The Case for the soul.

[seer]

The mere fact that I am not enraged by the sight of my mother proves that there is at least some distinct difference in the brain between love and hate. It may be subtle, as you say, but there is a distinction. Emotions are controlled by the brain, and the fact that two similar emotions may share some wiring, does not make them the same emotion. This isn't even an argument from you.

Yes, but we have to assume that our brains are wired nearly exactly the same. The bottom line is that we just have to take your word for it.

Anyway, let's get back to the reason for this thread:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behavior—which may or may not be attended by consciousness. The fact that the behavior of our fellow human beings persuades us that they are (more or less) conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events. Is a starfish conscious? A scientific account of the emergence of consciousness would answer this question. And it seems clear that we will not make any progress by drawing analogies between starfish behavior and our own. It is only in the presence of animals sufficiently like ourselves that our intuitions about (and attributions of) consciousness begin to crystallize. Is there “something that it is like” to be a cocker spaniel? Does it feel its pains and pleasures? Surely it must. How do we know? Behavior, analogy, parsimony.[7]

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

So can you scientifically explain consciousness?

[Cerebrum123]

We assume that logic works, because without logic working, nothing would ever progress - and this would lead to a rather fruitless existence. It's a necessary assumption that nobody could disagree with. Thus, I think that logic is necessarily scientifically valid.

No, because we do not discover logic by the scientific method. The laws of logic aren't material either, and they are valid whether or not we ever discovered them in the first place. At best you could claim the the scientific method is logically valid, not the other way around.

[ChaosRain]

Yes, but we have to assume that our brains are wired nearly exactly the same. The bottom line is that we just have to take your word for it.

No, you really don't have to take my word for it. Go out and find two people; one you love, and one you hate, and compare and contrast the feelings for yourself. Experimentally validate emotions.

Regardless, this is fruitless. How else would one explain emotions, if not for our brains?

So can you scientifically explain consciousness?

Not personally, no. However, I know that it has to do with our brains; nothing else could explain it - especially with the absence of evidence for a soul, which is made vestigial by the existence of the brain.

Consciousness is what separates us from our non-human animal brothers and cousins. At least, the level of consciousness that our highly-developed brains permit us. Not to say that other animals don't have a consciousness, but they have less of a consciousness, given their inability to do many of the things that we can do.

No, because we do not discover logic by the scientific method. The laws of logic aren't material either, and they are valid whether or not we ever discovered them in the first place. At best you could claim the the scientific method is logically valid, not the other way around.

Fair enough. Logic is an exception to the rule, perhaps?

[Cerebrum123]

Fair enough. Logic is an exception to the rule, perhaps?

Seriously? You make sweeping statements that nothing that's not scientifically verifiable can be true, and when pointing out that the very science you rely on itself relies on just such a thing, you dismiss it as "an exception to the rule"?

Oh, and another would be mathematics. It's used in science, and often to help validate theories, but it came long before science, and some math, while perfectly valid mathematically, has no relation to reality at all. That makes it an immaterial construct of our minds, just like logic.

In fact, I would say that modern science depends on both math and logic in order to really function. When two things that you rely on don't pass your own test, I would say it's a failed method of testing.

Your challenge has been met, now I think it's time you tried passing seer's challenge. You need to prove, using science, that only things verified by science are true.

I'd say it's been demonstrated in this thread that the immaterial exists, but so far none of the examples can be verified scientifically. If these things which science itself relies on can't be verified, why should other immaterial things be detectable using the scientific method?

[Truthseeker]

ChaosRain may, mirabile dictu, live his life based on NO assumptions at all. For instance, he knows unerringly that Seer is actually an android, like Data in Star Trek, not a human being.

[phank]

Your challenge has been met, now I think it's time you tried passing seer's challenge. You need to prove, using science, that only things verified by science are true.

Sigh. Seer is always demanding "scientific proof", and has been told more times than I can count that science cannot "prove" anything. The best science can do is provide additional support. But we could tell seer this another thousand times, and he would STILL be demanding "scientific proof". So why bother trying to penetrate?

it's been demonstrated in this thread that the immaterial exists, but so far none of the examples can be verified scientifically. If these things which science itself relies on can't be verified, why should other immaterial things be detectable using the scientific method?

This sounds very equivocal. What does "immaterial" mean in this context? It seems to be pretty slippery, connoting "not material" here, and "conceptual" there, and "probable" somewhere else. Do probabilities "exist", or are they just another tool in our conceptual toolbox?

Maybe we can pin down "immaterial" as meaning "cannot be measured"? But probabilities can be measured, ideas can be tested and validated, logical inference might not be a material "thing", but conceptual tools are quite real.

Once again, we fall back on the default position that anything for which there is no evidence, should be assumed not to exist until there IS evidence. But what should count as "evidence" that the rules of logical inference "exist"? Are thoughts material? The scientific method has verified the existence of thoughts as thoroughly as the existence of gravity.

So far, the challenge to support empty claims is met with equivocation, doublethink, and bald assertion.

[pancreasman]

ChaosRain may, mirabile dictu, live his life based on NO assumptions at all. For instance, he knows unerringly that Seer is actually an android, like Data in Star Trek, not a human being.

We can prove this is not true by noting that he is simply not that smart.

[phank]

ChaosRain may, mirabile dictu, live his life based on NO assumptions at all. For instance, he knows unerringly that Seer is actually an android, like Data in Star Trek, not a human being.

Except for the minor detail that Data in Star Trek used evidence as the basis for his statements, and seer uses wishful thinking resting on logical error.

