A thought: How would consciousness possible emerge from unconscious physical matter? Conscious might or might not be an emergent phenomenon. But it must, in either case, be a fundamental (or emergent) property of reality; thus, a property of reality.
Does electron have consciousness ? Molecular biology & molecular evolution Cosmology & cosmic evolution If Universe evolve can electron evolve too ? Does evolution of life begin on electron level ? Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe Electron takes important part in this work Question Why does the simplest particle - electron have six formulas: E=h*f e = +ah*c e = -ah*c +E=Mc^2 -E=Mc^2 E= ∞ ? Nobody knows Electron is not as simple as we think
Continued from below.. I'm sorry the "God theory" or dualism has such harsh implications. Anyways, have fun wrestling with that one, Colin. I believe you're just striving after the wind.
And as far as religion or religionists go: Macro-evolution science is religious in nature. So is atheism or any other worldview that can't be demonstrated in a laboratory!
Sounds like a big fat "I don't know" from Colin. And yeah, consciousness does transcend our comprehension. But only if you're operating from a physicalist's point of view. How can consciousness come from nothing? How can life? How can matter? How does nothing explode creating a universe?! Geez! Get over your brainwashed, indoctrinated and dogmatic materialistic worldview. There are fundamental truths that will never change and that materialistic thinking can never answer. I'm sorry the "God the
Indeed. The brain is such a fascinating organ! I believe it makes sense to admit we are not in the position (yet) to conclude wether we can ever 'find' one of the most ambiguously defined terms within either philosophy or psychology.
I would contend that it actually makes more sense than the assumption that consciousness by definition cannot have any physical roots. The hell with dualism!
Some idiot, presumably a dualist idiot, flagged your comment as "spam." I unflagged it, but I'm not sure whether that will reverse the damage.
I agree that only monism makes sense---there are independent lines of evidence for a brain-based "mind," and no evidence for magic-thinking, dualistic "explanations."
However, anyone who wishes to believe in an afterlife *must* also believe that their consciousness can continue after the body dies = Consciousness of the Gaps fallacy.
'Conciousness is reducible to something about the brain, which is not itself conciousness, but we dont know what that thing is about the brain that it reduces to.' Like what? What not even a clue? or a suggestion? Sorry that sounds like bullshit - he might as well say that he thinks conciousness was dreamed up by the magic ferret from Oogly land on a rainy afternoon when he was a bit bored.
// he might as well say that he thinks conciousness was dreamed up by the magic ferret from Oogly land on a rainy afternoon when he was a bit bored //
Do you mean to imply that consciousness was not invented in that way?! I'm stunned! ;D
I do understand how it is extremely difficult to make the shift from mechanism to qualitative experience -- as in this video: watch?v=ERtHFw_fw9Y
However, I think that Rama's approach will be more productive: watch?v=cR4FKHGqRHw
Sounds to me like he means that while you can locate and measure the effect of consciousness you cannot add a positive ontology to it. Just like what he said about electricity - That you can only describle electricity by it's properties on the physical world. What you quoted had little to do about the origin of consciousness so I dno where the magic ferret fits into it.
Whats he's saying is that we have no clue as to the origin or essence of conciousness so he's going to take a complete guess and say he thinks its produced by something we dont know about in the brain. Another guess would be the magic ferret made it.
Ok. I just don't see what's so odd about first saying that he doesn't know nor what's controversial about suggesting that it's related to the brain. To me suggesting that consciousness is located within the brain is not at par with saying a magic ferret did it. I don't see the equal probability.
But yeah the positioning is strange because he makes the suggestion that it's beyond our grasp. And that's a bit weak. But saying it's reducable to something about the brain is not as bad a the ferret :P
I keep plugging LennyBound at the bottom of the description box on relevant videos. He knows a great deal more about this subject than I. He has a series of excellent videos on philosophy of mind -- but two strikes against his channel, unfortunately ;(
" to bring something from an area of the material world, which in principle, the human mind can't even determine."
If the human mind is absolutely unable to sense these "other areas" of the material world, why are we even talking about them? If our consciousness is completely unsuited to these other, unknown aspects of the material world, why should we even suppose they exist? I don't buy that.
