Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

edalorzo
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:42 am

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by edalorzo » Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:23 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:09 am
You know it's not true because the computer follows a chain of switches without subjectivity and you know that computer experts don't understand consciousness and can't program it. Let's say that they are pretending to do what they can't,
That's what we are too, a bunch of biological switches! Think about it, all those bioelectrical reactions in our brains that give origin to our precious consciousness are nothing but a bunch of atoms, all following the deterministic laws of physics. What's so different of atoms of your brain and the electricity that makes it run and the deterministic behavior of molecules and biochemical reactions happening in it from those of the artificial computer?

Mother nature did not have a clue of what consciousness is, and yet we have it. If mother nature, by accident, came up with consciousness I wouldn't be so certain that smart computer scientists could not stumble with a conscious computer as they develop more and more sophisticated technology.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by PauloL » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:59 pm

edalorzo wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:44 am
.




Well, Searle created nothing new. That's Descartes' solipsism rewritten, or at best interpreted.




.

jayjacobus
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:16 pm

Mother nature did not have a clue of what consciousness is, and yet we have it. If mother nature, by accident, came up with consciousness I wouldn't be so certain that smart computer scientists could not stumble with a conscious computer as they develop more and more sophisticated technology.
If they are fishing in the wrong pond, they won't. And they don't know if computing is the right pond.

laksirib76
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:54 am

Re: Can Science as Consciousness?

Post by laksirib76 » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:39 pm

It is not the correct approach that science has taken to explain the topic. Actually Science is not conscious enough to explain the consciousness. The dualistic mind always build a logic expecting of a conclusion 'yes' or 'No' , even in a research , it is an attempt to prove the problem statement using stats and evidence and all of these takes place via thinking/ critical thinking , analytical thinking with an creative mine. where as the Consciousness is not answerable using the thinking process of the dualistic mind.

Actually what is consciousnesses and does it exists some where ? In the illusory world created by human mind the consciousness is the awareness of the self , I , ME , You. , and this identification exists as far as the brain activity continues. but this is a very preliminary way of defining it .

lets get out of the illusory world which is created by mind , and see the reality with the True nature and lets look at consciousness, when some one realize that the 'SELF' does not exists and get out of the thinking process then the actual consciousness starts flowing out, it is where both , existence and non existence both not there. that person will realize it is all about the emptiness and the real consciousness exists every where , there is no difference between the so called 'you' and the environment , it is one and no difference , finally about what consciousnesses science trying to explain here..
face the reality .. get out of the illusion of the self then the real consciousness will be visible with Wisdom and enlightenment.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1480
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:57 pm

The nature of science is observation of dimensions with this nature of observation being a dimension of consciousness. Consciousness and Observation are alike in the respect that they are fundamentally dimensions, or in simpler terms spatial constructs. Everything with understand at its root breaks down to "space".

It is in this respect with Consciousness and Observation being dimensions of space that consciousness and observation (one for the sake of clarity and brevity equate observation to science) are fundamentally spatial "reflections".

Consciousness reflecting upon itself maintains itself as consciousness through the approximate structure of observation. It is in this respect that the nature of observation/science is strictly a reflective structure of consciousness in one respect and an individual entity in itself.

So when one asks the question "can science explain consciousness" a more accurate, yet equivocally symmetrical, question may be "can science define consciousness"? If one were to break this question down and understand the nature of what "definition" really is is many respect it is strictly the reflection of spatial properties. Take for example any geometric structure, the structure itself is simply the reflection of points and lines. At the macro and every day practical level we define people, places, and things through categories which in and of themselves are dimensions for a category is nothing more than an abstract spatial structure.

These definitions maintain their structure through their reflection of themselves and other spatial structures which in turn extend into other spatial structures. The root of these spatial structures is the nature of "reflection" as a unifying median expressed as a point (1 dimensional), circle (2 dimensional), sphere (3 dimensional). It is from the point, as the only fully symmetrical and unified median that we begin to observe the nature of all being, as spatial structures, strictly as an expression of the "point" or the perspectives of the ancients (such as Pythagoras or Plato) where "Divinity" and "True Being" was expressed through the circle.

It is this nature of the point as simultaneously maintain a form of causality through structure (for the observation of causality is strictly the observation of structure as "cause" and "effect" with "effect" itself being a "cause" reflective of the first) and randomness as approximation (the nature of "effect" as "approximate cause" within its nature has a degree of deficiency for an approximate is deficient in respects to the original. this deficiency is "randomness" as an absence of being).

This nature of the point as a universal spatial properties is itself consciousness, in one degree or another, in the respect that it's spatial properties are universal. The point, much like consciousness contains all forms simultaneously while retaining a formlessness as the "center". We see the nature of consciousness best expressed through the nature of Pi where the form of the circle, or consciousness is observed, however its center (the roots of consciousness) are the continual propagation of dimensions as number (or points which conform to geometric shapes: 2 = line, 3= triangle, 4 =square, etc.).

It is in these respects that the nature of observation and consciousness are one and in the same as approximates of each other and the reflection of one is fundamentally the reflection of the other. These reflections form the structures through which we not only perceive the world but also simultaneously manifest it.

Science, as an approximate of consciousness is in itself an expression of consciousness and as an expression of consciousness science always maintains a level of subjective awareness due to its roots in the nature of "the axiom" (as self-evidence). It is the formulation of axioms from axioms that science is nothing other than a expression of modern alchemy where the "axioms" it is founded upon maintain the structure from which we both understand inner/external being but also synthesize and propogate the inner/external being.

This alchemy, or maintenance and manifestation of flux is the root of the scientific method for the scientific method has only a few perceived axioms through which it functions and these axioms do not argue for the scientific method. In simpler terms, the scientific method does not have a scientific method to justify it other than pure belief in a system whose reflection of structure is confused for a reflection of truth, when it reality it is just a structure of consciousness. In these respects what we understand of the scientific method is strictly the understanding of consciousness as the observation of structure through geometry for the nature of science, as reflective axioms/points (of awareness), is strictly the nature of consciousness as percieving order through structure.

Science is the structure (much like a tool) through which we percieve reality for it is nothing more than a geometry of axioms that reflect further axioms. So what we understand of consciousness through the point, as a point within itself, is the nature and need for reflection as a form of maintenance for a point maintains itself through its self-reflection...how much more for consciousness?

To ask if science can explain consciousness points to:

1) Consciousness, through observation as science, self-reflecting to maintain itself.
2) Observation as science, through Consciousness, self-reflecting to maintain itself.
3) The relation of Consciousness and Science in turn causing a flux in the other through relations. For example if science defines consciousness, by the very act of definition consciousness itself is changed and as a result science is change and the beginning science in turn creates an approximate science which is symmetrical but not equal to the first. It is in this nature of science, as a field of flux, that the explanation of consciousness through science is in itself a change in consciousness.

One of the real questions that is one of the answers to "can science explain consciousness?" is: "doe nature of explanation change science and consciousness?"

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by PauloL » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:57 pm
The first question is what's consciousness indeed. Without knowing that, how can science study it?

Descartes dualism raised the question how the physical world communicates with the cogito and he put his head on the chopping block for the amigdala (something so dear to physicalists who would readily strike the axe). The question, however, remains unanswered. For the sake of physicalism, Neuroscience replaced cogito with the neural self, something truly quite modern, but as undefined materially as the cogito itself.

So, no great advances on consciousness since Descartes. This is my humble opinion.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1480
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:30 pm

PauloL wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:57 pm
The first question is what's consciousness indeed. Without knowing that, how can science study it?

Descartes dualism raised the question how the physical world communicates with the cogito and he put his head on the chopping block for the amigdala (something so dear to physicalists who would readily strike the axe). The question, however, remains unanswered. For the sake of physicalism, Neuroscience replaced cogito with the neural self, something truly quite modern, but as undefined materially as the cogito itself.

So, no great advances on consciousness since Descartes. This is my humble opinion.
You are absolutely correct, as to the "totality" of it that is a difficult feat. However it may comfortably be reduced strictly to "space" for "space" seems to be the root of all constructs regardless of their nature of "physical" or "abstract". From this nature of space which come to the conclusion that it has a geometric nature (I have a post on geometric dimensionalism that covers parts of this, your opinions would be appreciated) and from this geometric nature one can comfortably observe consciousness and geometry to be fundamentally symmetrical.

