation, phase change, fission, fusion...you name it ..have no dependency whatsoever on consciousness. Some are probabilistic, but the probabilities themselves are independent of consciousness. That is clear from the experiments and observations themselves. The theories of physics, chemistry, biology etc which predict successfully what is happening in the physical world have no place or need to put a conscious observer anywhere.

I will reiterate this.
No successful and predictive description of encountered physical phenomena in the world today have any place or requirement to put in a conscious observer anywhere.
Hence the claim that consciousness is required to explain them is just vacuous as of now.

Yeah, just answer this: Can you demostrate something exists without demostrating it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science.

What is your evidence of not relevant to science as objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence.
How is not relevant physical according to your standard?

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, just answer this: Can you demostrate something exists without demostrating it?

Answer me this: Prove that existence depends on demonstration.