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

[RestlessSoul]

There is no “the mind”. There are many minds with different perceptions and different ways of thinking. All those minds get to enter into the testing and critique of the tests.

And occasionally a consensus is reached, though it doesn’t usually hold for very long; for without dissenting voices, the pursuit of knowledge soon gives way to the defence of tired dogma and redundant axioms. That said, consensus is as close as we can ever come to apprehending objective reality. And doesn’t consensus imply at least the possibility of a universal, collective consciousness?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nope I don’t but it. A rock is not conscious. Nor is an electron. If your use of language says they are, then you are not talking about I mean when I talk about consciousness.

All consciousness we know is the result of complex interacting systems like those in brains. That seems to be a basic fact that we can use to figure out how consciousness arises in brains like ours.

Complex consciousness such as the human mind, may require a complex system to sustain it. The depth and texture of consciousness may be directly related to the amount of information available to it. But what is to say that an electron, or photon, does not carry a quantum of consciousness?

 

[Pogo]

And doesn’t consensus imply at least the possibility of a universal, collective consciousness?

Where does this leap come from? We achieve consensus through transmission of ideas and information via our senses.

 

[Pogo]

Complex consciousness such as the human mind, may require a complex system to sustain it. The depth and texture of consciousness may be directly related to the amount of information available to it. But that is not to say that an electron does not embody a quantum of consciousness.

Without some definitions this is wandering into Woo Woo land.

 

[gnostic]

The evidence for consciousness being fundamental, is inherent in your experience of it. All knowledge comes from experience, and all experience is, by definition, conscious experience. We are the universe become conscious, and consciousness is the tool by which we and the universe struggles to understand itself.

I agree with your post except the part I highlighted.

The part that I agree with, if I reworded the last line:

“…and consciousness is the tool by which we struggle to understand the universe.” ​

Well, at least the parts of universe that are observable to us. What we actually observe is only the tiniest bit of the universe

…and compares to the part I don’t agree with:

“…and consciousness is the tool by which universe struggles to understand itself.”​

Sure I understand that we, as in “we” humans, are part of the universe, and that we are conscious beings and there are other animals that are conscious too (and there are probably other conscious creatures on other planets too), but the whole universe isn’t consciousness.

Planets, moons, asteroids, stars, gas clouds, nebulas, galaxies, and so on, these are also parts of the universe, but none of these are “conscious”. These are not thinking entities, so these don’t attempt to understand anything, but we (humans) do try to understand these things.

What I don’t like it when some people throw around the words “conscious” or “consciousness” around, to things that show no consciousness.

By making the claims that the universe is conscious and the universe can think & to understand itself, would put the burden of proof upon yourself. So please, by all means, show evidence that demonstrates the universe is conscious and seek to understand itself.

until you do that - present some evidence - then your claims are merely baseless speculation and assumptions.

 

[Yerda]

But what is to say that an electron, or photon, does not carry a quantum of consciousness?

We can't rule it out. But we can't rule it in either.

 

[Polymath257]

Complex consciousness such as the human mind, may require a complex system to sustain it. The depth and texture of consciousness may be directly related to the amount of information available to it. But what is to say that an electron, or photon, does not carry a quantum of consciousness?

What could you possibly mean by the word consciousness that could make that at all likely? Electrons interact. Like all things. They react to interactions. Like all things. But do they have an’ internal life’? Not in any reasonable sense of those words that I can see.

 

[Polymath257]

And occasionally a consensus is reached, though it doesn’t usually hold for very long; for without dissenting voices, the pursuit of knowledge soon gives way to the defence of tired dogma and redundant axioms. That said, consensus is as close as we can ever come to apprehending objective reality. And doesn’t consensus imply at least the possibility of a universal, collective consciousness?

Not even close. We have many individual consciousness that interact with each other. That leads to structured behavior, not consciousness.

 

[Pogo]

We can't rule it out. But we can't rule it in either.

At the moment outside of a sweetly smoky room, is there even anything to discuss let alone decide?

 

[Polymath257]

And occasionally a consensus is reached, though it doesn’t usually hold for very long; for without dissenting voices, the pursuit of knowledge soon gives way to the defence of tired dogma and redundant axioms.