Take for example the nature of Descartes "dualism". He defined two points the mind and body. The the nature of the mind and body, as axioms fundamentally requiring a "circular" definition (in some degrees) in order to maintain the structure of his argument. These two points, in themselves breakdown to a polarity between forces (mind/body) as one point eventually must flux with the other in order to maintain a symmetry which it does not keep.

Descartes problems broke down to the geometry of his argument inherently requiring a form of polarity through dualism. Where it is resolves is the synthesis of the two points of body and mind into the a third structure of spirit, with the spirit as a point synthesizing the further points. The polarity is resolves through the three concepts and not only is a new nature within man observed but simultaneously the logic of his argument takes on a more stable structure as 3 points (which is synonymous to a triangle, under the Pythagorean Perspective, the most stable structure next to the sphere).

It is in these respect that using not only the structure of Descartes arguments, but even our own discources, as the reflection of axioms (which in themselves at their root are "points" or "abstract spatial structures" embodied under the nature of perspective) that we can observe the nature of consciousness as the maintence, progression, and regression of spatial dimensions (both abstract and physical) with "space" itself being the unifying median of all the sciences/philosophies/religions/etc.

GSKERN
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by GSKERN » Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:30 pm

I've sometimes considered the relation of Mind and Matter to be similar to Transistors and Radio Signals: The transistors capture and modify the signal, but if course the Baseball game -- or Benny Goodman -- is not IN the transistors, just as Mind cannot be reduce to the physical workings of the Brain. But exactly what Mind IS, and where it COMES from, are mysterious.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by QuantumT » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:27 pm

GSKERN wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:30 pm
I've sometimes considered the relation of Mind and Matter to be similar to Transistors and Radio Signals: The transistors capture and modify the signal, but if course the Baseball game -- or Benny Goodman -- is not IN the transistors, just as Mind cannot be reduce to the physical workings of the Brain. But exactly what Mind IS, and where it COMES from, are mysterious.
I think you might be right.
But until that is proven, science will claim that the state of our neurons (the sum of connections) make up our consciousness.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by Noax » Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:32 am

QuantumT wrote:
Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:27 pm
I think you might be right.
But until that is proven, science will claim that the state of our neurons (the sum of connections) make up our consciousness.
This stance contradicts your simulation idea where simulations are run of human evolutionary history. It doesn't work if the brain is effectively an antenna for consciousness. I can accurately simulate a radio right down to the transistor (they actually do this), and can even do it real time, but it still will not pick up a ball game broadcast.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:20 pm

Consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms. One may formulate mathematical models of anything that a conscious entity experiences from reality, but I'll bet my soul that nothing in our reality, even delving into the depths of the material brain will ever uncover the essence of consciousness, not without looking into what the true backbone of reality is, dark energy\matter.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by Gary Childress » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:00 pm

I think the short answer is "no", Science cannot "explain" consciousness, at least not in a "reductionist" sense whereby we try to explain it in terms of physical substances and also not in the sense that I can observe someone else's consciousness. I think the consciousness of another will forever be a black box which we (as subjective individuals) can never open. I can intimately know of my own consciousness but I will never be able to do anything other than indirectly infer the consciousness of any other.

User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by QuantumT » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:27 pm

Noax wrote:
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:32 am
This stance contradicts your simulation idea where simulations are run of human evolutionary history. It doesn't work if the brain is effectively an antenna for consciousness. I can accurately simulate a radio right down to the transistor (they actually do this), and can even do it real time, but it still will not pick up a ball game broadcast.
Well, the ancestor simulation is not my idea, but Bostrom's, so you can't pin that on me. I just communicated his argument.
And the brain as a virtual holographic receiver might be a far fetched idea, but if you consider the human body as an avatar, we are not far from it.

It's peculiar how most people find obstacles in the possibility of a simulated reality. It shows how difficult it is for them to think outside the box, or imagining either different physical laws or a much much higher technical advancement - or both, in the world that simulates us. It makes me wonder if people lack the courage to realise that it's a valid proposal, or if they're just not capable of imagining it?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can Science Explain Consciousness?

Post by bahman » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:11 am

Science cannot explain consciousness since consciousness is a property of mind.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests