Consciousness, meaning and value.

[bluethread]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

[bluethread]

Pure science does not always lead to truth either. I am not arguing for pure philosophy. That is your straw man. What I am asking is if something like philosphy can answer questions that science can not.

But the answer to that question is already known:

The answer is no. No one has been able to offer any method of inquiry that is better than science.

As I continually point out, if you have something to offer please do so. Until then the answer to your question is, "No. No philosophy better than science has yet been recognized or even proposed by anyone."

So you are asking a question that already has an answer.

I am not saying that philosophy is better than science. In fact, science is a philosophy. So, what I am asking is if there are other philosophies that have certain utility that science does not. Science no doubt has unique utility for which it is preferable. However, what of those things for which science is not useful, such as prescientific cognitive development?

Sure, you might accidentally stumble upon pure truth by guessing, but even if you did you would have no way of knowing that it's true.

That depends on what you mean by knowing. We seem to know we are consious, but science can not explain consciousness. We therefore accept it on some other basis.

But we know that "our individual consciousness" exists precisely by using the scientific method. (i.e. we observe that our own consciousness exists directly as an observer.) That's the scientific method in a nutshell.

No, that is false. The scientific method is not simple observation. If I observe things no one else observes, is that science? Observation might give rise to hypothesis, but it can also give rise to bias and intuition.

What we can't do is directly observe that anyone else is actually having a conscious experience. And because of this we can't know whether other people are actually conscious or not.

We can not know it empirically, but we can know it intuitively. We can note characteristics of another being and surmise that they are similar to ourselves. Then we can interact with that being creating a symbiotic relationship that reinforces our bias and intuition. Could that not be how we know of consciousness?

Keep in mind that you cannot prove that solipsism is false. Therefore you can't know that anyone is truly having a conscious experience other than yourself.

Sorry, you have the logic backwards. One can not prove solipsism is false. Therefore, one can not know that others are NOT conscious. If one can prove solipsism is true, then one can determine it's characteristics and identify it in others. This of course can not be done scientifically, as you have stated. However, one can accept one's personal experience as valid based on it's utility. One can then observe whether that utility is also present in others. Based on that, one can reasonably surmise that one's personal experience is transferable. In that way one can empathetically know something that one can not verify scientifically. Could that not be how consciousness works?

Therefore you cannot know anything beyond what you can know through science (i.e. through direct experience and observation).

Again, direct experience and observation are not exclusive to science. That is the social construct that we imbed in children, but that is no more science, than playing with blocks is construction.

Your mistake here is in thinking that you can know something that science can't know. But that's false.

Again, that is only if one accepts as dogmatic orthodoxy that only scientific knowledge is knowledge. You are using circular reasoning. By the why, science does not know anything. People use science to discover things that they then designate as knowledge.

You can "prove" (i.e. verify via observation and experience) your own conscious experience to yourself. What you can't do is prove it to anyone else. Nor can you be certain that everyone else isn't an automated zombie.

Certitude is a rarity. Most of what we do in life is based more on likelihood that certitude. Even if every one else is an automated zombie, if they appear and act in every way like me, I can safely act as if they share my experience. Especially if they express their experience in way similar to the way I do. So, there is no practical difference and, even if this knowledge is not precisely correct, it has utility. Therefore, it is something of value that science can not verify.

We can only guess that it seems rational to conclude that other humans are just as conscious as we are. But that's necessarily a GUESS. It has to be, because it's impossible to disprove solipsism.

Scientifically, which is precisely the point.

So you cannot know anything beyond science. Even your own conscious experience is not beyond science from your personal objective experience.

So you haven't produced any knowledge that cannot be known by science.

Again, you are using circular reasoning based on dogma. You assert, one can not know something because it "cannot be known by science". There is also experiential and intuative knowledge that has not been scientifically verified. What kind of knowledge do children have, before they learn the scientific method? How did we know anything before we developed the scientific method?

[Divine Insight]

I am not saying that philosophy is better than science. In fact, science is a philosophy. So, what I am asking is if there are other philosophies that have certain utility that science does not. Science no doubt has unique utility for which it is preferable. However, what of those things for which science is not useful, such as prescientific cognitive development?

I understood what you meant, and the answer is still no. No such philosophy exists.

And I agree that science is a "philosophy". However, it's not a philosophy of "pure thought" and this is what differentiates it from traditional philosophy. You need to understand that it wasn't all that long ago when many philosophers actually believed that by using perfect logic a philosopher could ultimately figure out all truths of reality using pure thought alone. However, that has since been proven to be a false assumption.

Science differs in that it demands that empirical evidence must be demonstrated before any conclusions can be said to be a reflection of truth, at least in terms of the actual world we live in.

Science makes no claims that imaginary worlds cannot exist. It simply states that if you want to make statement about this world that we live in then you need to show evidence to back up those statements if you expect them to be accepted as having any merit.

The reason for this is because pure philosophy (and pure logic) can be used to make speculations about things that clearly do not (and in many case cannot) exist in our known world.

The problem with your proposal is that you would need to propose another "philosophy" that does not rely on pure thought alone and is not "science".

Again, until you can propose such a thing it's meaningless to imagine that it might exist. In fact, imagining that something might exist for which you have no evidence, is precisely the problem with "Pure Philosophy". Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean that it needs to exist. In fact, if you can't even describe this new type of philosophy then it doesn't even make any sense to say that you can "imagine" it.

However, what of those things for which science is not useful, such as prescientific cognitive development?

Prescientific cognitive development?

What exactly is that? The art of actually learning things using the scientific method without realizing that you are using the scientific method?

It must be.

Sure, you might accidentally stumble upon pure truth by guessing, but even if you did you would have no way of knowing that it's true.

That depends on what you mean by knowing. We seem to know we are consious, but science can not explain consciousness. We therefore accept it on some other basis.

But we know that "our individual consciousness" exists precisely by using the scientific method. (i.e. we observe that our own consciousness exists directly as an observer.) That's the scientific method in a nutshell.

No, that is false. The scientific method is not simple observation. If I observe things no one else observes, is that science? Observation might give rise to hypothesis, but it can also give rise to bias and intuition. [/quote]

It is if you actually did observe it, and you observed it to be precisely what it is. But the problem with this is that you can easily add your own imagination into the mix which has nothing to do with what's actually occurring in the real world.

In fact, this is one reason why science does not claim to be able to study human consciousness directly. It's not only impossible to know if everyone is observing their consciousness to be precisely as it is, but it's even impossible to know whether all humans actually experience their consciousness in precisely the same ways. In fact, there are actually technical reasons to suspect that they most likely do not.

Formalized science demands that anything that will be accepted as being "verified truth" must be verifiable by more than just one individual scientist. This is why science cannot say things about individual consciousness with any guarantee that the claims are dependable.

But this isn't a problem for science when no other philosophy can do any better. That's the main point you need to keep in mind.

If you can't do better than science then complaining about the limitations of since is a waste of time. Unless you can offer something better. That's the key point right there.

What we can't do is directly observe that anyone else is actually having a conscious experience. And because of this we can't know whether other people are actually conscious or not.

We can not know it empirically, but we can know it intuitively. We can note characteristics of another being and surmise that they are similar to ourselves. Then we can interact with that being creating a symbiotic relationship that reinforces our bias and intuition. Could that not be how we know of consciousness?

No, because the other person that you believe to be conscious could simply be an extremely convincing non-sentient robot. Just because you feel intuitively that it must be conscious is no guarantee that it actually is conscious.

Obviously, as a matter of practicality it makes sense for us to assume that all humans are conscious. After all, it would be an extremely arrogant position for us to conclude that we are the only human on the planet that is having a conscious experience.

So even though science can't demonstrate this to be 'true' it's a safe bet. None the less, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it is indeed a 'bet'. If we think we actually know something to be true that science couldn't demonstrate, then we are fooling ourselves.

So just because we think we know something doesn't mean that we actually know it, no matter how reasonable we think it might be.

And this is what science ultimately does. Science (having been strictly formalized) keeps us from jumping to conclusion about things that we can't truly know.

If we want to ask whether or not we actually know something, putting it though the scientific method looking for errors is the best way to go.

Keep in mind that you cannot prove that solipsism is false. Therefore you can't know that anyone is truly having a conscious experience other than yourself.

Sorry, you have the logic backwards. One can not prove solipsism is false. Therefore, one can not know that others are NOT conscious. If one can prove solipsism is true, then one can determine it's characteristics and identify it in others. This of course can not be done scientifically, as you have stated. However, one can accept one's personal experience as valid based on it's utility. One can then observe whether that utility is also present in others. Based on that, one can reasonably surmise that one's personal experience is transferable. In that way one can empathetically know something that one can not verify scientifically. Could that not be how consciousness works?

