Atheist Realism?

[Cris]

Ronan,

Can you not see the evidence ?
How can you perceive something without there being consciousness?

I do not doubt there is a mechanism that causes the ability of humans to recognize their own existence and to be self aware, and that this area is labeled consciousness. And in the total absence of any other source of that mechanism the most likely cause is a complex organ in our head known as the brain that has some 2billion neurons each firing at a rate of 300 hertz with an equivalent total processing power of some 20,000 high end computers operating in the form of a massively parallel processing system. It is currently beyond our ability to fully analyze and understand the complexity of that incredible piece of biology.

There is NOTHING that points to a source elsewhere unless you can demonstrate the existence of a god then any claims to a god being the source of human consciousness is a fantasy.

All encompassing consciousness is misleading here.
You don't need to add all-encompassing.
consciousness itself is god.

We only know of consciousness derived from biological organisms. A projection onto something greater has no foundation.

You don't seem to make the distinction between ego (individual consciousness is in fact a misleading word) (its existence is an assumption) and consciousness that permit to have a consciousness of an ego. Consciousness cannot be you because else you woudl not be able to have consciousness of you.

I think therefore I am. I am conscious and I am aware of that fact. Perhaps your error is trying to label a biological function into something it is not.

God and consciousness are not fantasy, they are two words referring to the same thing!
Why you keep calling it fantasy?

Until you can show that a god exists then your assertions are merely fantasy. This is simple fact.

Are you unconscious?

At the moment I am wide awake. And I plan to stay that way for the rest of the day unless someone hits me over the head and I become unconscious.

If not why you call it a fantasy ?

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of something that has fantastic proportions like a god then all your assertions are nothing more than fantasy.

Why do you not call unconsciousness a fantasy ? (remember its existence is an assumption, the existence of consciousness is not)

Whether inanimate objects have any degree of consciousness seems unlikely since such things do not have a processing component that we recognize as a brain (our only likely source for consciousness for the moment). One could perhaps argue that plants have some degree of consciousness since they do have rudiments of a nervous system.

Please give argument, to call it a fantasy is not an argument.

Unless you have factual evidence for your claims then your assertions by default are fantasy. This is an unavoidable factual observation that you need to absorb and recognize.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

Ok so you agree FINNALY with me that the only thing that we can say is that consciousness exist,

The fundamental error you are making here is turning a label into an object. Consciousness at the human level is a label we give to that set of human abilities that we recognize as consciousness.

Much like the program in a computer. It is a label we give to a phenomenon that does not have an identifiable object but is the manifestation of a sequence of electronic paths exercised in precise patterns. If the power is removed then the program is no longer operable.

Consciousness as an independent object, like a god, is simply a nonsense perception.

 

[Myles]

That's not the problem - he has his opinions, that's fine - he's entitled to them.

Its the way he continues to bang on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on that his opinions are somehow more than just opinion, make connections that aren't there, and get frustrated when we can see connections that aren't there.

here's a great example:



Ok - tick tock



Ok - doubting mode engaged......bzzzzz!....hummmmm!


Do I disengage doubting mode to agree? - just for the sake of argument I will and I'll agree with this.


Do I disengage doubting mode to agree? - just for the sake of argument I will and I'll agree with this.

But then wait for it, wait for it, were about to see something important happen here.....



BOOM! there is is - a MASSIVE leap from something that might be construed as a valid philosphical argument, to something entirely unconnected with the previous premise - and requires not only disengagement of the doubting mode we were instructed to engage, but also the engagement of the "Agree with Ronan's Wild Assuptions Module" V3.11

Clearly my version has a bug

That's my point. Had he chosen to keep his opinions to himself, I should have had no contact with him. As it is ,he repeats nonsensensical statements which he regards as arguments. In his world an argument doesn't need to be supported; it's enough to believe it and invite others to share one's views.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

I do not doubt there is a mechanism that causes the ability of humans to recognize their own existence and to be self aware, and that this area is labeled consciousness. And in the total absence of any other source of that mechanism the most likely cause is a complex organ in our head known as the brain that has some 2billion neurons each firing at a rate of 300 hertz with an equivalent total processing power of some 20,000 high end computers operating in the form of a massively parallel processing system. It is currently beyond our ability to fully analyze and understand the complexity of that incredible piece of biology.