// "other areas" of the material world, why are we even talking about them? //
It's supernatural, dualist thinking -- odd from an atheist! It smacks of Leibniz's monads to me ... spirit and soul monads combined into a consciousness monad! Philosophers have had 300 years to move beyond this, but some still seem to be circling around the concepts. At least they have shed the "windowless" aspect!
I also think that "not yet explained" does not mean "nonexistent" or "impenetrable".
Let me revise that -- on listening to him again, he is not taking a dualist view, he's taking more of an inexplicable-monism view.
Why talk about it? I think that it is in the nature of philosophers and scientists to ponder questions, regardless of whether or not they think that a full understanding is obtainable. It is only religionists who want certainty to the exclusion of comprehension.
"consciousness is not a fundamental aspect of the world" ... yes! It's an artifact.
I think it is a mistake to say that we will never understand consciousness or electricity.
The discoveries of quantum physics are so mind-bogglingly against our natural intuition that it seems to me that we are already discovering things well beyond the capacity of a single human mind. But knowledge does not come from a single human brain, millions communicate their thought to each other, and stand on the shoulders of those who came before. So we are not limited by the power of our minds.
I completely agree. I think that philosophy is interesting and that it has a contribution to make, but it is too "disembodied" sometimes.
Yes, if physicists can make verifiable predictions about events at the quantum level, then neuroscientists should be able to close in on consciousness. I think that the first step is to ignore all dualist consceptualizations.
We are not limited by the power of a single brain ;)
A thought: How would consciousness possible emerge from unconscious physical matter? Conscious might or might not be an emergent phenomenon. But it must, in either case, be a fundamental (or emergent) property of reality; thus, a property of reality.
ZeusDeusEx 3 weeks ago
israelsocratus 3 months ago
@israelsocratus You're talking physics. And according to physics, electrons has been the same since the birth of the universe.
ZeusDeusEx 3 weeks ago
I would like to see Colin debate William Lane Craig.
myroseaccount 4 months ago
Continued from below... I'm sorry the "God theory" or dualism has such harsh implications. Keep striving after the wind, Colin. Good luck with that!
SDSk8eR777 10 months ago
Continued from below.. I'm sorry the "God theory" or dualism has such harsh implications. Anyways, have fun wrestling with that one, Colin. I believe you're just striving after the wind.
And as far as religion or religionists go: Macro-evolution science is religious in nature. So is atheism or any other worldview that can't be demonstrated in a laboratory!
SDSk8eR777 10 months ago
Sounds like a big fat "I don't know" from Colin. And yeah, consciousness does transcend our comprehension. But only if you're operating from a physicalist's point of view. How can consciousness come from nothing? How can life? How can matter? How does nothing explode creating a universe?! Geez! Get over your brainwashed, indoctrinated and dogmatic materialistic worldview. There are fundamental truths that will never change and that materialistic thinking can never answer. I'm sorry the "God the
SDSk8eR777 10 months ago
why they in the dark?
deepvoiceuk 1 year ago
@deepvoiceuk Metaphor anyone!?
robertbrennanaa 11 months ago
This is the first time I have come across a philosopher who's reflections concerning this subject are exactly similar to mine.
If the complexity of our brain and its products were simple enough to be wholly understood, we probably would not have the capacity to do so.
Brand0ni0 1 year ago 2
@Brand0ni0
Well, 100 billion neurons do make for a fair bit of complexity, don't they?
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago 2
@EvolvedAtheist
Indeed. The brain is such a fascinating organ! I believe it makes sense to admit we are not in the position (yet) to conclude wether we can ever 'find' one of the most ambiguously defined terms within either philosophy or psychology.
I would contend that it actually makes more sense than the assumption that consciousness by definition cannot have any physical roots. The hell with dualism!
Brand0ni0 1 year ago
@Brand0ni0
Some idiot, presumably a dualist idiot, flagged your comment as "spam." I unflagged it, but I'm not sure whether that will reverse the damage.
I agree that only monism makes sense---there are independent lines of evidence for a brain-based "mind," and no evidence for magic-thinking, dualistic "explanations."
