Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[leibowde84]

What we have is statistical probability. Which is mathematical.

Though I find it strange that in order to know god I must first "accept" him. Once I subjugate myself to brainwashing it will all make sense.

Once you accept the irrational, it will become rational. lol.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Proving that the square root of 2 is irrational is not proving a negative

Does there exist a rational number that is the square root of 2? No.

However, that's more for conceptual simplicity. The fact that your assertion is self-defeating is enough. If it is true that one can't prove a negative, then there cannot exist any person who can prove a negative. So assuming that your statement is true, it's false. We who enjoy using logic occasionally like to call this a proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum.

As it apparently seems not trivially true that this folklorish notion about proving a negative is balderdash, one would think that elementary logic would enable one to realize that under the assumption it's actually true, it's necessarily false. Apparently elementary logic is too taxing.

 

[Shantanu]

I don't think anyone really understands what Chopra is going on about. When you look closely it's just word salad, a vague blur of pseudo-science and psycho-babble. Lots of jargony buzz-words which he never clearly explains. All very shifty.

I believe Deepak Chopra considers the Universe as an Entity of Consciousness which materialises into matter that are all inter-connected such that something affecting one will immediately have side effects elsewhere in a cause and effect manner through the Consciousness. If this is true he is wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

Does there exist a rational number that is the square root of 2? No.

However, that's more for conceptual simplicity. The fact that your assertion is self-defeating is enough. If it is true that one can't prove a negative, then there cannot exist any person who can prove a negative. So assuming that your statement is true, it's false. We who enjoy using logic occasionally like to call this a proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum.

As it apparently seems not trivially true that this folklorish notion about proving a negative is balderdash, one would think that elementary logic would enable one to realize that under the assumption it's actually true, it's necessarily false. Apparently elementary logic is too taxing.

The notion of a negative proof is a logical falacy. This is agreed upon by the philosophy and logic community, as being the case. Seems that anyone with even a basic understanding of logic would understand this, but I guess I'm wrong.

You did not challenge my idea at all. Proving a negative in this situation is not possible. There is no way to prove that God doesn't exist, just as there is no way to prove that he does. "Proving a negative" might have been a bad way of describing this well known logical falacy, but I accurately defined it in my previous comment, so I fail to see where your confusion is coming from. My point is that the mere lack of evidence proving that something doesn't exist does not prove in any way that it does. Proof of this kind must be positive, so Dawkins has no burden.

Forget about proving a negative, as that might have been a misclassification. My argument, which was clearly indicated, is based on the idea that a NEGATIVE PROOF, like your argument for the lacking of Dawkin's claims, does nothing to further the debate and does not prove anything. The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion. Dawkins merely is pointing out that there is not sufficent evidence to prove the existence of God.

Can you honestly say that a negative proof is not a logical falacy?

 

[leibowde84]

Does there exist a rational number that is the square root of 2? No.

However, that's more for conceptual simplicity. The fact that your assertion is self-defeating is enough. If it is true that one can't prove a negative, then there cannot exist any person who can prove a negative. So assuming that your statement is true, it's false. We who enjoy using logic occasionally like to call this a proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum.

As it apparently seems not trivially true that this folklorish notion about proving a negative is balderdash, one would think that elementary logic would enable one to realize that under the assumption it's actually true, it's necessarily false. Apparently elementary logic is too taxing.

And, again, you are confused as to what proving a negative actually refers to. It is not simply proving that something cannot be classified in a certain way. Proving a negative refers to proving that something doesn't exist, not merely misclassified. But, that is a much more general thing that I am not arguing for. I am merely pointing out that a negative proof is not substantial at all, and all arguments for the existence of God seem to fit in this category.

Please read the explanation of "negative proof" I provided previously and get back to me once you understand the concept.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The notion of a negative proof is a logical falacy. This is agreed upon by the philosophy and logic community, as being the case.

Really? You should probably tell them that, given that they don't seem to be aware:
"An oft-cited proposition holds that there is inherent difficulty in proving negative arguments. Despite consistent scholarly attempts to refute this myth,2 judicial reasoning continues to refer to this supposed difficulty to justify a "shift" in evidentiary burdens."
Saunders, K. W. (1984). The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative. Seton Hall L. Rev., 15, 276.

