An argument against materialism

[SteveKlinko]

How the Experience of Redness is produced from Neurons firing is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Just how was it proved to you that neurons firing produces conscious experience?

A hundred years of Scientific probing and measuring of the Brain has concluded that Conscious Experiences are certainly Correlated to the Neural Activity. But there is a great Gap of Explanation between Neurons Firing and a Conscious Experience happening. This is the Hard Problem.

[RCSaunders]

A hundred years of Scientific probing and measuring of the Brain has concluded that Conscious Experiences are certainly Correlated to the Neural Activity. But there is a great Gap of Explanation between Neurons Firing and a Conscious Experience happening. This is the Hard Problem.

I see no problem. If an organism is conscious there must be some aspect of the physical organism that corresponds to or is related to that consciousness. In all higher animals and human beings the physical aspect related to consciousness is the neurological system. Part of that system is the brain. Studies of the brain are able to correlate some conscious experience with some specific brain activity, but there is not even a hint that brain activity is in any way consciousness, because consciousness is not a thing, not an event, or a substance. The only way you know there is such a thing as consciousness is because you are conscious. If you pay attention to your own consciousness you will notice that it can best be described as a continuously changing state of awareness, and nothing more.

What your consciousness is aware of is whatever your entire neurological system makes available to your life process to be aware of, which is why you have to be alive to be conscious. The life attribute, which is manifest at the physical level as a continuous self-sustained process is what actually makes the attribute of consciousness possible. Consciousness is an attribute of a living organism which makes it possible to be aware, just as life is the attribute that makes the living process that sustains the organism possible. No physical action produces life, life makes the unique living process possible. No physical life process produces consciousness, consciousness makes conscious awareness possible in those living organisms that have that attribute.

So long as you think of consciousness as some kind of, "action," or, the product of some action, you will have a problem, because consciousness is neither of those things.

[gaffo]

Because you need conscious mind for any change. There are changes that my conscious mind are not caused. Therefore, there are at least two minds. Me and a Demon, you.

if you say so, you and i (or me and me) have spoken about this last week.

carry on.

You cannot be unaware of changes in the universe if you cause them.

sure i can, why do you assume "I am" = "i know all things and create all things"

just because i do not know stuff and an unaware, only means i am a flawed god.

still make me all.

a god, lower case,

oh and BTW you still not prove to me that you do actually exist as a being outside of me talking to me.

"i exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "his warm/loud tie proved that he did - lol.

refer to Robert Sheckley's "Warm" - 1950's thinker that wrote short stories - utterly forgotten today, but had a minor rebambrance in the 1950's and 3-6 X Minus One Radiodramas were done from his stories.

"Skulking permit" is one that come to mind.

and via the latter Robert Hanson radioreading of the 70's, "Petrified Forest" and "language of love"


I personally go by his "Ask and Foolish" Question myself......though "Warm" is a good story.

you can find Hanson's "Mindweds" and the 50's radiodrama "x-minus one" via the Internet archive website if interested.

Radioplays are a lost artform, sadly forgotten today.

[SteveKlinko]

A hundred years of Scientific probing and measuring of the Brain has concluded that Conscious Experiences are certainly Correlated to the Neural Activity. But there is a great Gap of Explanation between Neurons Firing and a Conscious Experience happening. This is the Hard Problem.

I see no problem. If an organism is conscious there must be some aspect of the physical organism that corresponds to or is related to that consciousness. In all higher animals and human beings the physical aspect related to consciousness is the neurological system. Part of that system is the brain. Studies of the brain are able to correlate some conscious experience with some specific brain activity, but there is not even a hint that brain activity is in any way consciousness, because consciousness is not a thing, not an event, or a substance. The only way you know there is such a thing as consciousness is because you are conscious. If you pay attention to your own consciousness you will notice that it can best be described as a continuously changing state of awareness, and nothing more.

What your consciousness is aware of is whatever you entire neurological system makes available to your life process to be aware of, which is why you have to be alive to be conscious. The life attribute, which is manifest at the physical level as a continuous self-sustained process is what actually makes the attribute of consciousness possible. Consciousness is an attribute of a living organism which makes it possible to be aware, just as life is the attribute that makes the living process that sustains the organism possible. No physical action produces life, life makes the unique living process possible. No physical life process produces consciousness, consciousness makes conscious awareness possible in those living organisms that have that attribute.

