Alex_Krycek

Really? What evidence do you have that consciousness originates in the brain? Can you dissect the brain and isolate the key processes involved? Can you provide at least a model of how consciousness arises within the brain and how that relates to our subjective experiences (our imagination, our emotions, our understanding of reality, etc)? But we're not discussing "invisible pixies", we're discussing a very simple metaphor for how consciousness might work. This is a hypothetical discussion as none of us have direct evidence. Even the illustrious Richard Dawkins sees fit to employ metaphors when he attempts to explain matters such as these, calling human beings "lumbering robots" among other "vivid phrases". In this frontier we can only hypothesize. Perhaps the universe itself is intelligent, in that it has inherent properties of a conscious, living mind. As to evidence of this intelligence, what you accept will differ according to your personal philosophy of what the universe is. If you believe that everything is random and there is no such thing as a higher intelligence, you will see everything as random and accept nothing as evidence of a higher intelligence, in accordance with your beliefs. Personally, I think that the evolution of life and the development of complex living systems with self directed goals and conscious behavior is a strong indicator of an intelligent force underpinning our universe. Positing that these phenomena are the result of "evolutionary pathways" does not explain how or why they occurred. It is an assumption. Well, either we don't discuss consciousness at all as neither side has any evidence to support their position, or we proceed with a hypothetical discussion of the possible origins of consciousness in which we afford each other some modicum of impartial open-mindedness in the spirit of free inquiry. I prefer the latter.

Not necessarily. You're positing that the brain is the generator of consciousness, and once the generator is damaged, consciousness itself ceases. This is sometimes true on the individual level: people with dementia lose cognitive ability, wither away, and die. The same degeneration is seen with TBI or as a result of encephalopathy. So yes, on the surface what you're saying seems to be correct, that the mind and brain are one. But there is another alternative, and that is the brain is not the generator of consciousness but the receptor of it; that consciousness is a supra-material phenomena that exists independently of the brain. To analogize the situation the brain could be like a radio, and consciousness the radio wave or signal that the individual radio is tuning into. If someone didn't understand how radios work, it would seem as if the radio signal is being generated by the radio, as the radio is generating the soundwaves, music, etc. So when you damage the radio itself, the ability to produce sounds is impaired, and one might logically assume that it is the source of the signal, never realizing that the radio-waves are being generated another source, and the individual radio unit is merely picking them up. In this way so our brains might be the receptors of consciousness, not the generators of it. Yes, we generally require a healthy physical brain to adequately process this signal and act in intelligent way, but there do seems to be exceptions, such as those people who lose large amounts of brain matter but still function normally. Another anomaly in my view are the incredibly complex behaviors exhibited by organisms that do not possess highly developed brains. Take insects, for example, and in particular the behavior shown by hornets and bees in this video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M). Yes, insects have a basic brain that acquires sensory information and controls their central nervous system, but the behavior displayed in this video is of such a high order of complexity that their rudimentary physical brain should not account for it in the traditional materialist paradigm. The behavior of these two species in the video is strategic and intelligent, and to me indicates that some other factor is at play, a factor that is supra-material. Interesting. Thank you for that information. Yes, but science can only test if consciousness is incarnate in a physical organism, i.e. it can only look for the signs that it recognizes as consciousness in physical beings and postulate theories on what we are able to observe directly in the interrelation between that organism and conscious behavior. Science does not as yet possess sufficient knowledge to understand what consciousness really is, nor does it wield instrumentation subtle enough to test if there is conscious activity occurring beyond the apparatus of the physical entity. So while we can assume what consciousness is and where it originates, that's about all we can do. I don't. I think the scientific method is the best way to fully understand the material world. Develop a hypothesis and figure out a way to test for it, what could be more simple and direct? However, it's typical of human nature to not ask novel questions and to castigate those who do. It's also human nature to remain in the comfort zone of collectively held views and not venture into unknown territory with the objective of discovering something new, and to attack those who do challenge the established paradigm. Such bias is a contamination of scientific inquiry and the methods that support it.

Ok. So can I ask why you assume that consciousness arises from matter (i.e. the brain)? Here is some evidence that it might not. (note: It's the same case study, but I posted numerous sources so as to verify it.) https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness http://www.businessinsider.com/missing-90-percent-of-brain-neuroscience-2016-7 http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/13/man-living-without-90-percent-of-his-brain-challenges-scientists-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/ According to Sheldrake, his data is legitimate and collected using verified methods. He could be lying, of course.

