What scientific evidence do we have for the existence of human consciousness?

[Unification]

Hello.

Interesting question.

I did not read all the responses.

From a scientific point of view, we have no scientific evidence of "consciousness" as there has yet to emerge a scientific definition of consciousness.

Keep in mind that scientific definitions are very, very specific. For example, Webster's definition of "planet" is "a large, round object in space (such as the Earth) that travels around a star (such as the sun)." By this definition, Pluto is a planet; as would be any roundish asteroid or comet (provided it orbited a star). However, the scientific definition of planet; to meet this definition; a spaceborn object must 1 - Orbit a star; 2 - Have hydrostatic equilibrium (that is, be pulled into a spherical shape by force of its own gravitational pull); and 3 - have cleared its neighborhood. Because asteroids and comets lack the hydrostatic equilibrium (lacking sufficient gravitational force by its own mass to form the spherical shape), the do not fit the scientific definition of "planet". As Pluto's orbital path is shared by asteroids and other spaceborn objects, it has not "cleared its neighborhood" thus does not fit the scientific definition of "planet".

Scientists are currently struggling to define "consciousness"; and until that specific definition arises, there can be no scientific evidence of "consciousness".

ON a sidenote, this is why atheists often challenge theists to "define God". God can not be analyzed or even debated in scientific circles until one clearly defines "god" in terms where such can be objectively analyzed. But that is a discussion for another thread ....

To state that there is "scientific evidence of universal consciousness" is greatly in error as "consciousness" has yet to be defined in scientific terms. The OP is also greatly in error as if consciousness has yet to be specifically defined, one can not say that there is scientific evidence against consciousness of individuals; then in the same breath postulate that there is scientific evidence of "universal/divine consciousness".

On a side note, I do love how you humbly referred to all of the emphasis on the "scientific point of view."

 

[godnotgod]

When I sit on a tack it hurts.
Therefore I am.

That's cheating!

 

[godnotgod]

Question:

What scientific evidence do we have for the existence of human consciousness?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Question:
Is there any scientific evidence to infer the existence of a universal or divine consciousness?
Answer:
Yes, most definitely. Due to quantum indeterminism, entanglement, and the observer effect, we have every reason to infer a universal consciousness. In fact, many of the founders of quantum mechanics did exactly that .

So how exactly do quantum indeterminism, entanglement and the observer effect infer a universal consciousness?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you believe in the existence of a universal consciousness, then you have a God-belief.

No, you have a belief in a universal consciousness.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If the meaning of the term "consciousness" is not immediately self-evident to you, then I suggest you find another thread to amuse yourself with.

Its not a difficulty on my part to define it. I was simply pointing out that the general definition doesn't follow with your argument. We do have scientific evidence of human consciousness.

 

[Yerda]

An atheist who believes in the existence of universal consciousness has a God-belief.

I disagree.

 

[Unification]

No, you have a belief in a universal consciousness.

God=universal consciousness. Just losing the word "God" because it distorts. "I AM" is perfect.

 

[Yerda]

So how exactly do quantum indeterminism, entanglement and the observer effect infer a universal consciousness?

The more I've looked at this stuff the more it has looked like a hiding place for new age speculation. The ideas are wonderful and I would be delighted if they were true but the more I learn about physics the more grasping they seem. I've only made it as far as intro quantum physics and that deals mostly with Schrodinger's wavefunction, atomic models and such, but I have friends with degrees in physics who think this stuff is either total woo-woo or completely misguided.

The gist seems to be that the inderministic universe is created by conscious observation. In some way is consciousness. There are a lot of vids, texts and talks online that deal with this stuff. Often it seems like a cynical attempt to sell books.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God=universal consciousness. Just losing the word "God" because it distorts. "I AM" is perfect.

But how are you defining "universal consciousness"?

 

[Unification]

God=universal consciousness. Just losing the word "God" because it distorts. "I AM" is perfect.

The Greek word for "word" is "logos."

Logos is defined:

Lo·gos 1. Philosophy. a. In pre-Socratic philosophy,
the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle,
or human reasoning about the cosmos.

The principle governing the Cosmos.

That is Logos.

That is the word of God.

Not pages in a book.

To experience, be inspired, count, tell, say, speak, think, feel, learn, evolve, reason, knowledge, etc.

The mind of God. Consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The more I've looked at this stuff the more it has looked like a hiding place for new age speculation. The ideas are wonderful and I would be delighted if they were true but the more I learn about physics the more grasping they seem. I've only made it as far as intro quantum physics and that deals mostly with Schrodinger's wavefunction, atomic models and such, but I have friends with degrees in physics who think this stuff is either total woo-woo or completely misguided. The gist seems to be that the inderministic universe is created by conscious observation. In some way is consciousness. There are a lot of vids, texts and talks online that deal with this stuff. Often it seems like a cynical attempt to sell books.