The most likely?
Don't realize that you make a big ASSUMPTION here?

I will stop using the word "god" for sometimes at least because I realizes that it cause you lot's of psychological problem. Let's use only the term consciousness.

by doubting everything, even the existence of ourselves and BRAINs! (because as only content of our consciousness), only consciousness is assured to exist.

That's why I concluded: consciousness exists!

There is NOTHING that points to a source elsewhere unless you can demonstrate the existence of a god then any claims to a god being the source of human consciousness is a fantasy.

There is NO source elsewhere (at least when we don't make ASSUMPTION) because there is only consciousness.

We only know of consciousness derived from biological organisms. A projection onto something greater has no foundation.

We only know ?
You are the guy who are projecting consciousness on something you ASSUME exist, namely unconsciousness matter with complex organization taht you call brain.

I do not project consciousness on anything, on the contrary I said that is what ultimately exist.

I think therefore I am. I am conscious and I am aware of that fact. Perhaps your error is trying to label a biological function into something it is not.

No you cannot say that you (th "I") are (existing), at least if you say that the "I" that you feel is for you the human with the job you have..etc. because this existence is a content of consciousness. so maybe the belief that you are a human...etc, is maybe false.

you are the one who project consciousness to a biological function without realizing that you ASSUME the existence of a unconsciousness matter organized that you call a brain.

Until you can show that a god exists then your assertions are merely fantasy. This is simple fact.

Let's use the word consciousness (because I think the word "god" cause you so much pain.)

in this case do you agree that consciousness exist?

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of something that has fantastic proportions like a god then all your assertions are nothing more than fantasy.

I would like you to read my answer to synthesizer-patel, the last line especially. but now let's only use the word consciousness.

do you think consciousness is a fantasy?

Whether inanimate objects have any degree of consciousness seems unlikely since such things do not have a processing component that we recognize as a brain (our only likely source for consciousness for the moment). One could perhaps argue that plants have some degree of consciousness since they do have rudiments of a nervous system.

unlikely?
I ask for a proof.
But you won't be able because the only thing we can experience is consciousness.
of course if you define consciousness to be the action of complex unconscious matter organization, then you are fine, but your definition is ad hoc and first you have again to prove the existence of this unconscious matter which you cannot because you cannot experience unconsciousness.

Unless you have factual evidence for your claims then your assertions by default are fantasy. This is an unavoidable factual observation that you need to absorb and recognize.

so for you the feeling we have is not a evidence for the existence of consciousness ?

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

The fundamental error you are making here is turning a label into an object. Consciousness at the human level is a label we give to that set of human abilities that we recognize as consciousness.

Much like the program in a computer. It is a label we give to a phenomenon that does not have an identifiable object but is the manifestation of a sequence of electronic paths exercised in precise patterns. If the power is removed then the program is no longer operable.

Consciousness as an independent object, like a god, is simply a nonsense perception.

a label refer to something, isnt'it?
this something (labeled or called consciousness) is the thing that permits you to have perceptions and feeling.
Is that not enough?

The problem you are facing is that you seem to not doubt everything. (you are stuck with your scientific background, like people in the past and also now are stuck with their religious background)
By doubting everything, the content of consciousness is no more trustable, but you have to agree that this content imply that there is consciousness.

so you cannot doubt the existence of consciousness!

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

The most likely?
Don't realize that you make a big ASSUMPTION here?

Not in the least when the facts are put in perspective. But I’m not surprised you are unable to do that.

We have, as I have described already for you, an incredibly powerful and largely incomprehensible processing engine between our ears. We know it accounts for thoughts, memory, emotions, cognition, and similar. We know it operates basically through a wide variety of intricate neural networks.

We also possess an ability labeled consciousness that is closely related to the many capabilities already provided by the brain.

So now do the simple math – a massively powerful processing engine that we have barely started to understand and a complex ability known as consciousness that must be caused by something. Gosh I wonder if there is any connection between these two facts.

So using very simple common sense; where might be a good place to start looking for the cause of consciousness. In case you are having trouble here I suggest you consider the brain as your first attempt at a guess.

I will stop using the word "god" for sometimes at least because I realizes that it cause you lot's of psychological problem. Let's use only the term consciousness.

I’m quite certain I have no such problems. You will doubtless do as you please.

by doubting everything, even the existence of ourselves and BRAINs! (because as only content of our consciousness), only consciousness is assured to exist.

Your English is pretty atrocious BTW, I have to guess most of what you intend from those cryptic statements.

But let’s see what we can deduce from your ramblings.

You doubt your own existence? This implies you are willing to consider that you do not exist. If you do not exist then who the heck am I talking to? I guess you could be a fantasy I have created; in which case whatever I say doesn’t matter. But within my frame of reference you exist so I will proceed as if you do otherwise this whole debate is meaningless.

You doubt you have a brain? I doubt you have one as well  But you assert that your consciousness exists. But your consciousness is you and if you doubt you exist then you must doubt that your consciousness exists.

But you arbitrarily break your own rules. You state “by doubting everything…” and then say except consciousness, and for no apparent reason or justification. Your conclusion simply does not follow from your alleged premises. There is no logic here.

I will go further and say we know people exist and that brains exist but consciousness does not exist as an independent object. In the same way that a running program in a computer does not exist but is merely the manifestation of the electronics inside the machine. In the same way you are the manifestation of the neural networks inside your brain. I’ll call that consciousness so we can more easily refer to it.

There is NO source elsewhere (at least when we don't make ASSUMPTION) because there is only consciousness.

Then follow your own rules and don’t make the baseless assumption that consciousness exists.

We only know ?
You are the guy who are projecting consciousness on something you ASSUME exist, namely unconsciousness matter with complex organization taht you call brain.

Consciousness is a label we give to a manifestation of a physical phenomenon. If you want to doubt everything then you must also doubt the existence of consciousness.

I do not project consciousness on anything, on the contrary I said that is what ultimately exist.

But there is zero logic behind your assertion. You draw this out of nowhere and then act surprised when no one agrees with you.

No you cannot say that you (th "I") are (existing), at least if you say that the "I" that you feel is for you the human with the job you have..etc. because this existence is a content of consciousness. so maybe the belief that you are a human...etc, is maybe false.

No. I am my consciousness, and my consciousness is totally dependent upon my physical brain; in the same way that a running program is totally dependent on an operational computer.

you are the one who project consciousness to a biological function without realizing that you ASSUME the existence of a unconsciousness matter organized that you call a brain.

I really have no idea what you mean by unconsciousness in this context. Consciousness is the result of the neural networks that reside in the brain. Consciousness is not an independent object and does not and cannot exist outside of a material brain; in the same way that a computer program cannot exist outside of a physical computer.

in this case do you agree that consciousness exist?

No, consciousness does not exist as a separate entity. Consciousness is an emergent property that arises from a threshold level of neural network complexity made possible by a living healthy brain.

do you think consciousness is a fantasy?

Consciousness is as I have defined it above.

unlikely?
I ask for a proof.
But you won't be able because the only thing we can experience is consciousness.
of course if you define consciousness to be the action of complex unconscious matter organization, then you are fine, but your definition is ad hoc and first you have again to prove the existence of this unconscious matter which you cannot because you cannot experience unconsciousness.

Huh? Inanimate objects do not possess brains and hence do not have a consciousness.

so for you the feeling we have is not a evidence for the existence of consciousness ?

Emotions, thoughts, mind, memory, cognition, are all generated by a physical brain. Put all that together along with some effects we do not yet understand and the result is an emergent property of the brain we label consciousness.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

a label refer to something, isnt'it?

Depends what you mean by “something”. For example the word “Justice” is a label we assign to a particular phenomenon. Justice certainly exists, but can you point to it or hold it?

this something (labeled or called consciousness) is the thing that permits you to have perceptions and feeling.