[pancreasman]

It is certainly true that EVERYONE has basic assumptions. I think it is a reasonable basic assumption that our basic assumptions ought to be as few and as basic as possible. This position seems to give us the best correspondence to what we perceive of as reality.

I really don't understand this particular line of theist reasoning which seeks to devalue reasoning itself. It seems like two guys in a boat arguing about the existence of a boat, and one guy sinks the boat.

[Tassman]

Yes, but we have to assume that our brains are wired nearly exactly the same. The bottom line is that we just have to take your word for it.

Anyway, let's get back to the reason for this thread:



So can you scientifically explain consciousness?

Can YOU explain 'consciousness' at all?? No you cannot.

There is no reason to think that 'consciousness' doesn't have a scientific explanations just as everything else to date has a natural explain explanation. For you to argue otherwise is merely an argument from ignorance.

[phank]

Can YOU explain 'consciousness' at all?? No you cannot.

There is no reason to think that 'consciousness' doesn't have a scientific explanations just as everything else to date has a natural explain explanation. For you to argue otherwise is merely an argument from ignorance.

This is a pure god of the gaps argument. We don't understand how X works, therefore goddidit. We have gaps in our knowledge, and we can be humble and admit ignorance, or we can be self-deceitful and fill those gaps with non-explanations. And one of the most serious dangers of filling gaps in our knowledge with make-believe is, when we finally DO understand how X works, we have to be able to let go of our fictions. And this can be more difficult than many people can accept - for example the Theory of Evolution.

[Cerebrum123]

Sigh. Seer is always demanding "scientific proof", and has been told more times than I can count that science cannot "prove" anything. The best science can do is provide additional support. But we could tell seer this another thousand times, and he would STILL be demanding "scientific proof". So why bother trying to penetrate?

prove
[proov] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), proved, proved or proven, proving.
1.
to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
to prove one's claim.
2.
Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.
3.
to give demonstration of by action.
4.
to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.:
to prove ore.
5.
to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, especially through one's actions.
6.
Mathematics. to verify the correctness or validity of by mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof.
7.
Also, proof. Printing. to take a trial impression of (type, a cut, etc.).

Not to mention that I was trying to point out the absurdity of what ChaosRain was saying, which is that only that which scientifically verifiable is true. You do understand that this isn't a formal scientific setting, right? You also understand that there's such a thing as rhetoric, yes?

This sounds very equivocal. What does "immaterial" mean in this context? It seems to be pretty slippery, connoting "not material" here, and "conceptual" there, and "probable" somewhere else. Do probabilities "exist", or are they just another tool in our conceptual toolbox?

It means it's not reducible to matter/energy, and is not effected by such. Even time itself can be distorted by gravity, the laws of logic however can't be broken. Nor can the be influenced by the environment. If they could, then there is absolutely no reason to trust science at all, because anything and everything could be completely contradicted at any time.
Oh, and they are eternal and work everywhere, without those two qualities, you would have no reason to believe that our observations in the present in any way apply to the past, or to distant planets, stars, galaxies etc.

Maybe we can pin down "immaterial" as meaning "cannot be measured"? But probabilities can be measured, ideas can be tested and validated, logical inference might not be a material "thing", but conceptual tools are quite real.

Not what I meant at all. Although, how do you "measure" the laws of logic? Sure, you can say something is logical or illogical, but you can't really "measure" the law of non-contradiction for example.

Actually, the whole part about them not being a "material "thing"" is my point. ChaosRain says such does not exist unless it's verified by the scientific method, which you simply can't do for logic. This being because science itself is dependent on logic to work in the first place.

Once again, we fall back on the default position that anything for which there is no evidence, should be assumed not to exist until there IS evidence. But what should count as "evidence" that the rules of logical inference "exist"? Are thoughts material? The scientific method has verified the existence of thoughts as thoroughly as the existence of gravity.

So far, the challenge to support empty claims is met with equivocation, doublethink, and bald assertion.

That you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make it "equivocation, doublethink, and bald assertions". Was that you, or HMS_Beagle that had in his signature "First understand, then criticize."? There's a lot of failure to do that in this thread.

For one, ChaosRain specified scientific evidence, which doesn't work for logic since science depends on logic being true in the first place. He said to give an example of the immaterial being true, I've done just that. He said he would respond to seer's challenge, which is to scientifically validate that only that which scientifically verifiable is true. I'd love to see how he intends to support a philosophical claim using only the scientific method.

[Cerebrum123]

It is certainly true that EVERYONE has basic assumptions. I think it is a reasonable basic assumption that our basic assumptions ought to be as few and as basic as possible. This position seems to give us the best correspondence to what we perceive of as reality.

I really don't understand this particular line of theist reasoning which seeks to devalue reasoning itself. It seems like two guys in a boat arguing about the existence of a boat, and one guy sinks the boat.

I don't see where in this thread you are getting this at all. I'm not trying to devalue reasoning at all. I am trying to show that scientism is a self defeating philosophical claim though.

[seer]

I don't see where in this thread you are getting this at all. I'm not trying to devalue reasoning at all. I am trying to show that scientism is a self defeating philosophical claim though.

Scientism is only warmed over verificationism, i.e. "that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful."

Of course the claim itself is neither empirically verifiable or logically necessary - so it fails its own criterion. Which means by its own definition it is false.

[Truthseeker]

I thought of quoting Rene Descartes' assertion "I think, therefore I am." Unfortunately ChaosRain may insist that I do experiments to establish the veracity of that person and what he said. One difficulty is that he is now dead. Oh, does ChaosRain want scientific verification for that statement, too?

I then thought of simply saying, "I think therefore I am." But CR would want to know how to do scientific experiments to verify that I am a real person and I do think. I guess.