So long as you think of consciousness as some kind of, "action," or, the product of some action, you will have a problem, because consciousness is neither of those things.

When you use the term Consciousness in a generalized way, where you are referring to some sort of Awareness, then the things you say seem mostly reasonable. But the generalized Awareness aspect of Consciousness is not what I am talking about. When I use the term Consciousness I am always thinking about Conscious Sensory Experiences like the Sight of the Color Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, or the Smell of Bleach. Your generalization arguments break down when any particular Conscious Sensory Experience is analyzed. Think about the Redness of the Red itself as a thing in itself, or the Sound of the Tone as a thing in itself, etc.. Yes, think about the Experience itself. These Conscious Experiences are completely unexplained by Science. The Neurons fire and then these Experiences happen. You are simply wrong when you imply that these Experiences are not the product of some Action (like Neurons firing). You can only claim there is no Hard Problem of Consciousness if you deny the reality of the current Scientific understanding of the Correlation of Conscious Experience with Neural Activity.

[bahman]

if you say so, you and i (or me and me) have spoken about this last week.

carry on.

You cannot be unaware of changes in the universe if you cause them.

sure i can, why do you assume "I am" = "i know all things and create all things"

just because i do not know stuff and an unaware, only means i am a flawed god.

still make me all.

a god, lower case,

oh and BTW you still not prove to me that you do actually exist as a being outside of me talking to me.

"i exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "his warm/loud tie proved that he did - lol.

refer to Robert Sheckley's "Warm" - 1950's thinker that wrote short stories - utterly forgotten today, but had a minor rebambrance in the 1950's and 3-6 X Minus One Radiodramas were done from his stories.

"Skulking permit" is one that come to mind.

and via the latter Robert Hanson radioreading of the 70's, "Petrified Forest" and "language of love"


I personally go by his "Ask and Foolish" Question myself......though "Warm" is a good story.

you can find Hanson's "Mindweds" and the 50's radiodrama "x-minus one" via the Internet archive website if interested.

Radioplays are a lost artform, sadly forgotten today.

As I mentioned any change requires a conscious mind. There are changes which you don't cause. Therefore there are at least two persons.

[RCSaunders]

A hundred years of Scientific probing and measuring of the Brain has concluded that Conscious Experiences are certainly Correlated to the Neural Activity. But there is a great Gap of Explanation between Neurons Firing and a Conscious Experience happening. This is the Hard Problem.

I see no problem. If an organism is conscious there must be some aspect of the physical organism that corresponds to or is related to that consciousness. In all higher animals and human beings the physical aspect related to consciousness is the neurological system. Part of that system is the brain. Studies of the brain are able to correlate some conscious experience with some specific brain activity, but there is not even a hint that brain activity is in any way consciousness, because consciousness is not a thing, not an event, or a substance. The only way you know there is such a thing as consciousness is because you are conscious. If you pay attention to your own consciousness you will notice that it can best be described as a continuously changing state of awareness, and nothing more.

What your consciousness is aware of is whatever you entire neurological system makes available to your life process to be aware of, which is why you have to be alive to be conscious. The life attribute, which is manifest at the physical level as a continuous self-sustained process is what actually makes the attribute of consciousness possible. Consciousness is an attribute of a living organism which makes it possible to be aware, just as life is the attribute that makes the living process that sustains the organism possible. No physical action produces life, life makes the unique living process possible. No physical life process produces consciousness, consciousness makes conscious awareness possible in those living organisms that have that attribute.

So long as you think of consciousness as some kind of, "action," or, the product of some action, you will have a problem, because consciousness is neither of those things.

When you use the term Consciousness in a generalized way, where you are referring to some sort of Awareness, then the things you say seem mostly reasonable. But the generalized Awareness aspect of Consciousness is not what I am talking about. When I use the term Consciousness I am always thinking about Conscious Sensory Experiences like the Sight of the Color Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, or the Smell of Bleach. Your generalization arguments break down when any particular Conscious Sensory Experience is analyzed. Think about the Redness of the Red itself as a thing in itself, or the Sound of the Tone as a thing in itself, etc.. Yes, think about the Experience itself. These Conscious Experiences are completely unexplained by Science. The Neurons fire and then these Experiences happen. You are simply wrong when you imply that these Experiences are not the product of some Action (like Neurons firing). You can only claim there is no Hard Problem of Consciousness if you deny the reality of the current Scientific understanding of the Correlation of Conscious Experience with Neural Activity.