I would disagree that consensus doesn’t last long. After answers are found, the areas of disagreement move to other subjects. But we know the earth is round, that it orbits the sun, that matter is mostly made of atoms, what those atoms are, etc. Those areas of consensus will remain as long as people keep insisting on evidence as the basis of belief.

 

[firedragon]

As by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

In one understanding it is scientism, foundationalism and rationalism,
It is scientism in both senses:
- thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

The latter is so, because it is declared as in fact fact, that what reality is and how to know about reality as only using science.
The problem is that the qoute is based on how somebody thinks as for what is valid for knowledge.

Now for foundationalism it is a form of foundationalism, since it claims what is the correct version of in effect knowledge.
As for rationalism it is a case of this, because it is based on that it makes sense that reality is indpendent of perception, but that it makes sense, is based on reasoning for the claims being valid.

In a broader sense it is not different from some forms of religion in that what matters is obejctive as either reality or God, is founditional as it is the correct way of understanding what is really real and in the end is about who what matters as making sense, is down to a given individual/group for what is correct, valid and true for all humans.
That is the same because the general claim is the same. There is one correct form of knowledge.

Now this is debate, so what do i want to debate?
Well, if I can in effect do something which is not in reality/not from God, how it is that it can be know that I can do that, if it is not in reality/from God.

Interesting. How do you define scientism as equal to rationalism? Especially in the context of your own discussion or God and Religion? It does not fit. You seem to put scientism and rationalism in the same basket arbitrarily while talking about God and religion. It's a contradiction.

Scioentism is not rationalism. they are not opposite, but they are not the same. Check with genuine philosophy. Science takes the axiom of naturalism methodologically so you cannot super impose the metaphysical into it. If anyone is basing everything on science, you have to by default abide by its axioms. But the OP is not.

Anyway, what ever you wish to do has its own authority because in a theistic worldview you have freewill.

Cheers.

 

[Yerda]

At the moment outside of a sweetly smoky room, is there even anything to discuss let alone decide?

There are philosophical reasons to entertain the idea that the intrinsic nature of matter is experiential. It's all a bit over my head, though.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

It needs some correction, please, right?
Science, as per the Scientific Method , is a tool to reckon reality, only in the physical and material realms; to reckon reality in issues that fall in the ethical , moral and spiritual realms, the proper methodology is the Religious Method, please, right?

Regards

 

[sayak83]

Consciousness is integral to your experience of sunlight, and vice versa. Any properties sunlight may manifest independently of your experience of it, will be defined by it’s interaction with other entities, as observed by you.

As for what made you conscious, very likely your consciousness emerged from the same underlying reality as the sunlight did. Whatever put the fire in those equations which the light obeys, lit the flame of consciousness in you.

Are you denying that the sun existed when I was asleep, rose in the pre-existing sky when I was asleep and it's pre-existing light streamed from its surface when I was asleep, hit my eye to cause me to wake?
Did my parents preexist me or not?

 

[sayak83]

Well, when you can explain everything only using words with external of the mind referents, get back to us.

Did your parents preexist you or not?

 

[YoursTrue]

Did your parents preexist you or not?

Wellll, humans that are actually older than we are did preexist us.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you denying that the sun existed when I was asleep, rose in the pre-existing sky when I was asleep and it's pre-existing light streamed from its surface when I was asleep, hit my eye to cause me to wake?
Did my parents preexist me or not?

If I may, because it is an interesting question, when I go to sleep I am perfectly assured by myself and life around me that the sky including the sun and moon will stay in place and will be there when I wake up.

 

[Pogo]

There are philosophical reasons to entertain the idea that the intrinsic nature of matter is experiential. It's all a bit over my head, though.

Pansychism, over my head too, I don't even do angels on a pinhead. Thanks

 

[Pogo]

Wellll, humans that are actually older than we are did preexist us.

Yes, our species goes back 300,000 years or so and they had parents as well.

 

[Pogo]

If I may, because it is an interesting question, when I go to sleep I am perfectly assured by myself and life around me that the sky including the sun and moon will stay in place and will be there when I wake up.

So you are a methodological naturalist.