Free Will

[Sriram]

One thing we can objectively test is how reliable the concious (subjective) mind is with regard to its perception of the objective world. The answer being very unreliable, easily distracted from important details, prone to endless biases and preconceived ideas, very easily fooled, and so on, and so on.

If we then add that to all the endless claims of phenomena that seem to exist only in the subjective or magically disappear when subjected to objective tests, that these claims often give contradictory views of the world, and all we can really conclude is that we can't reliably conclude anything at all if all we can rely on is the subjective.

You are confusing the mind with consciousness.  The mind is the interface between the consciousness and the body. Consciousness is the Subject that undergoes experiences. The mind is the means by which this experience happens. 

The mind is very complex and has many layers and this complicates matters. This is why mind control and meditations are advocated so that the noise and clutter can be reduced.

[Stranger]

You are confusing the mind with consciousness.  The mind is the interface between the consciousness and the body. Consciousness is the Subject that undergoes experiences. The mind is the means by which this experience happens. 

What you were talking about in the post I replied to was "experiential aspects of life" and "experiential phenomena", so whether you want to separate out something that experiences from the sum total of experiences or not, is of little consequence to what I said.

[torridon]

You are confusing the mind with consciousness.  The mind is the interface between the consciousness and the body.

Not quite correct.  Consciousness is an aspect of mind, it is one of it's core functions and processes, but there are other aspects of mind also.  When you are not conscious, your mind is still working, keeping bodily processes going, self-cleansing, memory pruning etc.

[Sriram]

Not quite correct.  Consciousness is an aspect of mind, it is one of it's core functions and processes, but there are other aspects of mind also.  When you are not conscious, your mind is still working, keeping bodily processes going, self-cleansing, memory pruning etc.

We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.

You are still going on and on with the old science idea of the brain generating the mind and the mind generating consciousness....

[Gordon]

We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.

Who is "we"?

[Sriram]

Who is "we"?

   Well...ok. The 'we' here (perhaps inappropriately) is a broad reference to the young scientists, philosophers and the general public of today.......as different from the old science folk.

[Stranger]

We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.

Integrated information theory (that your latest link referred to) does not lead to the idea that consciousness could create the material world. Not for the first time, you seem to be just latching on to anything at all that looks vaguely as if it might support what you think.

You are still going on and on with the old science idea of the brain generating the mind and the mind generating consciousness....

Once again, the rather childish pretence that those who disagree are "old science". IIT does say that the brain generates conciousness. The whole point of it is that you can mathematically analyse any physical system and calculate (at least in principle) how much consciousness it has, captured in a quantity called ϕ (phi).

[Stranger]

The 'we' here (perhaps inappropriately) is a broad reference to the young scientists, philosophers and the general public of today.......as different from the old science folk.

And your evidence that there is such a shift amongst younger scientists and philosophers.....?

[torridon]

We are now beginning to talk about the universe being conscious and about how consciousness could possibly generate the material world.

You are still going on and on with the old science idea of the brain generating the mind and the mind generating consciousness....

Neuroscience is 'old science' ?  Nah, you're way out of touch, neuroscience is one of the hottest research areas of recent years.

[Gordon]

  Well...ok. The 'we' here (perhaps inappropriately) is a broad reference to the young scientists, philosophers and the general public of today.......as different from the old science folk.

I'd imagine that 'young  scientists', if they want to become 'old scientists' that is, will still work within with the limits of the ever-changing but nonetheless systematic 'scientific method' while 'young philosophers will publish and have their ideas critiqued - so how many of these young scientists and philosophers have published proposals in peer-reviewed scientific and philosophical literature regarding sources of consciousness that aren't biological.

What the general public thinks regarding consciousness is neither here nor there, unless those that have a view (and some may not see it as a subject that concerns them) can also provide a basis for their conclusions that isn't merely an expression their personal preferences, intuitions and biases. 

[Sriram]

'Old science' is not just about older people in terms of age. It is about how narrow ones perspective is....and how narrowly one defines science, its scope and its discoveries.

Many elderly people could have a broader perspective that is essential  for 'New science'. 

[Stranger]

'Old science' is not just about older people in terms of age. It is about how narrow ones perspective is....and how narrowly one defines science, its scope and its discoveries.

Then your "new science" is just your own little fantasy. Nobody is changing the definition of science and people who step outside its scope are not doing science. New ideas and speculations are not a new feature of science.

Your problem is that you have a set of pre-existing beliefs that you desperately want to be true and you latch on to any speculation that seems to you (often incorrectly, like IIT) think are in line with those beliefs and then label it "new science" and try to put down people who point out the lack of evidence or the speculative nature of it as "old science".

Deciding the answer first and then clinging desperately to anything you think supports it is the opposite of doing science and the labelling of things you like as "new science" and those pointing out the problems as "old science" is silly and immature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

'Old science' is not just about older people in terms of age. It is about how narrow ones perspective is....and how narrowly one defines science, its scope and its discoveries.

Many elderly people could have a broader perspective that is essential  for 'New science'.

Science is both a collection of knowledge and a verifiable method of discovery. The knowledge part changes as new discoveries are made, but the method doesn’t. There’s no so such thing as “old science” and “new science”, and the only “narrowness” in science is its demand that truth claims should be justified by its method if they're to be deemed "scientific".   

If you don’t like the scientific method though, then find some other means to justify your various claims and assertions…

…which is the point at which you always disappear. Why is that?     

[Sriram]

You just don't get it...do you?!

You look through a microscope and find many new things. Fine! I appreciate that.

I however tell you that there are many aspects of reality that are beyond the scope of your microscope.

Then, you tell me that...'fine...if that is so, please show me all those aspects through my microscope and I will then believe it'.

Ridiculous isn't it?!

[Stranger]

You just don't get it...do you?!

No, despite the fact people keep on explaining it to you, it's you who don't get it.

If your claim is that there are objective aspects of the world that are beyond the scope of science (and there certainly may be), then you're going to have to come up with some other way of investigating them and deciding what is probably true as opposed to guesses, wishful thinking, mistakes, illusions, and so on.

In short: if you think the scientific method is not the right tool to use, what can you offer instead?

Sriram likes the idea therefore it must be right, really isn't good enough.

[Enki]

You just don't get it...do you?!

You look through a microscope and find many new things. Fine! I appreciate that.

I however tell you that there are many aspects of reality that are beyond the scope of your microscope.

Then, you tell me that...'fine...if that is so, please show me all those aspects through my microscope and I will then believe it'.

Ridiculous isn't it?!

No Sriram, it's you that doesn't seem to get it. If you want to influence others you really need to produce some sort of convincing methodology and reasoning which doesn't simply rely upon your own subjective viewpoint.

Whenever you try to bring in science to reinforce your viewpoint you simply show your ability at cherrypicking or illustrate the limits of your understanding as has been shown by your ideas on ndes, evolution, epigenetics/ phenotypic plasticity etc.
Indeed, in this particular thread you attempt to use the very interesting hypothesis of IIT(as distinct from the functional approach) to explain consciousness, in order to support your idea that the whole universe is conscious, when it says no such thing,

I would suggest that a good New Year resolution for you would be to have a more balanced and less assertive approach to your no doubt heartfelt ideas. This would at least show a maturity which you seem, at the moment, to be lacking.

[Sriram]

Ha! Ha! Ha!....

What is cherry picking about....NDE's, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, unconscious mind, Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, anthropic principle, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, IIT, biofield, subjective nature of reality etc., that I bring up every now and then? (I have added a few more that you missed).

These are the areas that hint at the exotic nature of life and the universe. These point to those areas where, if we bother to understand and  integrate them, we could have a better understanding of our mind, consciousness and life itself.....instead of the same rigmarole of convoluted 'explanations' born of scientism.   
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Dear god but you struggle. The extent to which these things “hint at” your various speculations is debatable but, even if they did, that’s all they’d do - hint. If you want to justify your claims of fact though, you still have a mountain to climb to find some method to do that that’s objectively investigable and verifiable. Thunder was once thought to “hint at” Thor. So what though?

[Sriram]

What you keep referring to as 'objectively investigable and verifiable'...is what I am referring to as 'scientism'.  The world doesn't fit into your requirements.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What you keep referring to as 'objectively investigable and verifiable'...is what I am referring to as 'scientism'.  The world doesn't fit into your requirements.

Then you're actually illiterate as well as scientifically illiterate. Try looking up what "scientism" really means to see where you've gone wrong.

[Sriram]

"the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists".

That is your microscope...!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

"the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists".

That is your microscope...!

It's also a definition of science, not scientism.

Care to try again?

[Sriram]

That is copied from the dictionary... It could be science too.

If it is wrongly or inappropriately applied it is scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That is copied from the dictionary...

Yes, but not from the part of it that defines scientism.

It could be science too.

There’s no “too” – it’s only a definition of science.

If it is wrongly or inappropriately applied it is scientism.

Now you’re shifting ground. You gave a definition of science rather than scientism, and now you’re saying that if science is misapplied then it’s scientism. Let me help you here: scientism is the position that the universe is necessarily explicable in scientific terms. That may or may not be true, but it’s not a position I or anyone else here takes. What’s actually being said is that science provides discoveries that are verifiably true according to its methods. Your speculations on the other hand have no method of verification of any sort. Complaining that they’re not science-apt is fine if you like, but that leaves you with the problem that they’re not anything else apt either. And if you expect them to be treated differently from white noise or just guessing, that's a pretty major problem.

Can you see now why it's a pretty major problem?       

[Sriram]

Scientism is scientific principles applied inappropriately or over enthusiastically. Which you do all the time. It is a perception problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20promotion%20of,determine%20normative%20and%20epistemological%20values.

"The term scientism is generally used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."