Of course, this person is CLEARLY mistaken (as, after all, your view is agreed upon by the relevant experts). One wonders, though, why it is continually absent from the expert literature? I apologize for not being able to find on short notice freely accessible literature that contradicts your baseless claims, but I have supplied some and at least given you sources you can use:
Thomas Genet, Valerie Viet Triem Tong. Proving Negative Conjectures on Equational Theories using Induction and Abstract Interpretation. [Research Report] RR-4576, 2002.

Tindale, C. W. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (Eds.) (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Argumentation Library Vol. 16). Springer

And for variety, let's throw an applied case into the mix:
Vergassola, M., Gama, S., & Frisch, U. (1993). Proving the existence of negative isotropic eddy viscosity. In Solar and Planetary Dynamos (Vol. 1, pp. 321-327).
No doubt your expert familiarity with the philosophical and logical literature more than accounts for the utter lack of your perspective in this literature through some method of intuition or something.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Forget about proving a negative

I don't think that's a good idea. When someone claims that an entire academic community has accepted as true something they absolutely do not, I would like to remember this, as it is a good metric for credibility.

My argument, which was clearly indicated, is based on the idea that a NEGATIVE PROOF, like your argument for the lacking of Dawkin's claims, does nothing to further the debate and does not prove anything. The burden of proof is on the one making an assertion

In the sciences, we don't use proofs except insofar as they concern the mathematical/statistical/computational components of the sciences (such as Bell's inequality or the various proofs by Cox and Savage on optimal updating strategies in statistical learning theory). The "burden of proof" is a notion limited to argumentation (debate, discourse, discussion, etc., that takes place outside of the sciences). It's completely irrelevant with respect to what I said about Dawkins, and has nothing to do with my criticism of him.

Dawkins merely is pointing out that there is not sufficent evidence to prove the existence of God.

Most of us scientists regard proof as impossible in the sciences and thus the above is equivalent to stating one can't prove that matter exists. However, theories of epistemic justification offer a much more diverse and valid model here, which does indeed allow us to conclude, justifiably, that matter exists and further that we can't say so of god.

Can you honestly say that a negative proof is not a logical falacy?

Yes. It's elementary logic.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

That's simply because there is as yet no scientific evidence for it. Such ideas are present in some religious traditions, but then it's a matter of belief rather than fact. I don't have a particular problem with such ideas in a religious context, but trying to pretend that they have some scientific validity is just dishonest, because they don't.

ok so you dont have a problem with such ideas in a religious context , but you do not see that a religious principle or beleif can have any bearing on scientific understanding , ...?

take for instance science's veiw on meditive techniques , they dont understand them but they can see some mesurable efect within the person , still they canot fully understand what is going on but they can measure the phisical outcome , ...however untill they learn to look at things on more than the material platform they will see noting more than the physical resultant phenomena , none the less they must admit that from within the religious understanding comes some motivating power that has a phenomenal effect .

this was one of Chopras early hypotheses that we could control our own bodies or at least minimise illness simply by addressing ones atitude , positing that illness was a discordant state and that we could become masters of our own bodies simply by adresssing that imballance , ....at the time this struck a chord with me as I was studying and practicing Lojong (mind training) , ...every thing he said made prefect sence (and ties in also with many yogic principles ), ...that we are more than just the body and that we need to attend to and ballance both spiritual and physical wellbeing , ....I didnt continue to follow his career as I didnt need to , as a doctor he was speaking to his potential patients , I had allready intuitavely understood the same principles through my practice .

to address the issue of beleif and proven fact , ....as a practitioner one first develops faith , one sees his or her master's effortless comand of over material concerns and one is inspierd to follow in his footsteps this could be said to be a blind faith , ..thus we follow his instructions because we want to attain his acheavments , ...we want peace of mind , And maybe also higher knowledge ....I decided at that point that this faith was not so much blind , but more inspired , ...as one practices in good faith and one slowly gains results this inspired faith becomes stronger , ....the motivation becomes deeper and ones understanding becomes steadily more profound . this phenomena has mesurable results but to the Scientist such things remain unexplained therefore to them there is still a divide between religion and science they are not compatable , ....then come the crys of it being without basis therefore invalid ???

above you had said , .....
''I don't have a particular problem with such ideas in a religious context, but trying to pretend that they have some scientific validity is just dishonest, because they don't.'' .....when one sees as Chopra does that the spiritual aspect of the person and their physicality are interdependant then as a medical doctor he will work holisticaly on that basis , ...the scientist who denies the spiritual aspect of our being is stuck in the world of conventional realities seeing and seeking answers in matter alone .