I think I understand the distinction you are making. What you are questioning is not consciousness or awareness itself, but the, "content," of consciousness and why it has the character it has. The question you are asking is the same one philosophers who invented the term, "qualia," attempted to answer--not how, "red," is seen, but why, when seen, it is what we call, "red."

In one sense, we cannot talk about that, because I have no idea what your conscious experience is when you see red, and you have no idea what I experience when I see red. Without realizing it, you have put your finger on exactly why science cannot ever address the question of consciousness itself. That conscious experience you identify as the, "Color Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, or the Smell of Bleach," cannot be examined because science can only deal with those things we objectively perceive, (because we all perceive the same things), but how we perceive them (each individual's own conscious experience) cannot be perceived. Science cannot address or deal with anything that cannot be demonstrated, in the form of a, "sample," or, "example," or, "experiment."

I can examine a brain scientifically, and I can show someone else the brain I am examining. But, no one can examine anyone's conscious experience and certainly cannot show someone else that experience. I can even examine my own brain, if I have the right kind of equipment, but I cannot examine even my own conscious experience, I can only have the experience. That is what I mean by I know I see because I do, but I cannot "see" my seeing (or perceive it in any other way).

As far as science is concerned, as something that can be studied, consciousness does not exist. If you insist that consciousness be explained scientifically, it never will be, because consciousness is an attribute of nature, just like any of the physical attributes, but not itself a physical attribute.

I understand the frustration: "why does red look red, why is it experienced as red and not green, or smell instead of having an appearance?" But the question is actually mistaken. It's like the question, "why is there something instead of nothing." In both cases there is an unwarranted assumption, that everything that is must be contingent and that nothing just is what it is. But there is no basis for that assumption.

[SteveKlinko]

I see no problem. If an organism is conscious there must be some aspect of the physical organism that corresponds to or is related to that consciousness. In all higher animals and human beings the physical aspect related to consciousness is the neurological system. Part of that system is the brain. Studies of the brain are able to correlate some conscious experience with some specific brain activity, but there is not even a hint that brain activity is in any way consciousness, because consciousness is not a thing, not an event, or a substance. The only way you know there is such a thing as consciousness is because you are conscious. If you pay attention to your own consciousness you will notice that it can best be described as a continuously changing state of awareness, and nothing more.

What your consciousness is aware of is whatever you entire neurological system makes available to your life process to be aware of, which is why you have to be alive to be conscious. The life attribute, which is manifest at the physical level as a continuous self-sustained process is what actually makes the attribute of consciousness possible. Consciousness is an attribute of a living organism which makes it possible to be aware, just as life is the attribute that makes the living process that sustains the organism possible. No physical action produces life, life makes the unique living process possible. No physical life process produces consciousness, consciousness makes conscious awareness possible in those living organisms that have that attribute.

So long as you think of consciousness as some kind of, "action," or, the product of some action, you will have a problem, because consciousness is neither of those things.

When you use the term Consciousness in a generalized way, where you are referring to some sort of Awareness, then the things you say seem mostly reasonable. But the generalized Awareness aspect of Consciousness is not what I am talking about. When I use the term Consciousness I am always thinking about Conscious Sensory Experiences like the Sight of the Color Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, or the Smell of Bleach. Your generalization arguments break down when any particular Conscious Sensory Experience is analyzed. Think about the Redness of the Red itself as a thing in itself, or the Sound of the Tone as a thing in itself, etc.. Yes, think about the Experience itself. These Conscious Experiences are completely unexplained by Science. The Neurons fire and then these Experiences happen. You are simply wrong when you imply that these Experiences are not the product of some Action (like Neurons firing). You can only claim there is no Hard Problem of Consciousness if you deny the reality of the current Scientific understanding of the Correlation of Conscious Experience with Neural Activity.

I think I understand the distinction you are making. What you are questioning is not consciousness or awareness itself, but the, "content," of consciousness and why it has the character it has. The question you are asking is the same one philosophers who invented the term, "qualia," attempted to answer--not how, "red," is seen, but why, when seen, it is what we call, "red."

In one sense, we cannot talk about that, because I have no idea what your conscious experience is when you see red, and you have no idea what I experience when I see red. Without realizing it, you have put your finger on exactly why science cannot ever address the question of consciousness itself. That conscious experience you identify as the, "Color Red, the Sound of the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, or the Smell of Bleach," cannot be examined because science can only deal with those things we objectively perceive, (because we all perceive the same things), but how we perceive them (each individual's own conscious experience) cannot be perceived. Science cannot address or deal with anything that cannot be demonstrated, in the form of a, "sample," or, "example," or, "experiment."