However, anyone who wishes to believe in an afterlife *must* also believe that their consciousness can continue after the body dies = Consciousness of the Gaps fallacy.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EvolvedAtheist Oh my god you poor soul. I'm so so so so sorry to hear that. You should seek help
Commitment24Seven 1 year ago
@Brand0ni0 colin mcginn is amazing indeed
larstait 1 year ago
'Conciousness is reducible to something about the brain, which is not itself conciousness, but we dont know what that thing is about the brain that it reduces to.' Like what? What not even a clue? or a suggestion? Sorry that sounds like bullshit - he might as well say that he thinks conciousness was dreamed up by the magic ferret from Oogly land on a rainy afternoon when he was a bit bored.
fishybishbash 2 years ago 2
// he might as well say that he thinks conciousness was dreamed up by the magic ferret from Oogly land on a rainy afternoon when he was a bit bored //
Do you mean to imply that consciousness was not invented in that way?! I'm stunned! ;D
I do understand how it is extremely difficult to make the shift from mechanism to qualitative experience -- as in this video: watch?v=ERtHFw_fw9Y
However, I think that Rama's approach will be more productive: watch?v=cR4FKHGqRHw
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Sounds to me like he means that while you can locate and measure the effect of consciousness you cannot add a positive ontology to it. Just like what he said about electricity - That you can only describle electricity by it's properties on the physical world. What you quoted had little to do about the origin of consciousness so I dno where the magic ferret fits into it.
Gunnariffic 2 years ago
Whats he's saying is that we have no clue as to the origin or essence of conciousness so he's going to take a complete guess and say he thinks its produced by something we dont know about in the brain. Another guess would be the magic ferret made it.
fishybishbash 2 years ago
Ok. I just don't see what's so odd about first saying that he doesn't know nor what's controversial about suggesting that it's related to the brain. To me suggesting that consciousness is located within the brain is not at par with saying a magic ferret did it. I don't see the equal probability.
But yeah the positioning is strange because he makes the suggestion that it's beyond our grasp. And that's a bit weak. But saying it's reducable to something about the brain is not as bad a the ferret :P
Gunnariffic 2 years ago
I disagree. I think its worse.
fishybishbash 2 years ago
Great video. I ponder over this subject all the time.
CosmicSeaman 2 years ago
I keep plugging LennyBound at the bottom of the description box on relevant videos. He knows a great deal more about this subject than I. He has a series of excellent videos on philosophy of mind -- but two strikes against his channel, unfortunately ;(
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
" to bring something from an area of the material world, which in principle, the human mind can't even determine."
If the human mind is absolutely unable to sense these "other areas" of the material world, why are we even talking about them? If our consciousness is completely unsuited to these other, unknown aspects of the material world, why should we even suppose they exist? I don't buy that.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
// "other areas" of the material world, why are we even talking about them? //
It's supernatural, dualist thinking -- odd from an atheist! It smacks of Leibniz's monads to me ... spirit and soul monads combined into a consciousness monad! Philosophers have had 300 years to move beyond this, but some still seem to be circling around the concepts. At least they have shed the "windowless" aspect!
I also think that "not yet explained" does not mean "nonexistent" or "impenetrable".
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
Let me revise that -- on listening to him again, he is not taking a dualist view, he's taking more of an inexplicable-monism view.
Why talk about it? I think that it is in the nature of philosophers and scientists to ponder questions, regardless of whether or not they think that a full understanding is obtainable. It is only religionists who want certainty to the exclusion of comprehension.
"consciousness is not a fundamental aspect of the world" ... yes! It's an artifact.
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
I think it is a mistake to say that we will never understand consciousness or electricity.
The discoveries of quantum physics are so mind-bogglingly against our natural intuition that it seems to me that we are already discovering things well beyond the capacity of a single human mind. But knowledge does not come from a single human brain, millions communicate their thought to each other, and stand on the shoulders of those who came before. So we are not limited by the power of our minds.
pigburn 2 years ago 2
I completely agree. I think that philosophy is interesting and that it has a contribution to make, but it is too "disembodied" sometimes.
Yes, if physicists can make verifiable predictions about events at the quantum level, then neuroscientists should be able to close in on consciousness. I think that the first step is to ignore all dualist consceptualizations.
We are not limited by the power of a single brain ;)
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago