The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

Its dangerous in there. But though its not very safe out here, at least you can free yourself from the Matrix System that have majority of us living a lie. Thanks for your feedback. You're appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say you don't have one, just that it's not really real. It's an emergent property of a brain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would ask what the hard problem is doing in the Religion subforum rather than in General Philosophy. But that would be singling-out one item amongst potentially a dozen other abuses of science / philosophy falling under the same category. Like: "Why is quantum mechanics being appealed to / jumbled-up beyond recognition in religious discussions across the web?"

 

That's quite an interesting remark. I was wondering if there might be some new trendy notion doing the rounds in the ID/creationist demi-monde, based on this particular misrepresentation of QM. Do you think it is widespread and if so, have you any references illustrating it?

 

And emergent "properties" are not real. Like tornadoes and mushrooms - they don't really exist.

 

I don't have any reports about an ID-specific meme that might be trending globally. Have largely just encountered the ongoing general strain of QM mysticism -- when blended with this or that religion -- as sported by gnus in discussion groups for years.

For designating an eccentric evangelist, "Gnu Guru" has been suggested as an addition to urban slang, which borrows from the comedic aspect of "Gnu Atheist", but minus the ironic retaliation. The "guru" part is often dropped or else taken to be contracted in "gnu" [somehow!]. Might be better if they just respelled it as "gnoo" to avoid confusion with Gnu Atheist and accompanying mascot.

gnu: "A budding guru, now-a-days most usually found upon the internet seeking acolytes. Can be identified by their utterance of meaningless or contradictory aphorisms and vague and meaningless nonsense about a hidden 'Truth' or 'Reality' always just out of reach. Common traits, an inability to answer sentences with question marks, acute selective reading ability, massive belief confirmation bias, ad-hominen psycho-babble and a complete inability to walk their talk or even talk their walk. Be wary of such beasts. Preventative vaccination advised, i.e. a study of Philosophy, in particular a dose of critical philosophy and Logic as practiced in Philosophy now-a-days." --as related by a UK poster

Gnu Atheist: "A term used by atheists online to ridicule the idea that there is such a thing as a New Atheist. Its origins are variously attributed to Ophelia Benson, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers."

From Pharyngula Wiki: "Gnu [Atheist] has the added benefit of allowing atheists to reclaim the label new imposed on them by theists. In addition, the gnu (aka, the wildebeest) serves as a sort of mascot around which some atheists might choose to rally, though there are several such mascots already (e.g., IPU , FSM , Ceiling Cat , Cthulhu , and cephalopods ). Atheists who enjoy using the label Gnu Atheist for whatever reason might want to look into joining either one of the two Gnu Atheism Facebook groups..."

 

There's somewhat of a difference between "radical" and "flawed".

 

I'll try to answer that:

The quasi-simultaneous appearance of a flood of misunderstood QM terms and concepts here and in other forums, such as: Measurement of distributed entangled mixed states suggest relativity’s speed of light limit is wrong (EPR Paradox), “observation” is what collapses the (mixed state) wave function, David Bolm's version of QM blurs past and future,suggesting a great unity, Schroedinger's Cat show QM applies to the macro world, Wave/particle duality show QM is wrong, uncertainty principle means science itself admits its truth is false , etc. clearly is an orchestrated drive by scientifically ignorant network of agents, trying to show that science supports not only belief in God but the Christian version of that!

I have actually done QM calculation, (even a few in the original matrix form) and know this flood of pseudo QM for what it is: Re-posts of some notes provided somewhere that the poster barely if at all understands. When clarified for them, they just move on and start a new thread – not interested in learning any QM, only wanting to show it endorses the Christian POV ( not re-incarnation or any other)

I have actually read at least the first 30 or so pages of Descartes' Discourse on the Method many years ago, in English translation. His famous phrase: Cogito ergo sum appears in the first few pages as I recall. Then from this base, by about page 23 as I recall, he has “logically derived” that Christ had to die on the cross (or some way) to save the true believers from their inherited “original sin.” I stopped reading that religiously biased philosophial trash soon after reading that.

With his analytic geometry Descartes made a great advance but as a philosopher he is nuts – can't even see that it is his indoctrinate beliefs that are guiding his silly "logic."

SUMMARY: This just shows that once even a great mind gets well indoctrinated with the Christian religious POV, it lose the ability to think about / accept evidence/ that contradicts that POV. Why the Jesuits say: "Give me a child until he is five, and I'll give you a Catholic for life."

 

Not necessarily true. For example Fourier analysis, a process, is not material yet can exist in a computer and produce the weights of the signal's frequency components. In fact the "signal" its self is no more "material" than your 110 Volt AC power is. My point is that non-material things like consciousness, can be processes than take place or are created in material systems like computers or spinning magnetic field of a material electric generator.

I believe consciousness is a process that takes place at least in human brains (more specifically in the parietal cortex) and is not "material" no more than Fourier analysis is material or Beethoven's 5th is material. Material things can create these immaterial things. All material things have mass / inertia. What is the mass of Beethoven's 5th or my consciousness?

For more reasons and experimental facts that support this POV about consciousness, you should learn from and find interesting:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 where I explain and justify my RTS view of perception with focus on showing genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. Then see:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...e-will-an-illusion.104623/page-5#post-2644660 and posts 84,86 & 94 where I clarify my POV more.

 

Yeah, like the software is an emergent property of the hardware?

 

Yeah. Like tornadoes and mushrooms no real existence.

 

I think this is the essential difficulty with the issue: the information of DNA is not transmitted consciously.

 

Its the high time science reconciled with Religion. That's the reason.

 

I think that is highly unlikely. Lets follow William Paley's argument, that if you were walking along a path in the Forrest and suddenly you encountered a stone besides the path, if you were asked how the stone came to lie besides the path, you would most likely say you do not know. But if you encountered s watch, most certainly you would say that an intelligent being had something to do with it. For it takes a Watchmaker to make a watch. So, we as Intelligent creatures figure out intelligence behind phenomena by some peculiar qualities to be found in anything that the intelligence had had a hand. Take for example a painting. A Painter leaves a signature on his painting. One also infers intelligence behind creation, inferred in the peculiar properties, to be found in nature. Take for example the Fibonacci numbers sequences in nature. Their peculiar properties infer intelligence.

You say that the information of DNA is not transmitted consciously. Okay. But you have to wonder about the curious aspects of the specification which take the characteristic of computer programing. So, who programed the genetic information to be found in the DNA a sequence which is specified, to create particular amino l acids which determine the proteins and its functions, which determines the character of the cell? You want to claim that all that happened by chance?

 

This sounds very similar to Berkeley's Idealism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

 

I am more inclined to agree with Kant's Transcendental Idealism

 

We are as mystified about the nature of consciousness as we are about the nature of the physical world,
We can only experience the physical world through the medium of sensory experience, but its existence is a better way of explaining its constancy in the large scale world, than dependence upon a God who has to mediate every action.

There is a difference in the nature of the world when we analyse it at an atomic and macroscopic level, but there is also a difference in dreaming and the waking state.

Even if you accept the premise that the world of conscious experience is all that exists, why would that necessitate a God?

 

Do you know of any secular religions? Maybe some Western form of Buddhism, that's all I can think of.

 

Not exactly. Words on a page are physical, but their meaning is contingent on interpretation. My cat can see the same written words, but for her they mean nothing. In the same way, thoughts are physical products of the brain, but their meaning depends on context.