Science and spirituality

[Sriram]

Absolutely not. We are reliably convinced of the existence of, for instance, x-rays and neutrons and deep ocean currents and heavy metals within the Earth's core, none of which we can directly perceive, but all of which we can reliably infer from effects that can be observed. If something has an effect on reality, that effect can be measured and those measurements can be used to speculate on the cause of that effect and deduce the potential nature of that cause.

Certain aspects of reality need not always be amenable to measurement through instruments. Our instruments are also designed in line with our senses and our awareness. I agree that even the non measurable reality will influence other aspects of reality in certain ways. That is precisely why I am looking at scientific ideas to see what hints they offer about the non measurable aspects.

I can't talk of 'spirit', obviously, but to conflate deliberate activities like design, cultural artefacts or technology is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of those activities.

My point is that evolution is a universal phenomenon that can be seen in all human creations as well. It is not limited to biology. So, it is possible that spirit or consciousness also evolves.

No it doesn't, that's just a conclusion that you need to come to in order to maintain the suggestion that we are somehow qualitatively different. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, is it more likely that it's a duck or that ducks are magical multidimensional physical-spiritual hybrids?

We just need to go into oneself to sense that we are different from the body/mind. It becomes obvious at one point that we are just a 'man in a robot'.

How? They are exactly as limited by the reliance on their sensory apparatus and cognitive biases within the VR as they are in the real world; Descartes' demon adequately demonstrates that we can't be absolutely certain that what we think of as reality is not itself just an extremely convincing artificial reality, and it's that 'reality' that we're assuming is the baseline where our subjective limitations are identified in the first place.

Objectivity within the VR will also be just an illusion though the person in the VR might think of it as really objective. It is all part of the subjective experience.

And I'm not saying that spirituality is definitively not the case, I'm just pointing out the innumerable ways we have to question the idea, and the particular notions that you espouse based upon it, and to say that even if it is the case you severely lack sufficient basis for talking about it as though it were settled fact or even likely conjecture.   

It is one way of trying to understand our lives. It is a possibility and that is enough to discuss it seriously.

Fair enough, but if they are an intrinsic part of reality then why are you suggesting that they are somehow outside of science's scope of investigation?

Because science insists on following certain methods that itself are limiting its scope. That is the reason such thinking is called scientism

[Sriram]

No it isn't - it might feel that way for humans, but life isn't restricted to humans - it encompasses countless other species which do not have sufficient complexity to have subjective experiences. So although in some cases life co-exists with subjective experience, life doesn't require this and with increasing AI technology it is easy to argue that some things that aren't living (i.e. aren't life) can have subjective experience.
But I'm a human - the vast, vast majority of life isn't human.
But you are a human - the vast, vast majority of life isn't human. What is your point.
It may be critical to human lives, but not all life - consciousness isn't a feature of life for the vast majority of species. Consciousness is not required for life whatsoever.
No it isn't and yes we can. We can develop and use objective equipment to measure aspects of the external world. And with this we can measure things that happened in the external world literally billions of years before humans even existed - so this couldn't possibly be the creation of our human brains.

Sriram - when will you understand that the universe doesn't revolve around one insignificant species that has existed for the blink of an eye in cosmological time terms on one tiny backwater of one solar system in one galaxy.

Consciousness is present in all living things (and maybe even in so called non living things). Not just in humans. You are confusing self awareness and wakefulness with consciousness. Consciousness is much more subtle.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Consciousness is present in all living things (and maybe even in so called non living things). Not just in humans. You are confusing self awareness and wakefulness with consciousness. Consciousness is much more subtle.

No I'm not - I am basing my comments on standard definitions of consciousness, such as:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness

By any standard definition, bacteria are not conscious, nor are plants, fungi etc. Yet all are very clearly alive. Consciousness is not present in all living things.

[Sriram]

That is where we differ. Consciousness is different from mental processes. Also....there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness. There is also the collective consciousness.

When Max Planck talked of Consciousness being fundamental, I don't think he was talking of human wakefulness or sentience.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is where we differ.

Where we differ is that I use the word conscious as it is defined. You on the other had use it in a manner that has no relationship to any accepted definition of the word.

Also....there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness.

Now you are just descending into parody - you do recognise that using the prefix 'un' before a word means that it is not the suffix. Hence something that is unconscious is, by definition, not conscious.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unconscious

You can't just make up definitions that somehow suit you.

[Sriram]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness


'Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe.'
'

'the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain; having phanera or qualia and subjectivity; being the 'something that it is like' to 'have' or 'be' it; being the "inner theatre" or the executive control system of the mind.'

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness


'Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7]

Which would most definitely not include bacteria or plants, or fungi.

There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe.'

Just because it is asked as a question doesn't mean the answer is yes, and of course only were it to be generally accepted that consciousness extended to bacteria or even non-living things would the definition of consciousness be changed. And it would need to change as currently accepted definitions do not include bacteria, plants etc as being conscious.

'the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain; having phanera or qualia and subjectivity; being the 'something that it is like' to 'have' or 'be' it; being the "inner theatre" or the executive control system of the mind.'

Which again would not include bacteria, plants, fungi and non-living stuff.

Let's stick to accepted definitions Sriram as otherwise we just get into nonsense territory. Anyone could choose to redefine consciousness as whatever they chose for the purpose of argument - but if they do that then that argument would be rendered meaningless and to do so would indicate that their argument is extremely weak.

I note you've not commented on your bonkers claim that conscious included unconscious - which is a completely oxymoron statement as definitionally something that is unconscious is not conscious.

[Sriram]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/unconscious

***********

The unconscious is the vast sum of operations of the mind that take place below the level of conscious awareness. The conscious mind contains all the thoughts, feelings, cognitions, and memories we acknowledge, while the unconscious consists of deeper mental processes not readily available to the conscious mind.

Much learning, especially recognition of complex patterns, takes place outside of conscious awareness. Similarly, many of the elements that go into judgments and decision-making are processed outside of awareness. Intuition, too, is a product of unconscious mental operations, a set of assumptions swiftly assembled from cumulative knowledge and experience. Much of human motivation and interpersonal attraction also take shape beyond conscious awareness.

Researchers know that the unconscious mind does the lion’s share of the brain’s work, but they don’t know exactly how all of it gets done, and it is an active subject of study.

************

[jeremyp]

Please see the video I posted at reply 15.
 
Life IS a subjective experience. This very moment whatever you are doing or thinking is a purely subjective experience. Same with me. Consciousness is the basis for our lives...and consciousness is a purely subjective phenomenon. Even the idea of something objective existing, is a purely subjective experience. All our experiences are subjective....even the 'objective' ones.

The external world is created within our minds. What actually exists independent of our senses, brain and mind no one can possibly know.

That was the nuclear option. Well done. If the above is correct, then we have no basis for discussing anything. You are effectively denying that we can know anything about reality.

The discussion is over.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/unconscious

***********

The unconscious is the vast sum of operations of the mind that take place below the level of conscious awareness. The conscious mind contains all the thoughts, feelings, cognitions, and memories we acknowledge, while the unconscious consists of deeper mental processes not readily available to the conscious mind.

Much learning, especially recognition of complex patterns, takes place outside of conscious awareness. Similarly, many of the elements that go into judgments and decision-making are processed outside of awareness. Intuition, too, is a product of unconscious mental operations, a set of assumptions swiftly assembled from cumulative knowledge and experience. Much of human motivation and interpersonal attraction also take shape beyond conscious awareness.

Researchers know that the unconscious mind does the lion’s share of the brain’s work, but they don’t know exactly how all of it gets done, and it is an active subject of study.

************

An article which makes it clear that 'unconscious' is not part of 'conscious', which is of course self explanatory as unconscious means not conscious.

Hence "The unconscious is the vast sum of operations of the mind that take place below the level of conscious awareness." - in other words if something is unconscious then it is not conscious - obviously.

So all living things have unconscious actions - some living things also have conscious actions in addition to unconscious ones. Humans, and many animal species fit into the latter category. More simple animal species and plants, fungi, bacteria etc fall into the former category as the do not possess consciousness and all actions, responses etc are unconscious.

[Sriram]

Goodness...you are so argumentative Prof! You just keep stretching the argument from one thing to the other...finally losing track of where it started.

You have missed the point about Consciousness being like a iceberg with most of it lying below the surface and only a small portion being seen outside. So...consciousness is one, with a large part of it working as the back office and only one part (the conscious part) working as the front office.

The word Consciousness is increasingly being used to refer to our subjectivity and the Self itself.

When people talk of Panpsychism and Cosmopsychism.....they are not referring to individual human awareness.

[ProfessorDavey]

Goodness...you are so argumentative Prof! You just keep stretching the argument from one thing to the other...finally losing track of where it started.

I'm not being argumentative.

I just don't think it unreasonable to expect someone who uses a term to use an accepted definition of that term and not to make up some new definition to suit their argument. And particularly not when that definition is the complete opposite of the actual definition - such as defining unconscious as being part of consciousness, when clearly it is, by definition, not part of consciousness, hence the 'un' bit in the word.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have missed the point about Consciousness being like a iceberg with most of it lying below the surface and only a small portion being seen outside.

Non-sense analogy. Let's fix it for you.

If consciousness is represented by the iceberg, then unconscious will be all the stuff that isn't part of the iceberg, not the bit of the iceberg below the surface.

Alternatively you might use an analogy where conscious and unconscious processes are represented by the iceberg with consciousness being that above the surface and unconsciousness being below the surface.

What is non-sense is to try to argue that unconscious is a sub-set of conscious - it isn't, by definition.

[Sriram]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Freuds-iceberg-model-of-unconscious-pre-conscious-and-conscious-levels_fig1_259524711


Anyway....thanks.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Freuds-iceberg-model-of-unconscious-pre-conscious-and-conscious-levels_fig1_259524711


Anyway....thanks.

Thanks for proving my point Sriram.

That model is pretty well identical to the second option I gave, namely that 'conscious and unconscious processes are represented by the iceberg with consciousness being that above the surface and unconsciousness being below the surface'. The only difference being the inclusion of a 'grey area' between the two. Actually I was going to suggest this too, but would tend to use subconscious rather than preconscious.

Anyway - the key point of the model is that conscious and unconscious are distinct - one is not part of the other, as must be the case given that unconscious means not conscious. That is completely at odds with your bizarre notion that the unconscious is a part of the conscious:

'... there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness' - no there isn't and nor definitionally can there be.

[ekim]

I may be wrong but I suspect that Sriram is trying to amalgamate Western philosophy, psychology and science with Hindu philosophy e.g. the relationship of Brahman with Satcitananda.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda

[jeremyp]

I'm not being argumentative.

Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?

[Sriram]

Thanks for proving my point Sriram.

That model is pretty well identical to the second option I gave, namely that 'conscious and unconscious processes are represented by the iceberg with consciousness being that above the surface and unconsciousness being below the surface'. The only difference being the inclusion of a 'grey area' between the two. Actually I was going to suggest this too, but would tend to use subconscious rather than preconscious.

Anyway - the key point of the model is that conscious and unconscious are distinct - one is not part of the other, as must be the case given that unconscious means not conscious. That is completely at odds with your bizarre notion that the unconscious is a part of the conscious:

'... there is something called the unconscious part of consciousness' - no there isn't and nor definitionally can there be.

Ok.....one last effort.

Somnambulism or sleep walking is an area where a person is not conscious but nevertheless performs normal activities very effectively.  This is the consciousness that is not 'conscious'.

Maybe we need to use different words for all these....but right now that's all we have got. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok.....one last effort.

Somnambulism or sleep walking is an area where a person is not conscious but nevertheless performs normal activities very effectively.  This is the consciousness that is not 'conscious'.

If you are unconscious then you cannot be conscious, because unconscious means not conscious.

And actually when we are asleep (whether we sleepwalk or not) we aren't really fully unconscious as we can still respond to external stimuli in a similar manner to when we are fully conscious - hence we wake up when the alarm goes off. So this state is better considered to be subconscious, rather than unconscious.

Maybe we need to use different words for all these....but right now that's all we have got.

Nope - we have perfectly adequate words - you just need to use them correctly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?

Guess it depends on when (or whether) Sriram starts using words according to their actual definition.

[ekim]

Today from The Daily Digest ..... https://tinyurl.com/33vb2zhv
Is the soul immortal?

The question of whether the human soul is immortal or not is one of the oldest questions of all time. From the earliest times philosophy, science and religion have tried in one way or another to give the right answer without ever arriving at an absolute truth, leaving it open to many interpretations depending on one's beliefs.

What is a soul

But first let's try to understand what is meant by soul. The word soul comes from the Latin anima, which is related to the Greek ànemos, meaning 'breath' or 'wind'. In many spiritual and religious traditions, the soul is the 'essence', 'spirit' or 'I' of personality.

The soul or consciousness

In more recent times, however, the soul is understood to be that part of the thinking self, like the mind or consciousness, one of the greatest mysteries of the various branches of science. A few years ago, however, a new theory was developed in collaboration with a great physicist of our time, which should shed light on this matter.

The 'Orch-OR' theory

The theory for researching consciousness and thus the soul is called 'Orch-OR' (ORCHestrated Objective Reduction) and was developed in the 1990s by the physicists Roger Penrose (pictured) and Stuart Hameroff. It is based on the idea that consciousness arises within the neurons and not through interactions between them.

Roger Penrose

Before delving into this intriguing theory that could reveal more about our soul, it's worth remembering that Roger Penrose is a distinguished mathematician, physicist, and cosmologist who received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020

Penrose received one of the highest honors in science for his work on black holes. Among his contributions is the discovery that the formation of black holes is a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Stuart Hameroff

Another author of the theory to tell us what the soul is and whether it is immortal is Stuart Hameroff, a Stutin anesthesiologist and lecturer at the University of Arizona in the United States.

A theory that needs to be tested

It should be noted at this point that the 'Orch-OR' is currently only a theory but is believed to be testable and projects are underway to test and validate it.

Which supports the 'Orch-OR' theory

Underlying the 'Orch-OR' theory developed by Penrose and Hameroff is the idea that the brain may not be controlled by algorithms, such that its physical properties are determined not by traditional mathematical formalisms but by the intriguing (and sometimes bizarre) principles of Quantum mechanics can be described.

A quantum approach

The two authors of the theory have combined their knowledge: on the one hand we have Hameroff, who wants to study the biological component of consciousness. According to Hameroff, the main structure of consciousness is the microtubule cells in the brain. On the other hand we have the physicist Penrose who brings the quantum approach.

Consciousness is a vibrating wave

According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, consciousness is a wave vibrating in the universe of subatomic particles (quantum physics is particle physics) and the microtubules act as true quantum computers, converting these vibrations into usable information.

The brain as a quantum computer

A quantum computer works differently than a normal computer. A quantum computer processes information in the form of bits, zero or one, while a quantum computer processes qbits, which can be zero and one at the same time, creating quantum superposition, a paradox difficult for our classical mechanical minds to comprehend.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation

This superimposition of states could be the measurement or the observation, in this case of consciousness. Here's an example to better understand what we're talking about: according to some theoretical physicists, when a person decides to eat an apple or a pear, at the moment of the decision (e.g. for the apple), the decision to eat the apple separates the pear and it continues to exist separately in another world. (Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation)

We are the reality

According to the 'Orch-OR' theory, on the other hand, the choice not made, that is, the pear, separates, but it is an unstable situation, so it collapses after a while. Two conclusions follow from this: According to proponents of Everett's many-worlds interpretation, there are many other worlds, but only one has consciousness (the world in which we are conscious), and that is a full one random fact. On the other hand, according to Penrose and Hameroff, we are the only reality, since alternative realities collapse because they are unstable.

A new way to understand the brain

This quantum thinking is then transferred to the brain, where consciousness has previously been thought of as a series of connections between neurons that function like a normal computer, but according to Hameoff, "It's an insult to the neuron itself when you think of the brain cell - the neuron - viewed as a switch that turns off or on".

What happens inside the neuron?

Again, the US doctor says: "Imagine that a single cell like the paramecium swims, finds food and a mate, mates and can learn. If a simple paramecium can be so intelligent, then how can a neuron can be so stupid?  Is it just a matter of turning it on or off? I think these scientists don't take into account what's going on inside the neuron."

So is the soul immortal?

But at this point the question is legitimate: How can the soul, i.e. consciousness, be immortal in this context? Here is the 'Orch-OR' theory answer.

Information is saved

According to this theory, in a pre-death state, microtubules lose their quantum state but retain the information they contain. According to Dr. Hameroff "the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information in the microtubules is not destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, it just disperses and dissolves into the universe. "

An intriguing but unproven theory

Of course, this is just one of many interesting theories that try to explain what consciousness is and whether it can really store information from a lifetime, but one must not forget that this has not yet been proven by science.

[Enki]

The idea that consciousness is quantum phenomenon is a fascinating idea, and the Penrose-Hameroff suggestions are certainly intriguing. There are major problems of course, especially with the microtubule cells as the main structure of consciousness, partly because microtubules transport neurotransmitters but do not seem to be involved in processing and also because they are too big and too complicated to allow quantum coherence for anything more than a few picoseconds. A later suggestion was that ion channels in neuronal cell membranes are a possible site for quantum phenomena(Al-Khalili and McFadden). It is worth pointing out, as Al-Khalili and McFadden stress, that their ideas are a world away from supporting so called 'paranormal phenomena'.

Hameroff's idea that quantum information 'just disperses and dissolves into the universe' seems to be an extension of the idea that when we die the atoms from which we are made, are dispersed. Hence, if I drink a glass of water, I might be imbibing an atom which once was part of Oliver Cromwell.

[Outrider]

Certain aspects of reality need not always be amenable to measurement through instruments.

If we can't detect it, how can we have any confidence that it actually exists? If we can detect it, in principle we can devise a subtle enough instrument to measure it.

Our instruments are also designed in line with our senses and our awareness.

The output of our instruments, yes, but not the input. Magnemometers, radios, microwave emission sensors, Geiger counters - all measure things we can't sense directly.

I agree that even the non measurable reality will influence other aspects of reality in certain ways. That is precisely why I am looking at scientific ideas to see what hints they offer about the non measurable aspects.

Yet you keep talking about them being somehow beyond science - science is the tool by which we investigate those 'influences' and try to narrow down the possibilities.

My point is that evolution is a universal phenomenon that can be seen in all human creations as well.

For the reasons I've given above I fundamentally disagree - there's a reason that we needed to devise the idea of evolution, and it was because the notion of design didn't fit the evidence well. Evolution and design are fundamentally different processes.

It is not limited to biology.

Possibly not, but we've no evidence for it occurring anywhere else that I'm aware of.

So, it is possible that spirit or consciousness also evolves.

It's not impossible, but you've provided no reason to think so.

We just need to go into oneself to sense that we are different from the body/mind. It becomes obvious at one point that we are just a 'man in a robot'.

You keep dropping this sort of thing in, like I'm not a grown adult who has had plenty of time for introspection and has come to a different conclusion - what is it that makes your instinctive take on reality somehow more reliable than mine, given that mine cleaves to the evidence better?

Objectivity within the VR will also be just an illusion though the person in the VR might think of it as really objective. It is all part of the subjective experience.

And the same argument can be made of the 'real' world - we could just be a brain in a jar, the Matrix might be real. How do we prove otherwise from inside?

It is one way of trying to understand our lives. It is a possibility and that is enough to discuss it seriously.

Except that there is not attempt to 'understand', there's just conjecture and if it feels good you accept it as true. That it feels good might be significant, might be something worth investigating, but it's not evidence that you've got the right answer.

Because science insists on following certain methods that itself are limiting its scope.

And yet you can't explain why any of your claims are somehow beyond science's capacity to investigate. And you don't provide a methodology with any logic or validity to support your alternative ideas.

That is the reason such thinking is called scientism.

Scientism is the idea that only science can produce answers, and I've not been advocating that. However, just because I'm open to other methodologies doesn't mean that you get to say 'well it's beyond science' and then make any claim you like without basis, you still need some reason to validate your claims.

O.

[Sriram]

If we can't detect it, how can we have any confidence that it actually exists? If we can detect it, in principle we can devise a subtle enough instrument to measure it.

IF we experience it directly we don't need any confirmation through instruments.

Yet you keep talking about them being somehow beyond science - science is the tool by which we investigate those 'influences' and try to narrow down the possibilities.

It is beyond science and therefore it cannot be measured directly.....but certain aspects of reality that science has investigated do offer hints at to their existence because reality is a spectrum. There is continuity but the nature of the reality changes. Psychological phenomena for example, are not as precise and predictable as physics.

For the reasons I've given above I fundamentally disagree - there's a reason that we needed to devise the idea of evolution, and it was because the notion of design didn't fit the evidence well. Evolution and design are fundamentally different processes.

Possibly not, but we've no evidence for it occurring anywhere else that I'm aware of.

It's not impossible, but you've provided no reason to think so.

You speak as though design and intelligence are automatically contraindicated just because evolution is true. This is the idea that I am questioning. In the case of products, ideas, philosophies and so on, evolution does take place but through  intelligent design and intervention. Evolution and intelligent intervention are not mutually exclusive.  They can exist together.

You keep dropping this sort of thing in, like I'm not a grown adult who has had plenty of time for introspection and has come to a different conclusion - what is it that makes your instinctive take on reality somehow more reliable than mine, given that mine cleaves to the evidence better?

Introspection is not enough. Everyone introspects. If you really want to know about this in real terms....choose some guru and learn some meditation and yoga.  You will see what I mean.   

And the same argument can be made of the 'real' world - we could just be a brain in a jar, the Matrix might be real. How do we prove otherwise from inside?

We cannot prove anything within the VR. Having an  insight about the world outside the VR or getting out of the VR, is the only proof.   NDE's offer some insights.

Scientism is the idea that only science can produce answers, and I've not been advocating that. However, just because I'm open to other methodologies doesn't mean that you get to say 'well it's beyond science' and then make any claim you like without basis, you still need some reason to validate your claims.

Anyone who keeps insisting on current scientific methods to investigate philosophical and abstract ideas is guilty of subscribing to scientism.

[jeremyp]

IF we experience it directly we don't need any confirmation through instruments.

But we can only experience things through our senses that only react to physical stimuli. Therefore anything we experience thatches from external phenomena is measurable. Even if something were directly interfering with our thoughts by bypassing our senses in some way is detectable in principle thanks to the changes in brain activity it must induce.

Anyone who keeps insisting on current scientific methods to investigate philosophical and abstract ideas is guilty of subscribing to scientism.

Shut up about scientism. This is just an attempt to poison the well.

ETA: It's fine to talk about philosophical ideas without checking them to see ofd they accord with reality but, if you fail to do the checking against reality, you can't be sure they are true.