"Empathetically know something" is not the same as knowing it to be a fact.

This is where you need to be careful.

Having said this, there are certainly countless scientific reasons to believe that all humans are conscious. For example, science can show that all humans are related and constructed via DNA information. Therefore, known what humans are and the fact that they procreate even science is telling us that it's extremely rational to conclude that all humans most likely have very similar properties and attributes. Therefore if one human is having a conscious experience, it certainly makes "scientific sense" to conclude that all humans are then most likely having a conscious experience as well.

So science can guide us in this even when it can't answer the ultimate question.

In short, it makes 'scientific sense' to assume that all humans are having a conscious experience, even though we can't objectively measure this phenomenon to determine that it is an demonstrable fact.

Therefore you cannot know anything beyond what you can know through science (i.e. through direct experience and observation).

Again, direct experience and observation are not exclusive to science. That is the social construct that we imbed in children, but that is no more science, than playing with blocks is construction.

Wrong! Direct experience and observation is exclusive to science.

This is what sets science apart from "Pure Philosophy" that does not demand evidence from experience and observation.

So yes, observation and experience are indeed exclusive to science. When you use those tools as a guide, you are doing science even if you don't realize it. And ancient humans who used experience and observation where doing science as well, even before the word "science" was ever coined.

Your mistake here is in thinking that you can know something that science can't know. But that's false.

Again, that is only if one accepts as dogmatic orthodoxy that only scientific knowledge is knowledge. You are using circular reasoning. By the why, science does not know anything. People use science to discover things that they then designate as knowledge.

If what you think you know cannot be verified via observation and experience, then I question how you can truly know it.

That's all I have to say about that.

Even your own emotions are being "scientifically verified" by you when you experience them. And external observer would, of course, not be able to verify that knowledge. In other words, people external to you can never know if you're truly feeling the way you claim. For all they know you could be faking it to gain attention, or some other motive.

So you need to be real careful about what you think you know and what you actually know.

You can "prove" (i.e. verify via observation and experience) your own conscious experience to yourself. What you can't do is prove it to anyone else. Nor can you be certain that everyone else isn't an automated zombie.

Certitude is a rarity. Most of what we do in life is based more on likelihood that certitude. Even if every one else is an automated zombie, if they appear and act in every way like me, I can safely act as if they share my experience. Especially if they express their experience in way similar to the way I do. So, there is no practical difference and, even if this knowledge is not precisely correct, it has utility. Therefore, it is something of value that science can not verify.

I won't argue with that. Intuitive impressions are very useful. I use them all the time. But this doesn't negate anything I've said. If you want to be certain of things turn to science. This is not to say that intuition and luck can't be useful.

I've had intuition backfire as well. I've trusted people that I "felt" were trustworthy only to discover later that they were purposefully taking advantage of me with premeditated mallace.

So while intuition, empathy, and feelings can be useful, it would be foolish to think that they represent dependable truths.

We can only guess that it seems rational to conclude that other humans are just as conscious as we are. But that's necessarily a GUESS. It has to be, because it's impossible to disprove solipsism.

Scientifically, which is precisely the point.

Save for the scientific caveat that I had just given earlier. Science does show us that we are all made of the same stuff, both in terms of elements (stardust) and in terms of biological genetics. So the conclusion that we are all very much alike does have scientific credence.

It's certainly more "scientific" to conclude that all humans are having a conscious experience than not.

My only point here was that science cannot answer that specific question precisely. And neither can any other method of inquiry.

So once again, we have "Nothing Better than Science".

And that's all I need to argue for.

So you cannot know anything beyond science. Even your own conscious experience is not beyond science from your personal objective experience.

So you haven't produced any knowledge that cannot be known by science.

Again, you are using circular reasoning based on dogma. You assert, one can not know something because it "cannot be known by science". There is also experiential and intuative knowledge that has not been scientifically verified. What kind of knowledge do children have, before they learn the scientific method? How did we know anything before with developed the scientific method?

We have always used "The Scientific Method" long before it became a formalized, and well-defined discipline.

Babies use the scientific method right off the bat. They reach out and touch things to see what the experience is like. And that how they learn.

All humans are "Born Scientists". They only become intellectual wimps later in life when they lose sight of the fact that science is the only tool they actually have available to them if they are interested in learning truth.

[bluethread]

I am not saying that philosophy is better than science. In fact, science is a philosophy. So, what I am asking is if there are other philosophies that have certain utility that science does not. Science no doubt has unique utility for which it is preferable. However, what of those things for which science is not useful, such as prescientific cognitive development?

I understood what you meant, and the answer is still no. No such philosophy exists.

And I agree that science is a "philosophy". However, it's not a philosophy of "pure thought" and this is what differentiates it from traditional philosophy. You need to understand that it wasn't all that long ago when many philosophers actually believed that by using perfect logic a philosopher could ultimately figure out all truths of reality using pure thought alone. However, that has since been proven to be a false assumption.

No, you are thinking of Greek philosophy and specifically Platonic philosophy. Aristotelian philosophy is rooted in the physical world and helped give rise to the scientific method. However, there are many other philosophies that do not rest on pure logic.

Science differs in that it demands that empirical evidence must be demonstrated before any conclusions can be said to be a reflection of truth, at least in terms of the actual world we live in.

Science makes no claims that imaginary worlds cannot exist. It simply states that if you want to make statement about this world that we live in then you need to show evidence to back up those statements if you expect them to be accepted as having any merit.

Yes, science is an empirical philosophy and that is a limitation of science.

The reason for this is because pure philosophy (and pure logic) can be used to make speculations about things that clearly do not (and in many case cannot) exist in our known world.

No, the reason is that it could not be tested using the scientific method. It is the ritual of the scientific method that drives the parameters of Scientific philosophy. One need not depend on pure logic. It is agreed that there are things that exist in this world that science can not explain. Are we to say they do not exist, or is it acceptable to believe that they exist based on something other than scientific verifiable means?

The problem with your proposal is that you would need to propose another "philosophy" that does not rely on pure thought alone and is not "science".

Again, until you can propose such a thing it's meaningless to imagine that it might exist. In fact, imagining that something might exist for which you have no evidence, is precisely the problem with "Pure Philosophy". Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean that it needs to exist. In fact, if you can't even describe this new type of philosophy then it doesn't even make any sense to say that you can "imagine" it.

No, I all I need do is show that there is something that we agree exists that is not scientifically verifiable.

However, what of those things for which science is not useful, such as prescientific cognitive development?

Prescientific cognitive development?

What exactly is that? The art of actually learning things using the scientific method without realizing that you are using the scientific method?

It must be.

I see how you would see that as the only possibility, given your dogmatic belief in the scientific method. However, one example is how a newborn child knows it's mother's voice? Does it use science to do that?

No, that is false. The scientific method is not simple observation. If I observe things no one else observes, is that science? Observation might give rise to hypothesis, but it can also give rise to bias and intuition.

It is if you actually did observe it, and you observed it to be precisely what it is. But the problem with this is that you can easily add your own imagination into the mix which has nothing to do with what's actually occurring in the real world.

In fact, this is one reason why science does not claim to be able to study human consciousness directly. It's not only impossible to know if everyone is observing their consciousness to be precisely as it is, but it's even impossible to know whether all humans actually experience their consciousness in precisely the same ways. In fact, there are actually technical reasons to suspect that they most likely do not.

Formalized science demands that anything that will be accepted as being "verified truth" must be verifiable by more than just one individual scientist. This is why science cannot say things about individual consciousness with any guarantee that the claims are dependable.

But this isn't a problem for science when no other philosophy can do any better. That's the main point you need to keep in mind.

If you can't do better than science then complaining about the limitations of since is a waste of time. Unless you can offer something better. That's the key point right there.

Again, I am not complaining. I have no problem with science as far as it goes. I am just enquiring regarding those things that science is not equipped to deal with, like consciousness, as you have acknowledged. Your "observed it to be precisely what it is" argument sounds a lot like a true Scotsman argument. It presumes that what something precisely is can only be determined by science? Even if one accepts that as an axiom, what does that say about things that cannot be scientifically analyzed. What are they precisely.

What we can't do is directly observe that anyone else is actually having a conscious experience. And because of this we can't know whether other people are actually conscious or not.

We can not know it empirically, but we can know it intuitively. We can note characteristics of another being and surmise that they are similar to ourselves. Then we can interact with that being creating a symbiotic relationship that reinforces our bias and intuition. Could that not be how we know of consciousness?

No, because the other person that you believe to be conscious could simply be an extremely convincing non-sentient robot. Just because you feel intuitively that it must be conscious is no guarantee that it actually is conscious.

Obviously, as a matter of practicality it makes sense for us to assume that all humans are conscious. After all, it would be an extremely arrogant position for us to conclude that we are the only human on the planet that is having a conscious experience.

. . .

If we want to ask whether or not we actually know something, putting it though the scientific method looking for errors is the best way to go.

If it is arrogant to presume that others do not experience something we experience, that we can not scientifically verify in them, why is it not arrogant to presume other such things do not exist also. Even if consciousness is an exclusive exception, it is an exception and we accept it based one practicality, if nothing else and that is not science. So, science does not give us answers to all we need. Is that not al we need the definition of practicality?

Keep in mind that you cannot prove that solipsism is false. Therefore you can't know that anyone is truly having a conscious experience other than yourself.

Sorry, you have the logic backwards. One can not prove solipsism is false. Therefore, one can not know that others are NOT conscious. If one can prove solipsism is true, then one can determine it's characteristics and identify it in others. This of course can not be done scientifically, as you have stated. However, one can accept one's personal experience as valid based on it's utility. One can then observe whether that utility is also present in others. Based on that, one can reasonably surmise that one's personal experience is transferable. In that way one can empathetically know something that one can not verify scientifically. Could that not be how consciousness works?

"Empathetically know something" is not the same as knowing it to be a fact.

This is where you need to be careful.

I never said it was fact. I am deriving it from the process people say they use in verifying consciousness in others.

Having said this, there are certainly countless scientific reasons to believe that all humans are conscious. For example, science can show that all humans are related and constructed via DNA information. Therefore, known what humans are and the fact that they procreate even science is telling us that it's extremely rational to conclude that all humans most likely have very similar properties and attributes. Therefore if one human is having a conscious experience, it certainly makes "scientific sense" to conclude that all humans are then most likely having a conscious experience as well.

So science can guide us in this even when it can't answer the ultimate question.

In short, it makes 'scientific sense' to assume that all humans are having a conscious experience, even though we can't objectively measure this phenomenon to determine that it is an demonstrable fact.

Hold it. Now you say it is scientifically verifiable, because we can verify physical similarities? So, are you arguing that if people agree on an experience, that can not be scientifically verified directly, we can presume it to be scientific fact, simply because humans share a common biology? This sounds like causation due to correlation. Is that science? Isn't that what was behind the belief that flies came from rotting meat?

Therefore you cannot know anything beyond what you can know through science (i.e. through direct experience and observation).

Again, direct experience and observation are not exclusive to science. That is the social construct that we imbed in children, but that is no more science, than playing with blocks is construction.

Wrong! Direct experience and observation is exclusive to science.

This is what sets science apart from "Pure Philosophy" that does not demand evidence from experience and observation.

So yes, observation and experience are indeed exclusive to science. When you use those tools as a guide, you are doing science even if you don't realize it. And ancient humans who used experience and observation where doing science as well, even before the word "science" was ever coined.

Again, I am not arguing "Pure Philosophy", that is your straw man. So, you are arguing that even those who do not hypothesis, experiment, document, and/or replicate are practicing science? This is exactly like saying that playing with blocks is construction.

Your mistake here is in thinking that you can know something that science can't know. But that's false.

Again, that is only if one accepts as dogmatic orthodoxy that only scientific knowledge is knowledge. You are using circular reasoning. By the why, science does not know anything. People use science to discover things that they then designate as knowledge.

If what you think you know cannot be verified via observation and experience, then I question how you can truly know it.

That's all I have to say about that.

That is my point. It is your dogma.

Even your own emotions are being "scientifically verified" by you when you experience them. And external observer would, of course, not be able to verify that knowledge. In other words, people external to you can never know if you're truly feeling the way you claim. For all they know you could be faking it to gain attention, or some other motive.

So you need to be real careful about what you think you know and what you actually know.

Hold it. I thought your dogma was all you had to say about this. I guess not. I do agree we have to be careful when we talk about what we know. That is why I am confused by how you have expanded the definition of "scientifically verified" to include internal verification. So, are you arguing that everything one experiences is "scientifically verified", even if no one else can verify it?

I won't argue with that. Intuitive impressions are very useful. I use them all the time. But this doesn't negate anything I've said. If you want to be certain of things turn to science. This is not to say that intuition and luck can't be useful.

I've had intuition backfire as well. I've trusted people that I "felt" were trustworthy only to discover later that they were purposefully taking advantage of me with premeditated mallace.

So while intuition, empathy, and feelings can be useful, it would be foolish to think that they represent dependable truths.

I never said that they were dependable truths. Of course, they are not scientifically demonstrable. However, they may be demonstrable as common human experience, even if they can not be verified scientifically.

We can only guess that it seems rational to conclude that other humans are just as conscious as we are. But that's necessarily a GUESS. It has to be, because it's impossible to disprove solipsism.

Scientifically, which is precisely the point.

Save for the scientific caveat that I had just given earlier. Science does show us that we are all made of the same stuff, both in terms of elements (stardust) and in terms of biological genetics. So the conclusion that we are all very much alike does have scientific credence.

It's certainly more "scientific" to conclude that all humans are having a conscious experience than not.

My only point here was that science cannot answer that specific question precisely. And neither can any other method of inquiry.

So once again, we have "Nothing Better than Science".

And that's all I need to argue for.

No, that is not the question of the OP. The OP is asking if there are specific things that we acknowledge that are not directly address by science. The fact hat we are very much alike on many ways that are verifiable, does not scientifically verify that we are very much alike in other areas. That is a logical conclusion and a fallacy without other means of verification. So, we need other means. Science is not enough.

So you cannot know anything beyond science. Even your own conscious experience is not beyond science from your personal objective experience.

So you haven't produced any knowledge that cannot be known by science.

Again, you are using circular reasoning based on dogma. You assert, one can not know something because it "cannot be known by science". There is also experiential and intuative knowledge that has not been scientifically verified. What kind of knowledge do children have, before they learn the scientific method? How did we know anything before with developed the scientific method?

We have always used "The Scientific Method" long before it became a formalized, and well-defined discipline.

Babies use the scientific method right off the bat. They reach out and touch things to see what the experience is like. And that how they learn.

All humans are "Born Scientists". They only become intellectual wimps later in life when they lose sight of the fact that science is the only tool they actually have available to them if they are interested in learning truth.

So, now just touching is science. Also, that answer does not directly address the question. Baby's recognize their mother's voice right out of the womb. I guess listening is science also. You sure have a very broad definition of what constitutes science.

So, given this broad definition. Since, you consider pain to be "scientifically verified" by the one who experiences it, what about phantom pain or psychosomatic pain?

[imhereforyou]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

Science doesn't strive to explain things like meaning and value as they aren't testable and highly subjective.
Science also doesn't claim to have all the answers, though given enough time all things testable and provable could be understood through science and scientific testing I'd think.
In addition, people can believe in whatever they want no matter what science or religion does or doesn't say.
All that said, if you have proof of something (1+1=2) there's no legitimate reason to believe in anything other that fact. Unless, of course, you want feel the need to believe 1+1=3. If that makes you happy and doesn't interfere with my live....enjoy!

[AgnosticBoy]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

Like you, I also believe that scientists run into a problem when explaining consciousness. They have not been able to characterize it in purely physical terms when it comes to its structure and function. However, where I may differ from some religionists is that I don't believe that science has failed, but rather the materialistic paradigm has failed or is inadequate when it comes to consciousness. So I believe consciousness being non-physical could still be studied by scientists in that it is mechanistic (eventhough it's non-physical), and it is tied to a physical system. We can observe and affect it indirectly by stimulating certain regions of the brain and the reverse can happen. In contrast, beings or phenomena, like God or miracles, are often not tied to or correlated with physical systems, like a brain. These supernatural entities tend to exist independently - as a separate substance (immaterial, non-mechanistic, etc). It is only this latter category that should be outside of science.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

Being stardust is good enough for me.

So therefore it should be good enough for everyone else? I don't understand the validity of your statement in relation to what I was saying re self identification.

All it really says is "Being stardust is good enough for stardust."

Besides, you can't know anymore about your consciousness than I can know about mine. Therefore your arguments are meaningless.

Rubbish! For a starter, you are speaking of the consciousness as if it was the possession of the wee speck of stardust that you think you are.

You are speaking of it as if it were a separate thing from how you self identify.

Also what would change?

Well for starters, you would cease from thinking of consciousness as something you use rather than that which you are.

If you thought that some "higher consciousness" was required in order for you to be a conscious being, would then change how you would behave if instead you were convinced that you were conscious stardust?"

It may do. You would have to try it and see for yourself.

But is that really the issue? You believe you are a good person, so if you were to self identify as consciousness with the idea that you may not actually cease to be after your body has died, this may have a significant influence on how you might change in that regard.

I've asked myself that question and my answer is that it would make absolutely no difference at all in who I am or how I behave.

So for me the question is moot, other than perhaps being an interest of curiosity.

Well curiosity has been known to be a significant part of the recipe re how one self identifies and where this leads one.

But is 'who you are' as in - 'how you choose to self identify' - the truth?
When your stardust body finally dies, will that be the end of you and your experience forevermore, or would it be a matter of your stardust body 'giving up the ghost' - releasing YOU from that experience?

Please list the reasons WHY any thoughts re such an event which might happen, would have no affect on changing how you think you are and how you behave presently.

Why would you 'need' to know?

For me the 'need' to know produced the experience of being shown. Once shown, there was no more 'need' to know.

Thus the answer to your question is that having the 'need' to know provided and answer which then removed the 'need' to know. Since you asked.

What would that change? For me it would change absolutely nothing. I would still be precisely the same person I am right now. So it's clearly not information that I 'need' to know in order to make any important decisions.

Would it be too much for me to assume that your idea of 'important decisions' is solely materialistically based?
I am wondering too, as to how you have reached this conclusion. Have you experienced alternate events - such as OOB or Astral projection? If so, what conclusions did you draw from those experiences? If not, how are you to know what changes such experiences would have on what you presently prioritize?

"Science" is simply a formalized method of making certain that observations and logical conclusions are accurate based on the formalism of logic and on the reality of observations. (i.e. personal hallucinations and/or imaginings aren't given much credence, and rightfully so, IMHO).

Is this because the formalized method of making certain that observations and logical conclusions are accurate based on the formalism of logic and on the reality of observations cannot be undertaken in relation to experiences of individual consciousness? If that is the case, where did you derive your opinion from, regarding these things, which you label 'personal hallucinations and/or imaginings'? Are these scientific terms, and if so, why is science being used to label experiences of individual consciousness in this manner when a formalized method of making certain that observations and logical conclusions are accurate based on the formalism of logic and on the reality of observations, is not actually useful in examining such experiences?

The bottom line when asking "What consciousness is?" should not be important to how a person conducts themselves. If it does make a difference for them then they should look deeply into why that is so.

That's all need to say about that.

Actually no. It is simply something of a blanket statement which does indeed require explanation. Simply making such unqualified statements leave people hanging, as the saying goes.

As in - "Hey you got my attention, now explain what you mean by that!".

I'm not going to change who I am based on the answer to what consciousness is.

It is already established that the answer isn't known. So changing who you are, may well be the outcome rather than remaining the same IF the answer were to be known by you. Since you don't KNOW, you cannot categorically state that it would not have any affect in changing your present self identity, either subtly or radically.

If the answer to a question is going to change who you are, then can you even say that you have any substantial character at all?

Depends on the question. In this case the question is 'who am I' and the most natural course to take in one's searching for the answer, is remaining open to new ideas re that, not settling for popular consensus, etc and in that this is a process which one cannot avoid developing substantial character.

I know who I am, and that's not going to change based on any answers I might learn in the future.

Why the switch to fortune-telling DI? What is it about the way you self identify NOW that would interfere with any possible future event which may provide answers you could learn from which foreseeably might threaten to change your present self identity?

I can truly say I am that I am. Period.

Can you?

Sure I can. But what does that actually mean? It is obscure. I might understand my sense of self in detail, but what good is that to anyone else?

It is much the same as saying "I think, therefore, I am." That is fine but WHY am I?
(It also implies that I am my thoughts, but I have come to the realization that I am more than my thoughts.)

So the statement "I am that I am" begs the question "Who are you?" or "So who is it, that you are?"

I'm still me no matter what the answer to that question might be.

So the answer is moot and certainly not something I need to know.

Of course you need to know that, even to function as an individual. Indeed, that you understand yourself as 'good' is something you need to know about yourself. You couldn't make the arguments you do, if it were not for that.

You couldn't have lived the life you have up to present time if you did not have some kind of self identity, some kind of 'answer' to that question. So regardless of your claim that you don't 'need' it, you obviously have done and will continue to do so.