I can examine a brain scientifically, and I can show someone else the brain I am examining. But, no one can examine anyone's conscious experience and certainly cannot show someone else that experience. I can even examine my own brain, if I have the right kind of equipment, but I cannot examine even my own conscious experience, I can only have the experience. That is what I mean by I know I see because I do, but I cannot "see" my seeing (or perceive it in any other way).

As far as science is concerned, as something that can be studied, consciousness does not exist. If you insist that consciousness be explained scientifically, it never will be, because consciousness is an attribute of nature, just like any of the physical attributes, but not itself a physical attribute.

I understand the frustration: "why does red look red, why is it experienced as red and not green, or smell instead of having an appearance?" But the question is actually mistaken. It's like the question, "why is there something instead of nothing." In both cases there is an unwarranted assumption, that everything that is must be contingent and that nothing just is what it is. But there is no basis for that assumption.

Science may very well not ever be able to Explain Conscious Experiences, but I'm betting that it will. A few radically new concepts may have to be incorporated before an Explanation is possible. I think it is clear that we all have different Experiences, but I think that it will be shown that the similarities in our Experiences by far outweigh the differences. At this time in our understanding there is no way to measure my Experience of the Redness of the Color Red that I experience and no way to measure yours. The only way for me to know your Experience is for me to Experience it. The only way for you to know my Experience is for you to Experience it. But maybe someday Science will invent a device that can record the Conscious Experiences in your Mind and that can then can play them back to my Conscious Mind. We will then be able to understand the differences in our Experiences. But before such a device can be invented Science will have to discover what these Conscious Experiences are, and probably within some new framework of understanding.

[RCSaunders]

Science may very well not ever be able to Explain Conscious Experiences, but I'm betting that it will. A few radically new concepts may have to be incorporated before an Explanation is possible. I think it is clear that we all have different Experiences, but I think that it will be shown that the similarities in our Experiences by far outweigh the differences. At this time in our understanding there is no way to measure my Experience of the Redness of the Color Red that I experience and no way to measure yours.

Not only is there no way to measure that experience, there is no way to even observe it. As far as you are concerned, my conscious experience does not exist because there is no way for you to detect it in any way. If you believe I am conscious you have to take my word for it, there is no way for you to test it to determine if I really am conscious.

But maybe someday Science will invent a device that can record the Conscious Experiences in your Mind and that can then can play them back to my Conscious Mind.

The problem with such a possible device is, when one persons conscious experience is supposedly "played," in someone else's mind, how would one know what they were experiencing was really someone else's experience if they could not directly perceive that other individual's experience.

Since conscious experience has no physical properties no physical device could record it, for the same reason a physical brain cannot produce it.

... Science will have to discover what these Conscious Experiences are, and probably within some new framework of understanding.

Science cannot make such a discovery because it assumes the, "new framework of understanding," must be physical. A new understanding is exactly what is needed but before it is possible that superstitious prejudice that everything must be able to be explained in physical term must be given up. So long as the position is taken, "everything is physical and nothing else is possible," consciousness will never be understood, just as so long as the position was taken, "the earth is the center of the universe," prevented the true nature of movement of celestial bodies from being understood.

[SteveKlinko]

Science may very well not ever be able to Explain Conscious Experiences, but I'm betting that it will. A few radically new concepts may have to be incorporated before an Explanation is possible. I think it is clear that we all have different Experiences, but I think that it will be shown that the similarities in our Experiences by far outweigh the differences. At this time in our understanding there is no way to measure my Experience of the Redness of the Color Red that I experience and no way to measure yours.

Not only is there no way to measure that experience, there is no way to even observe it. As far as you are concerned, my conscious experience does not exist because there is no way for you to detect it in any way. If you believe I am conscious you have to take my word for it, there is no way for you to test it to determine if I really am conscious.

But maybe someday Science will invent a device that can record the Conscious Experiences in your Mind and that can then can play them back to my Conscious Mind.

The problem with such a possible device is, when one persons conscious experience is supposedly "played," in someone else's mind, how would one know what they were experiencing was really someone else's experience if they could not directly perceive that other individual's experience.

If the Device exists that means Science and the inventors know what Conscious Experience is. They know how to test and validate the Device.