True. If it focuses on impartially examining the evidence and not on ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately in many cases this does not happen, as was the case with Doidge's research into neuroplasticity recently. As you know, human beings, even those who profess to be acting in the name of objective truth, are often swayed by deep seated cognitive biases that act to serve their own personal interests rather than the interests of science as a whole. For example, when someone has worked their entire career to support a theory that neuro-plasticity completely overturns, the ego is not too happy and will behave accordingly. In other words, I don't agree that scientists are fundamentally impartial. Science becomes repeatedly entrenched in inaccurate patterns of thinking that are objectively false, when it could be progressing forward at a faster pace if there wasn't this biased personal interest in maintaining the established view. Interesting. Which ones did you read? And what is your primary criticism of his methodology?

Where is your evidence that consciousness arises from the brain? It's easy to dismiss those who hold differing viewpoints that may contradict our worldview. With all due respect, have you actually read any of Sheldrake's books? Have you listened to any of his talks or read any of his publications? Do you know anything of substance about the man or his prestigious career as a biologist? If you don't, why not maintain some level of impartiality and investigate the veracity of his work for a respectable length of time before condemning him as a "pseduo-scientist"? Pseudo-science means false science. Sheldrake has never conducted false science. He has never been found to misrepresent his findings or attempt to obscure the nature of his experiments. Yes, he conducts research into areas that are unexplained, areas that may be off-limits to mainstream science. But this is what science is for: to inquire into the unknown with a spirit of bold adventure. Whether they distort data to satisfy the corporations funding their research projects (those who have a financial interest in certain results being published), or are just flat out wrong in their hypotheses but hold positions of authority in the scientific community so their fallacious views go unchallenged, many scientists who do not come under any such scrutiny as Sheldrake are in fact the real "pseudo-scientists". https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/05/dozens-of-recent-clinical-trials-contain-wrong-or-falsified-data-claims-study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice https://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-truths-are-in-fact-false/ At the end of the day, as long as Sheldrake follows the scientific method to test his hypotheses, structures and conducts his experiments methodically, is honest in reporting his data, and allows his findings to be peer reviewed, he's not engaging in pseudo-science. If he has a theory, such as Morphic Resonance, then it's up to him to prove that theory before it can be accepted into the mainstream, but he's certainly allowed to have it nonetheless. In my view the reason he receives such disdain is because he openly challenges the philosophical assumptions of materialism, something you're not supposed to do. As the prevailing scientific philosophy, materialism rests on certain assumptions, as all philosophies do, and to challenge this foundation of belief in any way is to attack the very identity of those standing upon it, which is why non-conformists such as Sheldrake are singled out. But this is a perpetual issue in science. It happened to Norman Doidge when he brought his evidence of neuroplasticity and challenged brain localization theorists. He was ignored, attacked, and silenced - for a time, until the ad hominem assaults could no longer block his path, and the veracity of his evidence overturned an entire field. It's the same reason Einstein was attacked for his theory of relativity by those who thought his proposal couldn't possibly fit into their Neo-Kantian worldview. So ultimately I think we should keep an open mind regarding the unsolved questions of the universe.

@ OP You may be interested in a book called Quantum Questions. It's an anthology of philosophical essays by the world's most prominent physicists, each delving into questions about the nature of consciousness, God, and what lies beyond our human sensory perception. Einstein has an interesting essay in the book called "Cosmic Religious Feeling" in which he discusses a spiritual perception that cannot be organized or put into material form and the pursuit of which is, in his view, the true purpose of science. He writes: "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the noblest motive for scientific research. ... Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from it's practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries." This accords with other arguments made in the book regarding a paradox relating to matter and energy. As matter and energy exist in more and more subtle forms, they become untraceable in the material realm, thus no material proof of the existence of a "supreme intelligence" (God, if you will) can ever be established.

OP. I agree with your viewpoint. Positing a general definition of materialism as the current scientific philosophy would give us a reference point. "Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions." I think that with the advancements in science over the last 50 years, the assertion that phenomena such as consciousness originate from matter, and that matter is the "end all be all" of the universe is now highly questionable. By the way, have you read any of Ruppert Sheldrake's work, such as Science Set Free?

It's interesting that White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to resign rather than carry out Trump's order. Did he do so because of ethical considerations? It's doubtful. Trump's inner circle are the last to care about ethics. I think McGhan preferred resignation over firing Mueller because he knew he could be potentially charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice in the future if he complied with Trump's decree.

From the article you linked to: Interesting. Another ethics red-flag. The logic seems to be: "they're cloned, so by default they shouldn't be afforded any rights." It's only logical if private investment is involved.

Lol...touché. Personally I think you should weaponize your unique brand of sarcasm and sell it to the government for assassination purposes.

Understood. I'll stay focused on cloning and not the probability that China is being honest / ethical. (As a footnote: past evidence shows they don't have the best track record when it comes to this matter, as was the case late last year when they were found gathering all the DNA of their muslim population in the west of the country to build a massive DNA database, all under the guise of free government provided health checks. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/13/chinese-authorities-collecting-dna-residents-xinjiang) But I'll move on from that line of discussion.

When you get into cloning and / or genetically engineering a human being it's a pandora's box with obvious benefits. Maybe they're working to create a "super soldier" with genius level IQ and incredible strength / speed. Perhaps there's some way to marry nano-technology with a cloned human being that would allow it to be controlled from afar, or they could build in some kind of advanced data collection / surveillance system for espionage purposes. Yes, it's far fetched, but remember that those in the military have to think 70-150 years in the future, and start implementing solutions now. Have a look at some of the declassified projects that DARPA has released on their website. And that's stuff that isn't classified. Ultimately if you want a working prototype of any "next level" human being, it's going to involve a lot of trial and error, so ethical constraints would have to be abandoned.

They do have an enormous population, but having such sheer numbers inevitably leads to dehumanization of the masses, especially in the eyes of the elite. I find it highly unlikely that any ethical consideration would stand in the way of scientific progress in China. It's more likely they are feigning moral restraint so that hopefully other competing nations slow their own progress in the name of ethics. It's a necessary charade in a grand strategic game.

"Cloning of macaque monkeys a breakthrough, but researchers insist work will not be extended to humans" Yeah. Sure China. Whatever you say.

Hi, What's your budget like? I know someone who can help. Cheers.

You're absolutely right. But I hope we adapt and evolve before stepping foot on some other virgin world.

Sure. I think one million years is more than enough time for us to drain the resources of the planet, disrupt natural ecosystems, and generally make the planet unlivable before we move on to the next one. Also, just happened to be reading this article when I came across your thread: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/23/trappist-1-planets-likely-life-water-earth-like

I'd ask for more information. Is this afterlife better or worse than my current predicament? If it's worse, I'd postpone my arrival for as long as possible. If it's better, I'd relax more in this life and not stress out about things too much, knowing there was a better place on the horizon. But generally speaking, in either situation I would try to make the most of this world before moving on.

Impressive to be sure. Here's another image.

That's been their approach for the last 10 years. Even when they were a minority without a Republican president it was an "all or nothing" approach with them.

Wow. Quite a structure. According to wikipedia this was the longest suspension bridge in the world for over ten years from 1981 - 1998. Also, it looks like a beautiful part of the English countryside. Awesome! Practically a roller coaster. Ha. Reading up on this one too. It's a box girder / beam bridge. At 11,000 feet, I wonder what the engineering logic is not to make this a cable stayed bridge. Perhaps because the curve would make cable support impractical and unnecessary? I'd be interested to know. They don't make 'em like they used to. And that's quite a detour, too. Yikes. Really appreciate the durability of those old, Gilded age structures. They have a simple, yet proud aesthetic to them. Great anecdote about the elephant too. I can see someone picking up the daily newspaper back then and seeing that on the front page, and the local gossip in the town about whether it was safe or not. Interesting stuff!

Just finished a great documentary on the Millau Viaduct in France, and it inspired me to create this thread about the biggest, baddest bridge near you. Know idea why, but bridges have always fascinated me. Even when I was a kid, I would stare out of the car window as we crossed rivers and gorges, awestruck at this road in the sky and how it was created. Here in South Carolina, the baddest bridge is the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge about 75 miles away from me in Charleston. The cable-stayed bridge has a main span of 1,546 feet (471 m), (total length is 13,200 feet) and is the third longest among cable-stayed bridges in the Western Hemisphere. More bad a** bridges here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2018/jan/19/longest-bridges-around-the-world-in-pictures So what is the baddest bridge near you?

That's the thing though. Oil has been too essential. Any inroads into the development of alternative energy sources during the 20th century were stamped out in favor of greed and the status quo. People couldn't see outside of the oil bubble. And so we polluted the Earth, disrupted the climate, and fueled an industrial revolution that has been responsible for catastrophic wars, weapons of mass destruction, and hundreds of millions of deaths. We've been addicted to the black stuff for a century, and now like a junkie who stumbles out of an alleyway into the path of an oncoming truck, we are about to reap the consequences...