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

Discussion in 'Religion' started by LFiess1942, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. LFiess1942 Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    The Hard Problems Of Consciousness

    One of the best cases for Intelligent Design, related to the problem of explaining “Consciousness” To most scientists, Consciousness lacks tangible and provable facts with which to critically study it and as it has been found out, nothing in the field of science, predicts the presence of consciousness, even though its reality cannot be denied. But yet, how do the scientists investigate consciousness? What are its reductive properties? What are its attributes? What is it? But however much scientists have tried to avoid the subject of consciousness it has thrust itself upon them and demanded investigation and critical analysis!

    Many have tried to grapple with it, and have come up with differing suggestions. One of preeminent scientists and eminent philosopher, who have led in its investigation is Prof. David Charmers, Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Consciousness at the Australian National University . Professor Charmers contends the problem of consciousness, by suggesting an approach that recognizes the so-called “easy problems” and the “hard problems” of consciousness, or subjective existence . This approach has led to a dualistic perception of the nature of consciousness. Charmers appears to use Kantian methodology, where he separates the analytical character of consciousness, and the empirical character , i.e. of experiences. He states; “There is not just one problem of consciousness. “Consciousness” is an ambiguous term, referring to many different phenomena. Each of these phenomena needs to be explained, but some are easier to explain than others. At the start, it is useful to divide the associated problems of consciousness into “hard” and “easy” problems. The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms.

    The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods. The easy problems of consciousness include those of explaining phenomena. I.e the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli; the integration of information by a cognitive system; the reportability of mental states; the ability of a system to access its own internal states; the focus of attention; the deliberate control of behavior; the difference between wakefulness and sleep…… The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whirl of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience”. (David Chalmers; Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness)

    Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

    The mystery of consciousness as a subject demanding investigation called attention to itself, when scientists sought to investigate the basic substance out of which matter, and therefore reality is made of. The science of physics, while investigating the nature of matter and the stuff its made of, appear to have brought the scientists into a kind of dead end, where tools of science, that is, logic and mathematics, have failed to explain the substance of the very basic fundamentals of reality. Physicists, have found themselves faced with a kind of an unfathomable anomaly as to the nature of mater and therefore reality. A phenomena of reality of matter, where tangible substance and facts ends, and reality and matter become ideological , ephemeral and an elusive super-positioning of states, which cannot be pinned down, existing as swirling wave of energy, undulating in to nothingness, raising question to the true nature of the Macro systems, emerging out of these super positioned systems, which appear as spiritual reality of matter.
    While undertaking the sturdy of the quantum nature of matter, scientists have found , that matter, as it were, is not made of small discrete particles. That indeed, “Big things”, that we observe, are not made of “small things” There are no small “things” frozen somewhere in space forming the basic substance, out of which, all matter that make up reality we apprehend is fashioned out of. Rather, it has been found that matter is made up of entities, whose definite attributes cannot be identified with absolute certainty. These entities appear to have a dual state of a wave and particle nature, which renders their very existence to be a mare probability! This then, is what has forced scientists to wonder about Consciousness. The question that has been put forward is this; if matter as it were, appear to be made of entities of supper positioned waves which has probability of existence, what then, is this consciousness that apprehends this “nothingness”? If at all, we, as human being, are made of supper positioned entities that have not material existence as it were, according to quantum theory, what is this “thinking thing” in us, that apprehends an immaterial reality which gives and illusion of materialism? Then again, how can something so material as mater, arise form something so immaterial as these waves of probabilities? Then again, what this consciousness in us, that perceives this mater? How could something so unconscious as mater, give rise to something so conscious as we sentient human beings? This has been termed as the “hard question” of science. This, had not been predicted by anything in science. We cannot deny that we are conscious beings. We cannot deny we are conscious of things. Therefore we cannot deny the existence of Consciousness, because we are the sentient beings perceiving reality consciously. But the, if as it were, all the stuff we are made of, is mare undulating unconscious waves, what is this in us, which is the consciousness we are experiencing and expressing?

    Signature Of The Trinity In The Cell

    Another evidence of Intelligent Design, who is the Divine Trinity is what American biochemist and researcher Dr Stephen Meyer calls “signature in the Cell’ in his book by the same title. Dr. Meyer calls our attention to the basic building block of life as it were. The four Nitrogenous bases of the gene, which determine the inherited characteristics of all living things. What scientists have found is that a gene is made of predetermined sequence of bases or nucleotides, which determine the type of protein that will be forms. These Nucleotides are adenine (A), thymine(T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C) These combine as a Trinity in groups of three reefed to as codons, that specify which of the 20 amino acids goes into the protein. Any on of the four bases can form the three possible codon position, . These groupings are the genetic codes, that dictate the sequence of amino acids that form the protein. There are rules regarding how these bases can pair. A can only pair with T. And C can only pair with G. A sequence of bases, determine the amino acids in the polypeptides . And a sequence of amino acids, determine the proteins and its functions. And this, is what determines the character of the cell. In their pairs, they form the polymer chain which makes the twisted, ladder like double helix stand of the gene. By themselves, they are like the genetic “Alphabets” which when combined in codons , make up the information which writes the life of an organism. We know that alphabets when written, may appear to be groups of letters, but when combined to transmit information mean something to the intelligent recipient. DNA, therefore, is basically, information. They are molecular instructions for life. And since we know that information comes from intelligence, it means that that some intelligence is somewhere always dictating the specified information which appears as life in the world, and thereafter, disappears! Mr. Meyer sates that this” someone” is a mind. He states “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.” (pg. 347) Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,179
    I deny that consciousness is real. It's an illusion generated by the brain. So there is no problem to solve. The other two paragraphs are hardly worth commenting on.
     
    H.sapiens likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,650
    Professor Charmers eh? lol!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,650
    Professor Charmers eh? lol!

    So how does the irreducibility of consciousness entail it was designed and built up from reducible components? The claim of consciousness as designed contradicts its property of being a sui generis holistic phenomena.
     
  8. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    It looks like you cut and pasted this but for you say 'David Charmers' in the first paragraph, and later 'David Chalmers'. So which is it? The signature of the Holy Trinity in nucleotides? A bit of a stretch, innit it?

    Does this also mean that diaethria phlogea is the eighty-ninth butterfly intelligently designed?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Welcome to sciforums, Landau Roof.
    Not really, unless you can show consciousness can not have evolved. You obviously have some contact with the cognitive science areas, but it seems you want only to use that knowledge to put forth your religion POV. In another thread a few days ago, I gave an example of why consciousness would be expected to evolve:
    Do you reject evolution? If so, why? The evidence for it comes form many quite independent fields of study an even experiments. For example (1) when given an antibiotic you are told to take it for 10 days even feeling well after three. The few germs not quickly killed will multiply to become an evolved gene pool resistant to that antibiotic. (2) Almost all animals come from fertilized eggs and they begin their development in very similar fashion. First one side of the egg folds inward to form the "neural tube" one end of which will become the head and the other the tail. Then the various major sub division begin minor differentiations:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (3) Structural simularities between different species even in their DNA indicates a common ancestor they evolved from. (4) several more but perhaps you believe in evolution, so I stop the list; however, if you are a "creationist" and think the complexities of large animals imples a "clever designier" - it does not. If any thing it implies a stupid designer:

    For example, consider:
    It seems likely that the distant ancestor of the giraffe was a four legged creature with probably shorter than average neck (or possibly none) as one of the nerves that told "cheek information" (i.e that bee stung there or he bit his cheek, happen to pass below a bone before going to the brain for processing. Getting it on top of that bone can not be done via a set of many very tiny "analog changes" accumulating over thousands of generations. The relocation of that nerve to the top side of the bone, which later became the "collar bone" is a "binary change" I.e. there are only two "states" ("under" or "on top" of the bone.) So the long necked giraffe of today learns he bit his cheek with considerable neural delay as the bite induced neural signals leave the cheek area, travel all the way down that long neck, go under the bone still and then travel all the way up that long neck and finally reach the brain. - If the giraffe was "designed" the designer must be very stupid.