Since conscious experience has no physical properties no physical device could record it, for the same reason a physical brain cannot produce it.

... Science will have to discover what these Conscious Experiences are, and probably within some new framework of understanding.

Science cannot make such a discovery because it assumes the, "new framework of understanding," must be physical. A new understanding is exactly what is needed but before it is possible that superstitious prejudice that everything must be able to be explained in physical term must be given up. So long as the position is taken, "everything is physical and nothing else is possible," consciousness will never be understood, just as so long as the position was taken, "the earth is the center of the universe," prevented the true nature of movement of celestial bodies from being understood.

When I say New Framework I mean Science will have to come out of it's box and will have to discover New Principles that are not part of Science yet. Science is an ever changing and adaptive machine-like process that will eventually find the truth about how everything works even if it takes a long time and a lot of reevaluation of current methods.

[RCSaunders]

Science may very well not ever be able to Explain Conscious Experiences, but I'm betting that it will. A few radically new concepts may have to be incorporated before an Explanation is possible. I think it is clear that we all have different Experiences, but I think that it will be shown that the similarities in our Experiences by far outweigh the differences. At this time in our understanding there is no way to measure my Experience of the Redness of the Color Red that I experience and no way to measure yours.

Not only is there no way to measure that experience, there is no way to even observe it. As far as you are concerned, my conscious experience does not exist because there is no way for you to detect it in any way. If you believe I am conscious you have to take my word for it, there is no way for you to test it to determine if I really am conscious.

By the way, I happen to think our conscious experiences, with some obvious exceptions, are identical. It's obvious the color blind and deaf, for example, do not have identical experiences, but I think, "red," probably looks the same to everyone, and vinegar smells like vinegar to everyone.

But maybe someday Science will invent a device that can record the Conscious Experiences in your Mind and that can then can play them back to my Conscious Mind.

The problem with such a possible device is, when one persons conscious experience is supposedly "played," in someone else's mind, how would one know what they were experiencing was really someone else's experience if they could not directly perceive that other individual's experience.

If the Device exists that means Science and the inventors know what Conscious Experience is. They know how to test and validate the Device.

Then it won't happen.

Since conscious experience has no physical properties no physical device could record it, for the same reason a physical brain cannot produce it.

... Science will have to discover what these Conscious Experiences are, and probably within some new framework of understanding.

Science cannot make such a discovery because it assumes the, "new framework of understanding," must be physical. A new understanding is exactly what is needed but before it is possible that superstitious prejudice that everything must be able to be explained in physical term must be given up. So long as the position is taken, "everything is physical and nothing else is possible," consciousness will never be understood, just as so long as the position was taken, "the earth is the center of the universe," prevented the true nature of movement of celestial bodies from being understood.

When I say New Framework I mean Science will have to come out of it's box and will have to discover New Principles that are not part of Science yet. Science is an ever changing and adaptive machine-like process that will eventually find the truth about how everything works even if it takes a long time and a lot of reevaluation of current methods.

Before Wundt destroyed it, and invented the pseudoscience called experimental psychology (from which all of what is called psychology today was spawned) there was a branch of philosophy called philosophical psychology. Before that, the distinction between philosophy and science was based on the assumption that science studied that which consciousness is conscious of (physical existence) and philosophy dealt with everything else that exists but cannot be directly perceived or deduced from what can perceived.

Except for the fact that you are conscious, there is no way you could deduce the fact of consciousness from anything you can see, hear, feel, smell or taste. You can observe the behavior of living organisms, and from the behavior of the higher animals assume they are conscious, but that is an assumption (which I am sure is true) but is not based on what can be directly perceived, but deduced by comparison with your own experience and behavior.

Today, there are machines, some so sophisticated their behavior mimics what we think of as, "conscious behavior," so well, it is impossible to tell from that behavior whether there is consciousness or not. (Think of some modern, "robots.") No physical behavior is evidence of consciousness except by analogy. It cannot be directly observed.

It is possible for science to examine any kind of observable behavior, but consciousness cannot be observed in any way, except by the organism that is conscious. How can science study what it cannot observe?

[That last question, by the way, is the whole of why psychology is not a science.]

[SteveKlinko]

Not only is there no way to measure that experience, there is no way to even observe it. As far as you are concerned, my conscious experience does not exist because there is no way for you to detect it in any way. If you believe I am conscious you have to take my word for it, there is no way for you to test it to determine if I really am conscious.