No not really. It is the brain that makes those things a reality. The word consciousness is simply the label we assign to those neural activities.

Is that not enough?

Only providing you recognize that the brain is key player here.

The problem you are facing is that you seem to not doubt everything.

It is not practical to live by doubting everything. After so many confirmations that something behaves a certain way it is meaningful to assume through inductive reasoning that it is likely to continue to behave that way.

(you are stuck with your scientific background, like people in the past and also now are stuck with their religious background)

Science simply means knowledge. It is testable and practical. I see no reason to ignore it. Religions are simply irrelevant.

By doubting everything, the content of consciousness is no more trustable, but you have to agree that this content imply that there is consciousness.

I have no idea what you mean by content?

so you cannot doubt the existence of consciousness!

Only when it refers to an emergent property of brain activity.

 

[lightgigantic]

cris
“

a label refer to something, isnt'it?
”
Depends what you mean by “something”. For example the word “Justice” is a label we assign to a particular phenomenon. Justice certainly exists, but can you point to it or hold it?

“
this something (labeled or called consciousness) is the thing that permits you to have perceptions and feeling.
”
No not really. It is the brain that makes those things a reality. The word consciousness is simply the label we assign to those neural activities.

can you point to what it is in the brain that makes those things a reality?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

cris
“
can you point to what it is in the brain that makes those things a reality?

Yes :crazy:

 

[ronan]

Cris,

Ronan,

Depends what you mean by “something”. For example the word “Justice” is a label we assign to a particular phenomenon. Justice certainly exists, but can you point to it or hold it?

And what is the problem with that?
We can refer to consciousness at least and that it is enough for talking about it. to say that it is a brain mechanism on the other hand is an assumption

No not really. It is the brain that makes those things a reality. The word consciousness is simply the label we assign to those neural activities.

Don't you see that it is an assumption that you are making here?

Only providing you recognize that the brain is key player here.

But I cannot now, I have to prove it first.
It is only an assumption.
what we are sure is that consciousness exist

It is not practical to live by doubting everything. After so many confirmations that something behaves a certain way it is meaningful to assume through inductive reasoning that it is likely to continue to behave that way.

So if you say that then you are as believer as any theist.
and you have no reason then to accuse other that their belief is not justified!
because your is neither!

Science simply means knowledge. It is testable and practical. I see no reason to ignore it. Religions are simply irrelevant.

science relies on two (unjustified and unjustifable) assumption:
1) induction leads to truth
2) you are not dreaming

I have no idea what you mean by content?

consciousness is what makes you able to feel something (this something I call it content of consciousness).

Only when it refers to an emergent property of brain activity.

so if you were not knowledgeable in the existence of the brain, you would deny the existence of consciousness even if you were experiencing something?


Cris, you missed the idea:

many atheist like you argue that god is only a belief without justification (an assumption)
and you say that science on the contrary provides evidence

But as I show to you (and you probably knew before), science relies on two (maybe more but these two will suffice at least now) unjustified assumptions:
1) we are not dreaming
2) induction leads to truth

these 2 assumptions cannot even be justified!

If we want to know what at least we can be sure about it we have to doubt everything we can:
We feel perceptions but we cannot rely on them (we doubt even that)
But even in doubting there is still consciousness
=> consciousness exist

From this, then we can start fresh:

ok consciousness exist but there is content in it

what make the content appearing in consciousness?

A1) We can ASSUME that there is an unconscious matter that build the content of consciousness but not consciousness itself => dualism
here you have to explain how consciousness and unconscious matter can interact

A2) We can also ASSUME that there is an unconscious matter that build the content and even create consciousness all together.
(This is your view)
here as I said you have to explain how that unconscious matter can become conscious

A3) We can also ASSUME that the content is the result of consciousness itself and that finally consciousness alone exist.
here you have to prove that the content is is a result of consciousness
You can do prove A3) if you prove that an unconscious matter can not give rise to consciousness and cannot interact with it. You will in the same disprove A1) and A2)

This depend on the famous hard problem (Nagel, Chalmers, Harnad...).

So:

if the hard problem is impossible then A3) is true
if the hard problem is solvable
it doe snot mean that A1) or A2) are true neither that A3) is false because we have to prove that an unconscious matter exist (which is impossible)

 

[Myles]

No one can accuse you of being narrowminded as you appear to have read three books. Be honest, did you take a peek at the last pages to see who Dunnet ( that's a pun on the name of a philosopher ). I thought I'd mention that to avoid misunderstandings.

Why not get a science book for your birthday ? Try Neuroscience for Dummies !

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Cris,
...
...
...
science relies on two (unjustified and unjustifable) assumption:
...
...
...
1) induction leads to truth
2) you are not dreaming
...
...
...

1) Truth is when reality corresponds to a concept in your mind. That is not an assumption... it is an observation.

2) The idea that we might be dreaming is invalid or falsified (take your pick). Again, no assumptions involved.

I would speculate that Chris knows this so they are not problems for him.

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

Cortex,

Except that death appears to be no illusion and is in every sense very real. And for those who die there appears to be a 100% success rate of zero appearance after death. The overwhelmingly obvious correlation is that consciousness is entirely dependent on the physical body, specifically the brain, for its survival. I.e. consciousness is simply an emergent property of neural network complexity that ceases to exist upon physical death of the brain.

The 'Many-Worlds' Interpretation of Quantum Physics

First, a disclaimer for those new to the subject: Niels Bohr, the founder of modern quantum theory said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". And he didn't know about the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI). The quantum mechanics (QM) presented here is quite mainstream, even though it still seems crazy to physicists, who have no choice but to accept it. The major assumption I have made is to adopt Everett's (1957) MWI, which is just one of half a dozen competing interpretations of QM. According to various polls, MWI and the original 1927 'Copenhagen Interpretation' now have a similar share of the votes among physicists, but many of the 'big names' (Hawking, Feynman, Deutsch, Weinberg) are said to (Price, 1995) have subscribed to the MWI.

The weirdness of quantum physics can be seen in the famous parallel-slit experiment. This shows that individual photons seem to split into two particles which can nevertheless interfere with each other as if they were waves. The 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of the phenomena and the equations which describe them, agreed at the 1927 Solvay conference, essentially says that the 'wave packet' somehow associated with a particle 'collapses' when it is observed - this necessitates a relationship between the observer's consciousness and the particle. The MWI, on the other hand, holds that the equations used to predict quantum mechanical events continue to hold after observation - it is just that all things happen simultaneously, but due to 'decoherence' we do not actually see, for example, a radioactive source both decay and not decay. For an explanation of how this implies parallel universes, see Vaidman (1996).

There is one way of proving that the MWI is true and the Copenhagen and other interpretations are wrong. Unfortunately, the experimenter can only prove it to himself, and never persuade anyone else of its validity.

http://www.higgo.com/quantum/qti.htm


^1^

 

[Myles]

The 'Many-Worlds' Interpretation of Quantum Physics

First, a disclaimer for those new to the subject: Niels Bohr, the founder of modern quantum theory said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it". And he didn't know about the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI). The quantum mechanics (QM) presented here is quite mainstream, even though it still seems crazy to physicists, who have no choice but to accept it. The major assumption I have made is to adopt Everett's (1957) MWI, which is just one of half a dozen competing interpretations of QM. According to various polls, MWI and the original 1927 'Copenhagen Interpretation' now have a similar share of the votes among physicists, but many of the 'big names' (Hawking, Feynman, Deutsch, Weinberg) are said to (Price, 1995) have subscribed to the MWI.

The weirdness of quantum physics can be seen in the famous parallel-slit experiment. This shows that individual photons seem to split into two particles which can nevertheless interfere with each other as if they were waves. The 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of the phenomena and the equations which describe them, agreed at the 1927 Solvay conference, essentially says that the 'wave packet' somehow associated with a particle 'collapses' when it is observed - this necessitates a relationship between the observer's consciousness and the particle. The MWI, on the other hand, holds that the equations used to predict quantum mechanical events continue to hold after observation - it is just that all things happen simultaneously, but due to 'decoherence' we do not actually see, for example, a radioactive source both decay and not decay. For an explanation of how this implies parallel universes, see Vaidman (1996).

There is one way of proving that the MWI is true and the Copenhagen and other interpretations are wrong. Unfortunately, the experimenter can only prove it to himself, and never persuade anyone else of its validity.

http://www.higgo.com/quantum/qti.htm


^1^

I think many here are familiar with QM and the quackery it has inadvertently generated among non-scientists with an agenda.

The point you are missing is that,when you collapse ,you are dead. gone. departed, ex, late, non-extant to name but a few.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

We can refer to consciousness at least and that it is enough for talking about it.

Providing it is limited to what we know or can reasonably project. For example your only frame of reference for asserting that consciousness exists is your own personal experience that you can “feel”. This gives rise to the age old observation of “I think therefore I am”.

Beyond that we are led to suspect that you also exist in a biological entity that supports your consciousness. Alternatively we could speculate that you are an AI existing in a virtual reality being maintained by an extremely advanced technology of which we are unaware.

Don't you see that it is an assumption that you are making here?

Based on reasoned evidence.

But I cannot now, I have to prove it first.
It is only an assumption.
what we are sure is that consciousness exist

That’s the task of science and logic and most have already moved beyond your initial assumption that consciousness exists to discover the how.

So if you say that then you are as believer as any theist.
and you have no reason then to accuse other that their belief is not justified!
because your is neither!

It is the essential difference between inductive reasoning and blind faith. One is the route of science for the discovery of knowledge, while the other is the baseless assertions of religion. The two approaches are substantially different.

My suggestion that the brain is highly likely the source of consciousness is based on the evidence we see from neurology. Religious assertions are pulled out of thin air and are based on pure imaginative fantasy. I hope you can see the vast chasm between these two approaches.

science relies on two (unjustified and unjustifable) assumption:
1) induction leads to truth
2) you are not dreaming

No. Science neither claims truth nor proofs. Its role is an attempt to explain observed phenomena through empirical testing. Science always leaves open the option that the explanation can be refined or corrected as more evidence is discovered. The practical result is a set of theories that can be significantly relied upon as a basis for future discovery.

As for not knowing if we are dreaming is essentially irrelevant if that is the frame of reference in which we all exist. In which case that is our reality.

consciousness is what makes you able to feel something (this something I call it content of consciousness).

I think you are attempting to separate consciousness from its role. That essence of feeling is consciousness. There isn’t a separate something.

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Only when it refers to an emergent property of brain activity. ”

so if you were not knowledgeable in the existence of the brain, you would deny the existence of consciousness even if you were experiencing something?

I think therefore I am cannot be denied. Moving beyond that leads us to question how that ability becomes possible.

many atheist like you argue that god is only a belief without justification (an assumption)
and you say that science on the contrary provides evidence

I’m not an atheist, I am a skeptic. What you call an assumption is not accurate. It is a fact. Theists have yet to justify their claims.

But as I show to you (and you probably knew before), science relies on two (maybe more but these two will suffice at least now) unjustified assumptions:
1) we are not dreaming
2) induction leads to truth

these 2 assumptions cannot even be justified!

I have already corrected your misinterpretation of what science means above.

If we want to know what at least we can be sure about it we have to doubt everything we can:

This is the essential role of science. It is only through evidence and testable theories that we are able to move forward, always keeping in mind that these explanations might need to change as we learn more about our existence.

We feel perceptions but we cannot rely on them (we doubt even that)
But even in doubting there is still consciousness
=> consciousness exist

I think therefore I am is certainly true.

From this, then we can start fresh:

ok consciousness exist but there is content in it

what make the content appearing in consciousness?

No, this seems to be an assumption that consciousness is a separate entity. You are not justified in making that leap of faith.