I canot imagine that the Chopra I first read when he started out can have changed that much in his underlaying understanding it is just that Dawkins is stuck in one dimension .

there is knowledge that comes from experience that can be proven no other way than setting out to experience and learn for oneself , ...

no scientist can tell me that the sea does not lay over that hill when I have been there and he has not , it is as simple as that .

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think that's a good idea. When someone claims that an entire academic community has accepted as true something they absolutely do not, I would like to remember this, as it is a good metric for credibility.


In the sciences, we don't use proofs except insofar as they concern the mathematical/statistical/computational components of the sciences (such as Bell's inequality or the various proofs by Cox and Savage on optimal updating strategies in statistical learning theory). The "burden of proof" is a notion limited to argumentation (debate, discourse, discussion, etc., that takes place outside of the sciences). It's completely irrelevant with respect to what I said about Dawkins, and has nothing to do with my criticism of him.


Most of us scientists regard proof as impossible in the sciences and thus the above is equivalent to stating one can't prove that matter exists. However, theories of epistemic justification offer a much more diverse and valid model here, which does indeed allow us to conclude, justifiably, that matter exists and further that we can't say so of god.


Yes. It's elementary logic.

If you have studied logic, I would urge you to take a second look, as your final statement here shows your ignorance on the subject, as you only refuted proving a negative, effectively dodging the question of a "negative proof." Again, a negative proof is one that is based on a lack of evidence from the other side (arguing from ignorance). I am merely pointing out that, in this specific case, your argument against Dawkins is a negative proof.

Ok, I guess I'll have to explain this again. I am speaking only to the idea of a negative proof. This ONLY applies to arguments based on a lack of explanation from the other side. You provided irrelevant quotes about proving a negative, which I said before was a misclassification (overgeneralization) by me, as I was speaking about negative proofs, not proving a negative in general. I feel as if you are still confused, addressing an argument that I did not intend to make an ignoring the one that I did.

I will concede if you can show how a negative proof provides any real substantial basis for argument. You have not even addressed this in your response, so please ... no straw men. I am ONLY discussing the idea of a negative proof ... not "proving a negative" in general (which I have now addressed 3 times). They are certainly not equivalents, although they are related.

So, one more time, after reading up on what a negative proof was (not proving a negative), can you honestly say that it is not an example of a logical fallacy?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think that's a good idea. When someone claims that an entire academic community has accepted as true something they absolutely do not, I would like to remember this, as it is a good metric for credibility.


In the sciences, we don't use proofs except insofar as they concern the mathematical/statistical/computational components of the sciences (such as Bell's inequality or the various proofs by Cox and Savage on optimal updating strategies in statistical learning theory). The "burden of proof" is a notion limited to argumentation (debate, discourse, discussion, etc., that takes place outside of the sciences). It's completely irrelevant with respect to what I said about Dawkins, and has nothing to do with my criticism of him.


Most of us scientists regard proof as impossible in the sciences and thus the above is equivalent to stating one can't prove that matter exists. However, theories of epistemic justification offer a much more diverse and valid model here, which does indeed allow us to conclude, justifiably, that matter exists and further that we can't say so of god.


Yes. It's elementary logic.

LOL. I said nothing of the sort. I said that the notion that a negative proof is a logical fallacy is an accepted logical rule. So, I would ask that you address what I said and not what you think I said. We are discussing a "negative proof."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you have studied logic

I teach it.

, I would urge you to take a second look, as your final statement here shows your ignorance on the subject, as you only refuted proving a negative, effectively dodging the question of a "negative proof."

As you haven't indicated you are capable of reading the relevant literature, and so ignorant of the subject matter that your misakes of terminology would be laughable even had you not claimed that all logicians agreed with you (a claim you've made that, as with all others, you have completely failed to substantiate other than spewing the same garbage you began with), I will continue to do your work for you:
Let's start with the relevancy to religion, where the issue isn't anything about proof but where burden of proof lies (and, anticipating your claim that's what you meant, you've already admitted to formulating your assertion inaccurately, and I will address how this is just a lie below).

Philosophy of Religion: The Burden of Proof

Now, assuming that is too much to handle, I managed to track down a power-point presentation of a lecture for you and have linked to the definition of "negative proof"
Fallacies

Again, a negative proof is one that is based on a lack of evidence from the other side (arguing from ignorance).

You have to love the back-tracking here:

No one can prove a negative, so faulting anyone for not being able to prove that God doesn't exist is without merit.

A negative proof (classically knkown as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

First you stated that you can't fault someone for not being able to "prove a negative" and gave as your example being able to "prove that God doesn't exist". Then you backtrack and try to weasel out by saying that what you meant was a "negative proof" defined by the argument that because one can't prove X is false, it's true. Only that isn't anything remotely like claiming that one can't prove a negative and has no relation to your statement about faulting someone for being inable to prove God doesn't exist.
In one case, you assert that one can't be faulted for being unable to prove God doesn't exist.
In the other, you assert that what you "really" meant was that someone shouldn't be able to use the argument that because it can't be proven god doesn't exist, this means god does.

Ok, I guess I'll have to explain this again. I am speaking only to the idea of a negative proof.

Which refers to an argument that Dawkins can't make. A negative proof in this case would be the argument that because Dawkins can't prove God doesn't exist, he does. However, as nobody here has made that argument, and your initial post demonstrates your back-tracking move of goalposts, it's irrelevant.

This ONLY applies to arguments based on a lack of explanation from the other side.

It applies to a truth-claim based on the lack of proof on the other side. However, your initial formulation was (and one consistent with the common myth concerning argumentation) asserted nothing of the sort. You claimed that "no one can prove a negative" not "just because the negative of a proposition isn't proven, this doesn't mean the proposition is true.".

You provided irrelevant quotes about proving a negative

Perhaps because you initially claimed something you later learned was false and then tried to pretend you meant something else all along.

I feel as if you are still confused, addressing an argument that I did not intend to make an ignoring the one that I did.

I'm not confused. I just don't buy your bull**** backtracking claim that when you said "you can't prove a negative" you meant "if someone claims that a negative isn't proven, this doesn't justify the assertion of the positive".

 

[Geoff-Allen]

"Each of us is here to discover our true Self - that essentially we are spiritual beings who have taken manifestation in physical form, that we're not human beings that have occasional spiritual experiences, that we're spiritual beings that have occasional human experiences."

More at is wonderful site -

Deepak Chopra Quotes, Wisdom & Sayings : Pearls Of Wisdom

Cheers!

 

[leibowde84]

I teach it.



As you haven't indicated you are capable of reading the relevant literature, and so ignorant of the subject matter that your misakes of terminology would be laughable even had you not claimed that all logicians agreed with you (a claim you've made that, as with all others, you have completely failed to substantiate other than spewing the same garbage you began with), I will continue to do your work for you:
Let's start with the relevancy to religion, where the issue isn't anything about proof but where burden of proof lies (and, anticipating your claim that's what you meant, you've already admitted to formulating your assertion inaccurately, and I will address how this is just a lie below).

Philosophy of Religion: The Burden of Proof

Now, assuming that is too much to handle, I managed to track down a power-point presentation of a lecture for you and have linked to the definition of "negative proof"
Fallacies



You have to love the back-tracking here:


First you stated that you can't fault someone for not being able to "prove a negative" and gave as your example being able to "prove that God doesn't exist". Then you backtrack and try to weasel out by saying that what you meant was a "negative proof" defined by the argument that because one can't prove X is false, it's true. Only that isn't anything remotely like claiming that one can't prove a negative and has no relation to your statement about faulting someone for being inable to prove God doesn't exist.
In one case, you assert that one can't be faulted for being unable to prove God doesn't exist.
In the other, you assert that what you "really" meant was that someone shouldn't be able to use the argument that because it can't be proven god doesn't exist, this means god does.



Which refers to an argument that Dawkins can't make. A negative proof in this case would be the argument that because Dawkins can't prove God doesn't exist, he does. However, as nobody here has made that argument, and your initial post demonstrates your back-tracking move of goalposts, it's irrelevant.



It applies to a truth-claim based on the lack of proof on the other side. However, your initial formulation was (and one consistent with the common myth concerning argumentation) asserted nothing of the sort. You claimed that "no one can prove a negative" not "just because the negative of a proposition isn't proven, this doesn't mean the proposition is true.".


Perhaps because you initially claimed something you later learned was false and then tried to pretend you meant something else all along.



I'm not confused. I just don't buy your bull**** backtracking claim that when you said "you can't prove a negative" you meant "if someone claims that a negative isn't proven, this doesn't justify the assertion of the positive".

I'll make this as clear as possible, as this will be the third time I've stated this. Below are the points I am trying to make. I apologize if my previous comments were not as clear as this, but this is my contention. I'm excited to hear your attempt to address it.

I would suggest that you do some self-examination when it comes to etiquette too, as there is no reason to be impolite in a discussion board, or try to bring up mistakes made by me in past comments which in no way help your argument. Instead, they just come off as mean.

1. As I said previously, I was referring to proving a negative in the specific instance of proving God's existance.
2. Asking to prove a negative in this instance would force the argument into the classification of a "negative proof," as it would effectively be saying that a lack of proof against God somehow helps to prove that God does exist.
3. My contention is that a "negative proof" is a logical fallacy. A negative proof is one that depends on a lack of evidence from the opposing view contradicting your assertion. In this case, claiming that Dawkin's lack of evidence showing that God doesn't exist is somehow positive proof for God existing is a logical fallacy.

This is my assertion. If you would like to argue against it, I am more than happy to discuss. But, if you are just going to use personal insults in an effort to avoid addressing my point (that a "negative proof" is a logical fallacy), then I would kindly ask you to move on.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

There is indeed a question in my mind as to what the motivation is for participation in these forums. We humans love to fight. We love to watch fighting. We do it at all levels, from global war to Super Bowl. Demonstration of prowess is a strong component of our basic animal nature. But there is also a weakly competing motivation to understand and to cooperate in the effort to make the world a better place for everyone. This is a coming together, not an effort to vanquish,

As some may know, I advocate for Humanianity, "the Religion for Everyone," which is only the commitment to live according to the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle. This is related to my concept (that is different from most but I believe to be more accurate) that Religion has always been our way of studying as adults how to be better people, and that Religion is moving toward Humanianity as it increasingly comes into the modern world (modern because of science/technology). Thus, atheists can be religious, and Religion does not equal theism. But the emphasis here is the coming together as a species to do extremely important work in behalf of us all. It means agreement, but agreement with that which is increasingly accurate, with always the acceptability of questioning and the possibility of revision and improvement (the opposite of creed and "fundamentalism," with all the ensuing pain, suffering, disability, and early death).

Well, we see disagreement everywhere, with how much progress toward agreement? Threads like this go on and on and on. We certainly see demonstration of prowess, but do we see movement toward agreement? I would say not much. If that is so, why is that so?

I maintain that there is a philosophical problem that underlies much of our inability to agree on certain rather basic and important issues. That problem is the mind-body problem (and the related free will vs. determinism problem). And the debate between Chopra and Dawkins is an example. The problem they are dealing with, and can only make assertions about (with as much prowess as possible), is the belief that our physical universe, as described by the physicists, contains substance(s) and entities that are not listed by the physicists. The physicists have built a model of our universe consisting of a list of wave/particles and a list of forces, contained within a framework of space/time, that is verging upon, though hasn't quite reached, a complete model, satisfactory for explaining (at least in theory) everything that happens.

The problem is, however, that they have overlooked a substance that we all (or at least almost all) believe exists, "consciousness," that makes up entities called "minds." And even though the physicists' model is supposed to be explanatory of all the movements and interactions of the entities that they list (including the more complex ones such as atoms, molecules, etc.), these new entities ("minds") get in there and also move these atoms, molecules, etc. around. A mind causes a hand to move, we say. It has free will, and it wills the hand to move, whereupon it does. The freedom is freedom from the rules that the physicists have concluded are the rules according to which all the entities in their lists interact and determine what will happen.

So Chopra and Dawkins have different theories about when these supernatural phenomena entered our universe. Chopra says they have always been there, somehow attached to the physicists' entities (atoms and molecules), but have become more complex and impressive with time. Dawkins says that they have appeared more recently, being totally non-existent until certain complex arrangements of atoms and molecules, called brains, have occurred. But neither of them can do anything more than assert that they are correct and demonstrate prowess by appealing to an audience that is the collection of judges for the contest. There remains no answer to the question as to how this substance, consciousness, and these entities, minds, have gotten into the universe and have contaminated what would otherwise be an almost unified, perfect model of everything that exists (at least in our universe).

So the existence of these supernatural entities opens up the possibility of believing in any number of supernatural entities, ones that we communicate with and ones that we assume are watching us but that we can't be aware of, or that at least require certain complex procedures or difficult-to-acquire and risky substances to achieve that awareness.

At any rate, because I am Humanian (an advocate of Humanianity), I worked real hard on solving this so far unsolved problem and wrote the following book, in hopes of making a contribution to a far better life than we have known so far (by enabling a step forward in agreement):

MIND-BODY PROBLEM: Introduction

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So Chopra and Dawkins have different theories about when these supernatural phenomena entered our universe. Chopra says they have always been there, somehow attached to the physicists' entities (atoms and molecules), but have become more complex and impressive with time. Dawkins says that they have appeared more recently, being totally non-existent until certain complex arrangements of atoms and molecules, called brains, have occurred.

I don't think Dawkins acknowledges supernatural phenomena because he is a scientist and there is no evidence for them.
Basically Dawkins was saying that consciousness is an emergent property of brain matter, which is what the evidence suggests. Chopra was claiming that atoms and molecules are themselves conscious, but seems to have no basis for this claim - it all looks very speculative, and the pseudo-science he uses is far from convincing.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I don't think Dawkins acknowledges supernatural phenomena because he is a scientist and there is no evidence for them.
Basically Dawkins was saying that consciousness is an emergent property of brain matter, which is what the evidence suggests. Chopra was claiming that atoms and molecules are themselves conscious, but seems to have no basis for this claim - it all looks very speculative, and the pseudo-science he uses is far from convincing.

Note the linguistic solution, namely, the word "emergent." Since we use the word, we assume we know what it means, and that it therefore has explanatory power. It is actually saying nothing more that what has been said, namely, that the entity "appears" or "comes into existence." The problems I have outlined still exist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is actually saying nothing more that what has been said, namely, that the entity "appears" or "comes into existence."

The entity is consciousness, which seems to be property of biological life. Though "consciousness" is really overstating it for the simpler forms of biological life, where it's probably more accurate to just say there is an awareness of environment.

I wouldn't mind if Chopra presented his ideas as a matter of religious belief or spiritual insight, what I object to is his use of pseudo-science, continually implying that his theories have some scientific basis, which they really don't.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

But do you not see that you are doing the same thing. You are saying that consciousness, or awareness, is a "property" of biological life. The physicist does not list this as a property of any of the entities listed within physics. The physicist doesn't say that all of the listed properties ascribed to the listed entities then have added to them new properties as soon as "biological life" (whatever that is) can be a label assigned to particular arrangements of those entities (atoms, molecules, etc), labels such as "organism" or "animal." You are implying that your belief in the existence of these supernatural entities has a scientific basis. I know that scientists, including most physicists, I assume, do believe in the existence of consciousness and the mind, but that is independent of the scientific models they use. I could say that every car has a soul, invisible but nevertheless present, even though the car manufacturers know nothing about it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But do you not see that you are doing the same thing. You are saying that consciousness, or awareness, is a "property" of biological life. The physicist does not list this as a property of any of the entities listed within physics. The physicist doesn't say that all of the listed properties ascribed to the listed entities then have added to them new properties as soon as "biological life" (whatever that is) can be a label assigned to particular arrangements of those entities (atoms, molecules, etc), labels such as "organism" or "animal." You are implying that your belief in the existence of these supernatural entities has a scientific basis. I know that scientists, including most physicists, I assume, do believe in the existence of consciousness and the mind, but that is independent of the scientific models they use. I could say that every car has a soul, invisible but nevertheless present, even though the car manufacturers know nothing about it.

Actually the current model of explanation for "consciousness" is a complex interactive system. It would be a property of the system and it could, by its own merit, never be a "substance" of the system. The development of response to surroundings is the basis for consciousness. As we get more and more developed more and more complex exchanges can happen till we reach our level. In fact what we call "conscious" was not developed until much later in the evolution of life.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Actually the current model of explanation for "consciousness" is a complex interactive system. It would be a property of the system and it could, by its own merit, never be a "substance" of the system. The development of response to surroundings is the basis for consciousness. As we get more and more developed more and more complex exchanges can happen till we reach our level. In fact what we call "conscious" was not developed until much later in the evolution of life.

There is no "current model of explanation for 'consciousness'". Physicists indeed describe complex interactive systems, but they do not introduce a new entity into their list of primary entities when doing so. A complex interactive system can be given a label, but that doesn't mean a new entity has been added to the original list. A thermostat has a "response to surroundings," but that does not mean that it has acquired something that was not in existence before it was assembled. What is happening is that you wish to legitimate your belief in these supernatural entities by saying that they are understandable in scientific terms, but that remains only an assertion, and one that cannot be verified by evidence. Your position is not different than that of Dawkins or Chopra. The difference, it seems to me, has only to do with when you say conscious appears. You prefer later to earlier. At least that is the way it seems to me so far.