By the way, I happen to think our conscious experiences, with some obvious exceptions, are identical. It's obvious the color blind and deaf, for example, do not have identical experiences, but I think, "red," probably looks the same to everyone, and vinegar smells like vinegar to everyone.

But maybe someday Science will invent a device that can record the Conscious Experiences in your Mind and that can then can play them back to my Conscious Mind.

The problem with such a possible device is, when one persons conscious experience is supposedly "played," in someone else's mind, how would one know what they were experiencing was really someone else's experience if they could not directly perceive that other individual's experience.

If the Device exists that means Science and the inventors know what Conscious Experience is. They know how to test and validate the Device.

Then it won't happen.

Since conscious experience has no physical properties no physical device could record it, for the same reason a physical brain cannot produce it.

Science cannot make such a discovery because it assumes the, "new framework of understanding," must be physical. A new understanding is exactly what is needed but before it is possible that superstitious prejudice that everything must be able to be explained in physical term must be given up. So long as the position is taken, "everything is physical and nothing else is possible," consciousness will never be understood, just as so long as the position was taken, "the earth is the center of the universe," prevented the true nature of movement of celestial bodies from being understood.

When I say New Framework I mean Science will have to come out of it's box and will have to discover New Principles that are not part of Science yet. Science is an ever changing and adaptive machine-like process that will eventually find the truth about how everything works even if it takes a long time and a lot of reevaluation of current methods.

Before Wundt destroyed it, and invented the pseudoscience called experimental psychology (from which all of what is called psychology today was spawned) there was a branch of philosophy called philosophical psychology. Before that, the distinction between philosophy and science was based on the assumption that science studied that which consciousness is conscious of (physical existence) and philosophy dealt with everything else that exists but cannot be directly perceived or deduced from what can perceived.

Except for the fact that you are conscious, there is no way you could deduce the fact of consciousness from anything you can see, hear, feel, smell or taste. You can observe the behavior of living organisms, and from the behavior of the higher animals assume they are conscious, but that is an assumption (which I am sure is true) but is not based on what can be directly perceived, but deduced by comparison with your own experience and behavior.

Today, there are machines, some so sophisticated their behavior mimics what we think of as, "conscious behavior," so well, it is impossible to tell from that behavior whether there is consciousness or not. (Think of some modern, "robots.") No physical behavior is evidence of consciousness except by analogy. It cannot be directly observed.

It is possible for science to examine any kind of observable behavior, but consciousness cannot be observed in any way, except by the organism that is conscious. How can science study what it cannot observe?

[That last question, by the way, is the whole of why psychology is not a science.]

I cannot predict how Science will be able to deal with Consciousness in the future. You say Science will never be able to Observe Consciousness, but you limit what Science might be able to do in the future to what Science can do now. When I say New Frameworks I mean New Concepts of Space and Time plus New Understandings of Matter and Energy. Conscious Experiences might be understood to be a new type of Substance (not new Philosophically but it would be New to Science). For example, Consciousness might eventually be how we explore the Universe. It is probably pointless to explore the Universe with Physical Bodies in Rocket Ships. We just can't get anywhere. If Consciousness exists in a New Conceptual Dimension (not Physical) of say let's call it Conscious Space we might be able to build Conscious Machines that will be able to connect with Conscious Machines in other Galaxies. The assumption is, since Conscious Space is probably not like any Physical Space, then distance might not be a problem. Science will need to fully understand Conscious Space before this can be done. Science will have to add some other aspect to the Conscious Machines that will let the Machines connect. Our Conscious Minds don't seem to have that aspect built in so much understanding is needed. Of course these are just Wild Speculations at this point, but Wild Speculation can lead to great Scientific advancements.

[RCSaunders]

I cannot predict how Science will be able to deal with Consciousness in the future. You say Science will never be able to Observe Consciousness, but you limit what Science might be able to do in the future to what Science can do now. When I say New Frameworks I mean New Concepts of Space and Time plus New Understandings of Matter and Energy. Conscious Experiences might be understood to be a new type of Substance (not new Philosophically but it would be New to Science). For example, Consciousness might eventually be how we explore the Universe. It is probably pointless to explore the Universe with Physical Bodies in Rocket Ships. We just can't get anywhere. If Consciousness exists in a New Conceptual Dimension (not Physical) of say let's call it Conscious Space we might be able to build Conscious Machines that will be able to connect with Conscious Machines in other Galaxies. The assumption is, since Conscious Space is probably not like any Physical Space, then distance might not be a problem. Science will need to fully understand Conscious Space before this can be done. Science will have to add some other aspect to the Conscious Machines that will let the Machines connect. Our Conscious Minds don't seem to have that aspect built in so much understanding is needed. Of course these are just Wild Speculations at this point, but Wild Speculation can lead to great Scientific advancements.

