Posted on 11/29/2023 2:41:01 PM PST by TBP
Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining things that reside “only in consciousness”—the red of a sunset, say, or the bitter taste of a lemon—has proven far more difficult. Neuroscientists have identified a number of neural correlates of consciousness—brain states associated with specific mental states—but have not explained how matter forms minds in the first place. As philosopher Colin McGinn put it in a 1989 paper, “Somehow, we feel, the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness.” Philosopher David Chalmers famously dubbed this quandary the “hard problem” of consciousness.*
Scholars recently gathered to debate the problem at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., during a two-day workshop focused on an idea known as panpsychism. The concept proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like mass or electrical charge. The idea goes back to antiquity—Plato took it seriously—and has had some prominent supporters over the years, including psychologist William James and philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell. Lately it is seeing renewed interest, especially following the 2019 publication of philosopher Philip Goff’s book Galileo’s Error, which argues forcefully for the idea.
Goff, of the University of Durham in England, organized the recent event along with Marist philosopher Andrei Buckareff, and it was funded through a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. In a small lecture hall with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Hudson River, roughly two dozen scholars probed the possibility that perhaps it’s consciousness all the way down.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Thank God there’s God.
“Marxism is the plural for which there is no singular”
John 4:24:God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Ask what the soul of man is and you may get close.
Absolutely.
God is the reason for consciousness. Nothing exists without awareness.
👍
Is this quote from “Mind and Matter”?
An atheists-only event, we can be certain.
Anyhow, this is nonsense. I’ve tried to follow their argument.
It’s not scientific.
For example, “ but have not explained how matter forms minds in the first place…”
No. It has quite well in understanding neurons, nervous systems, the brain.
These are atheists looking for God or spirit, not scientists so they ignore the science.
Abuse of science is very common today, as we’ve all learned the hard way.
“Consciousness is the ground of all being.” — Dr. Amit Goswami
What is not scientific about it?
There is no way the materialist approach can explain the presence of consciousness.
It’s true. As far as I can tell the entire universe revolves around and is all about ME.
God’s consciousness, yes.
“ There is no way the materialist approach can explain the presence of consciousness.”
You’re mistaking consciousness with spirit or soul etc..
But, yes, you’re correct otherwise.
It does explain consciousness, mind etc…to a large degree.
For example, a lobotomy affects the mind. So do drugs.
But not spirit or soul and can’t.
Science cannot explain supernatural. By definition. Science studies nature.
Physicists dancing around the evidence, avoiding the “G” word.
The problem is in the premise. Matter didn't form mind. But materialists cannot admit otherwise as it would contradict their religious presuppositions. So they will forever be stuck on this point.
I liked Terence McKenna’s definition of science.
“I think that the purpose of science is to advance technology.”
“it’s absolute hubris for science to cloak itself in the mantel of philosophy. All it’s for is to make better toys, or if your nuts, better weapons.”
More:
“Science proceeds by experiment. But built into the concept of experiment is this very fishy notion called the restoration of initial conditions. And it turns out that there ain’t no such creature. You can never restore initial conditions.”
“when we look at complex phenomena—like the fall of empires, love affairs, corporate takeovers, social revolutions—these things never happen the same way twice. That’s why we invented what we call the social sciences, meaning no science at all.”
“These kinds of complex phenomena are very critically dependent on initial conditions. You know, a love affair: between whom and whom? Where? Under what economic conditions? What were the religious preferences of the parties, and what did their parents think, and what did their children think? In other words, initial conditions set the course, and yet initial conditions are never the same in these complex systems.”
“science..(is) fairly helpless in describing the kind of complex systems that now more and more dominate our lives: global economies, the Internet, interlocking markets, so forth and so on.”
McKenna’s point—science is great at studying stuff that is simple—useless to understand the complexity of human life and social interaction on the planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.