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of psuedo-science involved, misrepresenting the science and coming up with erroneous conclusions. It doesn't make much sense to me practically speaking because if you follow the logic through we'd have a situation where the earth only popped into existence when the first humans arrived, complete with a fossil record.

I just have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, but sufficient to know when it is being misrepresented.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What on earth is a 'true atheist'? An atheist is a person who isn't a theist. The universal consciousness concept is not theistic. Atheism relates to theistic God claims only.

Not sure where you got the definition of atheism as 'not having any kind of god belief' either. Julius Caesar was believed to be a God, I believe he existed - that does not make me a theist or relate to my atheism in any meaningful way.
Atheism relates only to the God in question - not to some absurdly broad general notion of all possible conceptions of God, and all things anybody could possibly attach the label 'God' to.

If you believe in a thing and consider it a god, then that thing is suitably "theistic" to exclude you from atheism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The mind of God. Consciousness.

So humans have the mind of God?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Greek word for "word" is "logos."

Logos is defined:

Lo·gos 1. Philosophy. a. In pre-Socratic philosophy,
the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle,
or human reasoning about the cosmos.

The principle governing the Cosmos.

That is Logos.

That is the word of God.

Not pages in a book.

To experience, be inspired, count, tell, say, speak, think, feel, learn, evolve, reason, knowledge, etc.

The mind of God. Consciousness.

Logos means logic. It is the usage of reasoning and knowledge. It also can mean "to say" or "to plea". It is one of the words that can mean "word"

However what does this have to do with anything?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question:

What scientific evidence do we have for the existence of human consciousness?

Answer:

No evidence. There isn't any objective and measurable evidence that human consciousness even exists.

Why is this relevant? Because atheists demand scientific evidence for the existence of a universal or divine consciousness (a.k.a. God).

We can't objectively measure consciousness. We can only infer it.

Not only is there scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness, there's so much evidence that scientists can measure the qualities of a person's consciousness:

In Dying Brains, Signs of Heightened Consciousness – Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science

Question:

Is there any scientific evidence to infer the existence of a universal or divine consciousness?

Answer:

Yes, most definitely. Due to quantum indeterminism, entanglement, and the observer effect, we have every reason to infer a universal consciousness. In fact, many of the founders of quantum mechanics did exactly that .

Funny how you created this thread immediately after being corrected on this point in the other thread.

Quantum physics does not imply a universal consciousness.

 

[Unification]

So humans have the mind of God?

Absolutely. Behind all of the ego, divide, labeling, judging others, anything that separates from the universal conscious, the mind of pure consciousness exists in all. Have to discover it from within. We are vehicles carrying out creation. We give God(consciousness) a body and being. Everyone has God(consciousness) within them, most are just ignorant and are unconscious/lack awareness of this. We tend to focus on our physical selves and the physical world.

Just as the entire universe works, on opposites, so does the mind. We tend to live in our subconscious/unconscious mind rather than our conscious/aware mind. Have to make the two, one. Or the two, whole.

It's evident that the mind is dual and opposite.

The universal consciousness is ONE. Therefore, our individual minds need renewed into ONE.

There is knowledge "of" something and then there is knowledge/knowing/experiencing. That essentially is the primary difference between science and consciousness.

Can even say that making the two one would be a divine marriage between science(knowledge/wisdom/logic "OF" something uniting with conscious experience.)

Here's a great example: evolution and Phylogenesis. We can have all the knowledge "of" these but really behind that knowledge "of" these, says that all is ONE. Yet for many, this oneness(universal consciousness) is not experienced within with the rest of the universe.

Experience has no limitations.

 

[Unification]

Not only is there scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness, there's so much evidence that scientists can measure the qualities of a person's consciousness:

In Dying Brains, Signs of Heightened Consciousness – Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science


Funny how you created this thread immediately after being corrected on this point in the other thread.

Quantum physics does not imply a universal consciousness.

It doesn't imply a universal consciousness. Quantum physics and anything does need an observer though for it to be anything. Using deductive logic, everything goes back to and derives from consciousness and is consciousness. It's inevitable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It doesn't imply a universal consciousness. Quantum physics and anything does need an observer though for it to be anything. Using deductive logic, everything goes back to and derives from consciousness and is consciousness. It's inevitable.

The problem with your position is that we really don't have evidence to imply that there is a universal consciousness. And I think you may misunderstand the meaning of "observe"

 

[Unification]

The problem with your position is that we really don't have evidence to imply that there is a universal consciousness. And I think you may misunderstand the meaning of "observe"

There will never be physical evidence. It's already self-evident. Consciousness doesn't need evidence. It is experience. The technicality is the separation.

Technicality of what words mean doesn't equate to experience.