I certainly do not place any limits on the potential of science to discover and explain things that may, at the moment, not even be dreamed of. I'm referring to what we mean by science, by which I mean the physical sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, and biology and their subcategories. Science has been extremely successful because, until recently (last 100 years or so) it confined itself to studying the physical, whatever could be directly perceived or deduced (with instruments and reason) from what can be directly perceived.

I have no idea what any of those things you mention are supposed to identify. Consciousness is only awareness. There is no such thing as, "awareness space," and consciousnes itself has no physical properties, like location, or dimension, or any other extension and it is not any kind of action or behavior. It is totally passive.

[SteveKlinko]

I cannot predict how Science will be able to deal with Consciousness in the future. You say Science will never be able to Observe Consciousness, but you limit what Science might be able to do in the future to what Science can do now. When I say New Frameworks I mean New Concepts of Space and Time plus New Understandings of Matter and Energy. Conscious Experiences might be understood to be a new type of Substance (not new Philosophically but it would be New to Science). For example, Consciousness might eventually be how we explore the Universe. It is probably pointless to explore the Universe with Physical Bodies in Rocket Ships. We just can't get anywhere. If Consciousness exists in a New Conceptual Dimension (not Physical) of say let's call it Conscious Space we might be able to build Conscious Machines that will be able to connect with Conscious Machines in other Galaxies. The assumption is, since Conscious Space is probably not like any Physical Space, then distance might not be a problem. Science will need to fully understand Conscious Space before this can be done. Science will have to add some other aspect to the Conscious Machines that will let the Machines connect. Our Conscious Minds don't seem to have that aspect built in so much understanding is needed. Of course these are just Wild Speculations at this point, but Wild Speculation can lead to great Scientific advancements.

I certainly do not place any limits on the potential of science to discover and explain things that may, at the moment, not even be dreamed of. I'm referring to what we mean by science, by which I mean the physical sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, and biology and their subcategories. Science has been extremely successful because, until recently (last 100 years or so) it confined itself to studying the physical, whatever could be directly perceived or deduced (with instruments and reason) from what can be directly perceived.

I have no idea what any of those things you mention are supposed to identify. Consciousness is only awareness. There is no such thing as, "awareness space," and consciousnes itself has no physical properties, like location, or dimension, or any other extension and it is not any kind of action or behavior. It is totally passive.

I am always thinking about Conscious Sensory Experiences when I talk about Consciousness. Conscious Space is a conceptual place (not necessarily Physical) where Conscious Sensory Experiences happen. It is impossible to stuff things like the Sight of Red, the Sound of Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, or the Smell of Bleach back into the Neurons. Science has tried to do this for a hundred years. Sensory Experiences certainly do Exist, but they Exist only in our Conscious Minds. Conscious Space is a placeholder for these Sensory things and the Conscious Mind until we can figure out what they actually are.

[Dimebag]

Consciousness is only awareness.......is totally passive.

This I’m not so sure of. The sensory component of consciousness seems directly tied to action, almost to the point that actions use the feedback from the senses to drive them. Seems active to me. Now, the idea that “I” am in there controlling those actions by “looking” at the senses is flawed and illusory, really I am created as an idea. The body responds to the senses, mediated by layers of past experiences which guide action to more appropriate outcomes, I.e. learning.

Maybe that sensory information doesn’t need to be conscious to drive those actions, once they are permenantly laid down as second nature, but until they are, consciousness is there to mediate between the motor cortex and the senses, helping determine the best course of action based on desired actions, consciousness is actively involved in a feedback process from perception to the motor cortex, because novel behaviours need to be directed via the “universal serial bus” known as consciousness, and only after those actions are laid out and the appropriate sensory stimulus to look out for are cued up in the program can the process happen offline.

[Age]

All particles in the universe are interacting with each other. This means that we have one process. Materialism claims that consciousness is the result of process in matter. Therefore there should be one consciousness. There are more than one consciousness. Therefore materialism is false.

There is One Consciousness.

There is also more than one, being, which is conscious, but NOT which is 'consciousness', itself.