    In contrast the length of the neck can increase via tiny incremental changes accumulating over thousands of generations. For example the average length of the giraffes in generation n+1 can be 0.1mm longer than the average neck length in generation n. Evolution can (and did) change the length of the neck of giraffes as that is an ANALOGUE CHANGE. I don't know why it happened but perhaps the short necked ancestor of the giraffe liked the taste of the leaves at the top of the short bush it feed on more than the slightly more dusty ones closer to the ground - Why the change occurred is not important as it did occur as each tiny stage of that analogue change gave a slight benefit.

    The octopus has an eye design almost identical to that of man except much better in one "binary way" (The octopus' retina is in front of the nerve impulse collection network and the "blind spot" where they all join to form the optic nerve carrying the information to the brain. etc.) Man's network of blood vessels in front of the retina makes black random shaped shadows cutting all the 2D image into many dozens if not thousands of separated odd shaped pieces that later processing in the brain must "fill in" with best guesses as to what was blocked by the blood vessel shadows). Moving the retina to the other side of all this support structure (like moving the giraffe's nerve to the other side of a bone) is a "binary change."

    Or at least the designer thinks much more highly of the octopus than man and giraffes.

    * One of the many experiments supporting evolution was done in Brazil, where I live. Quickly: Two different fish, one large eating the tiny ones live below a water fall, and none above. The tiny ones became sexual mature in a few months and laid a few eggs before being eaten, if lucky. That all changed in about a decade after graduate students caught some tiny ones and relocated them above the water fall. There those that delayed maturity, had many dozen of eggs out competed the others for the limited food supply. Soon none with short cycles like their "cousins" below the falls existed above the falls.

    PS if you learned anything from the above, you should learn more 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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2014
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,138
    Illusions are real, but consciousness is not?

    No, silly, of course not. It's the 68th - God's pov, looking down from above, is the correct interpretive pov.
     
  11. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    You just lack consciousness of consciousness. You don't know. If consciousness or any of the abstract things like time or knowledge our mind produces were illusions then then they wouldn't be satisfying, king of the abstracts. I ask, have you ever felt satisfaction before? If you have you know these things are real.
     
  12. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    @LFiess
    Welcome.
    I'm not sure whether you wrote this yourself.
    If you did, you are an exceptionally good writer.
    If you didn't, you need in future to enclose the article in quotes using the drop-down in the editing icons,
    and give a reference below to the work you are quoting.
    An internet link is sufficient.
     
  14. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    All that exists is the "Mind" Your Mind, is a Seed of the Universe"
     
  15. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Sorry, Am yet to proofread the who manuscript. But for now, it has some errors.
     
  16. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Actually I did, and thanks. Where I have quoted other writers I have specified, in order to support my arguments. But its still work in progress.
     
  17. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Our own lack satisfaction is shown by our curiosity. So, over time, Man has always wanted to know "Why are we here" That question has never been answered, an that is the reason man craves. He thinks satisfaction will be in wealth, and he accumulates it. Then he finds that he still hungers. He thinks that satisfaction is in fame. He seeks it and there after finds that he still hungers. He jumps from one craze to another, and yet he is never satisfied. WHY?!!

    Because of the illusions. Man is unsatisfied because his reality is an illusion. To seek satisfaction, man must realize that the reality unfolding out there, which appears "objective" "disconnected" "separate" "out there" "impersonal" is a lie. He therefore must seek to be united with the reality because everything is entangled, and exists in a state of supper positioning
     
  18. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    "Unless you can show consciousness can not have evolved".

    "Evolution" presumes no Intelligent Design.
    Consciousness is immaterial. Matter, is material. So, how does something as immaterial as consciousness evolve out of something as material as matter? At Quantum Realm, mater is entangled and exists in a state of super positioning. So, it does not have absolute or definite attribute. The only attributes that it assumes are those determined by observation. Meaning that at Quantum Realm, the Macro Systems that we observed decohere and only exists because there are observers.

    We know that mater in itself has no consciousness. Observers have consciousness which enable them to make sense of reality. So, if Consciousness "evolved" from matter, how then, could something so unconscious as matter give rise to consciousness? How could it give observers consciousness and yet deny itself the very gift, unless of course matter did not give rise to consciousness? If consciousness evolved from matter, we would expect matter to at least have evolved a consciousness of its own. No?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    The immaterial is generated by the material mind all the time. I can, for example, have thoughts, remember music, recall image of my car, become angry, sad, or wonder at how you can suggest none of this is possible (yet you do it yourself!), and a million other immaterial things with my very material brain cells.

    BTW, ideas, when expressed for others to comprehend also "evolve" - There is even a name for this: Memes. Memes are shared immaterial concepts that get refined over time. Justice is an example of a meme.

    SUMMARY: Your post is based on false premise, so is basically non-sense.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,179
    Mind is one of the things that doesn't exist like you think it does. It's not completely real.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The bible claim for the formation of the universe and the rise of man, corresponds to the basic time frame science has documented as connected to the rise of civilization. If we combine this science data with the bible claims, one explanation that allows for consistency between science and religion was a new version of human consciousness, able to transcend its pre-human past. I define the transition between pre-human and human in terms of consciousness and not DNA, with human starting at civilization as the bible implies.

    The old pre-human consciousness of being nomads, hunters, herders and gathering was not the same as those who stopped against the inertia of eons of prehuman instinct and habit. A new human conscious awareness was born. This change in the mind is consistent with science dating and the needs of civilization. The new human had will power and choice enough to overcome the inertia of instincts. The bible speaks of this change.

    The time scale of Genesis, is also consistent with the science proven invention of writing. The bible says, in the first sentence, in the beginning was the word and word was god; writing. It is so obvious it is hard for the biased mind to see on both sides of the spectrum. What writing brings to the table, is knowledge with a level of collective consistency never seen before, which cannot be done with spoken language, alone. The theories and inventions of the time, due to the new mind of consciousness, were being documented; crystallization of knowledge and invention. There is a new way to agree with a new level of accuracy.

    Consider the importance of the invention of writing. In these discussion forums, one is often asked to provide quotes for proof. Why is a written statement so important for credibility? Say no written proof was needed or rather no written proof was available (before writing was invented). There is no way to create a consistent standard or to tell lie from truth. It will all be about here say and politics, but not science.

    The universe beginning as formless and void is implicit of this creative, yet unable state of transition human consciousness, where there is no way to document consistency; brooding. When the word appears, and the word was God (fear of god is the beginning of wisdom), a vision of reality can crystalizes out in the minds of the new humans, allowing the cooperation needed for civilization; universe forms.

    Genesis is not about the physical world, but the world as seen by a new type of consciousness. The new mind is not stuck in the flux of instinct perpetuating sparse traditions and inventions, but is now connected to a building flux that is crystalized out in writing and learning.

    The bible starts with ancient science and then the writing shifts to laws of good and evil, bringing death into the world. As science it was good and still in paradise, but after the fall, writing changes to the subjectivity of politics since bad laws and traditions cast in stone were harmful to the collective psyche. This is still true today with science documentation good and politics more self serving.
     
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,650
    Genesis is about the world seen by primitive Semites 2500 years ago, a world that was created in 6 days, with the sun, moon, and stars under a dome of water, under which lived a man made of river mud with his wife made from his rib and their whacky adventures with a talking snake and two magical trees. Then we have the tale about how God cursed humans with multiple languages when they tried to build a tower, after which is the glorious yarn of God's destruction of the human race with a flood and Noah's miraculous boat containing two of all the millions of species of animals on this planet. No. Genesis has nothing to do with a new consciousness. It is documentation of a very old and defunct consciousness, and one which most of us in the 21st century have evolved far beyond.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2014
  23. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Seeking knowledge in reason, and 'how' is very satisfying. It means our brains our functioning, we are learning. Some people do have emotional issues on this plane and don't see satisfaction, but that is just knowledge/consciousness issue. It's out there, or its inside you just haven't learned it yet.

    If your not satisfied try being a passive love all. That can just change you like nothing. Think, God wouldn't create evil, something with no heavenly reason to be.
     

Share This Page