A1) We can ASSUME that there is an unconscious matter that build the content of consciousness but not consciousness itself => dualism

No, that assumption has no justification. You are not justified in making such giant leaps until you have demonstrated that the most likely cause of consciousness is not the brain. That we cannot yet grasp the details of exactly how consciousness becomes an emergent property of brain function gives no justification for asserting an alternative baseless speculation.

here you have to explain how consciousness and unconscious matter can interact

No this is a false conclusion. You need first to explain why the brain cannot cause consciousness before considering fantasy alternatives.

A2) We can also ASSUME that there is an unconscious matter that build the content and even create consciousness all together.
(This is your view)
here as I said you have to explain how that unconscious matter can become conscious

All your assumptions here are based on inappropriate perceptions. You have the incorrect notion that there are two phenomena, consciousness and unconscious matter and that they are distinct and separate. We do not know enough yet to reach that conclusion. We already know that abstract type phenomena like thoughts, emotions, memory, cognition, are all caused by brain function. We also observe that self awareness in biological entities varies with levels of brain size and complexity. Self awareness is an essential component for consciousness. These discoveries and knowledge leads us further to explore how what we call consciousness emerges from complex physical neural networks. We have no reason yet to conclude that the abstract concept we have labelled consciousness does not arise from the physical operation of a physical brain.

A3) We can also ASSUME that the content is the result of consciousness itself and that finally consciousness alone exist.

No. This is an assumption totally devoid of justification.

This depend on the famous hard problem (Nagel, Chalmers, Harnad...).

The hard problem is recognized. What you cannot conclude yet is that the phenomena cannot be the result of the physical brain. We are still studying the brain and we have a long way to go.

The invalid conclusion is that the brain cannot do this and that science will never be able to show the brain causes consciousness. These are the conclusions made by the dualists such as yourself. You are then left with an even worse problem of then explaining consciousness and the best you can offer is the fantasies surrounding baseless supernatural.

So:

if the hard problem is impossible then A3) is true
if the hard problem is solvable
it doe snot mean that A1) or A2) are true neither that A3) is false because we have to prove that an unconscious matter exist (which is impossible)

Invalid conclusion based on false premises.

 

[Cris]

There have been suggestions here that we reference the seers and mystics as if they are a source of truth.

But remember -

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...
...
...
The 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of the phenomena and the equations which describe them, agreed at the 1927 Solvay conference, essentially says that the 'wave packet' somehow associated with a particle 'collapses' when it is observed...

Correct.

... - this necessitates a relationship between the observer's consciousness and the particle.

Incorrect. An 'observer' in any branch of physics is any system capable of receiving information. It can be a piece of wood, a dog, a camera, or a block of cheese. 'Consciousness' plays no role (nor has any mention) in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

[superluminal]

ronan,

I know it's late in the thread, but have you defined what "reality" is, so that we may respond to a standard definition?

Also, why is it not the currently most likely starting point to assume consciousness is an outgrowth of the physical activity of the brain? Is there even the slightest evidence to suggest otherwise? (other than "we don't currently fully understand it so it must be metaphysical).

Physical damage to the brain can eliminate consciousness. Physical drugs can "alter" consciousness, as can physical probing of the brain.

Ok? Why would you assume a far less likely and far, far less supported position?

 

[ronan]

superluminal,

reality I defined it as what is behind our perceptions (what generate them in some sense)

about the brain and the physical world.
I wanted to doubt everything but here people don't want to follow me because they keep saying that science is right.

My idea is to stop making assumption first and then try afresh. (making assumption if necessary)

so far I have just said that when we doubt everything, there is still consciousness.
Cris talk about: I think therefore I am" but the problem with this statement is the use of the pronoun "I" which is finally a perception as well.
So if we want even doubt this perception, we still cannot doubt the existence of consciousness itself (the phenomena by which perceptions are possible in the first place)

 

[glaucon]

superluminal,

reality I defined it as what is behind our perceptions (what generate them in some sense)
...


My idea is to stop making assumption first and then try afresh. (making assumption if necessary)

You've failed in following your idea then.

You are assuming that there is such a thing as an ontologically objective reality beyond our perceptions.