You cannot simply relate with all the significant others who have been, are and continue to be part of your life's experience, by simply saying "I am that I am"

Part of that need isn't just in how you self identify, but in how you express yourself into the external world so that others have some kind of distinct idea as to how you self identify and THAT is required by you in order that they don't 'get you wrong'.

Surely you understand that had you gone around simply NOT explaining your self, but saying to all and sundry "I am that I am" your life's experience would have been dramatically different and far less intimate in relation to other human beings.

Self identity, self expression, self development, self improvement, are all activities of consciousness. You could proclaim "I am stardust!" or you could proclaim "I am consciousness!" Which do you think others would be more inclined and attracted toward? Same goes for "I am a meat sack" and "I am a soul".

Sure "like attracts like" but my main contention is that you claim not to have 'need' and yet no one can live their lives as dynamically as you have shared about your own, without that need. It is simply required.

The question of consciousness is moot. Other than being a matter of curiosity and possibly having medical benefits for people who aren't in full control of their own consciousness.

There you go again. Separating consciousness from the person, as if the consciousness is the property of the person rather than the person itself.

If one is not in control of ones consciousness, one is not in control of ones SELF.

[bluethread]

It has been argued that there is no need for belief in something which can not be empirically verified, because science can provide us with all of the answers we need. So, how does science alone explain consciousness, meaning and value?

Science doesn't strive to explain things like meaning and value as they aren't testable and highly subjective.
Science also doesn't claim to have all the answers, though given enough time all things testable and provable could be understood through science and scientific testing I'd think.
In addition, people can believe in whatever they want no matter what science or religion does or doesn't say.
All that said, if you have proof of something (1+1=2) there's no legitimate reason to believe in anything other that fact. Unless, of course, you want feel the need to believe 1+1=3. If that makes you happy and doesn't interfere with my live....enjoy!

So, you appear to disagree with the premise that science can provide us with all of the answers we need. If that is correct, then there is no requirement for you to answer the OP question. However, it does put you in opposition to individuals like DI, who agree with that assertion.

Regarding scientific proof, (1+1=2) is not an example of that. It is not a fact, but an agreed upon premise that supports standard mathematics. One can also say that 1+1=10. A scientific proof is that at 35 degrees fahrenheit water is a liquid. The first is accepted, the second is tested.

[bluethread]

I believe consciousness being non-physical could still be studied by scientists in that it is mechanistic (eventhough it's non-physical), and it is tied to a physical system. We can observe and affect it indirectly by stimulating certain regions of the brain and the reverse can happen. In contrast, beings or phenomena, like God or miracles, are often not tied to or correlated with physical systems, like a brain. These supernatural entities tend to exist independently - as a separate substance (immaterial, non-mechanistic, etc). It is only this latter category that should be outside of science.

I would not deny any of those possibilities. However, as I said to DI, theism is not part of the OP, unless you are bringing it up. The question is whether science provides all that is needed for understanding the human condition. You seem to be saying that the only things to which science does not provide sufficient understanding would have to be those things that are not tied to physical systems. You then use deities and miracles as examples of those things. Since, I did not refer to deities and miracles as necessities in the OP, or anywhere on this thread so far, are you proposing that such things are needed for understanding the human condition?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

From post 26, I gather that you do not accept the premise that science is all that is needed to understand the human condition. Is that correct?

[William]

[Replying to post 29 by bluethread]

From post 26, I gather that you do not accept the premise that science is all that is needed to understand the human condition. Is that correct?

I understand science as definitely having its place of course, but the human condition is too complex a thing for science at this stage to understand, thus philosophy and thus the so called 'god of the gaps'.

My theology states that GOD is All Consciousness. Consciousness is the Ghost in the Machine. Science is mystified in relation to that. Theists are far more on to it I think, even that they are perhaps like the blind touching parts of the elephant in the room and declaring from that, that they know 'what the elephant must look like'.

I would far rather assume the role of encouraging individuals to continue with their idea of GOD than see them discard all ideas of GOD as 'rubbish' and take up the atheist mantle.

But in saying that, I will always argue against obvious brutal and all too human ideas of GOD which seek to remain unchanged. I prefer the logic in understanding the idea of GOD as something which has to evolve with human understanding.

If I am an individuate aspect of GOD-Consciousness, then - once I accept this - I will naturally enough see reason for existing as I do in relation to that internal idea and the external reality I am experiencing.