There are hundreds of neuroscience studies about the nature, scope, behavioral effects, and experience of consciousness. These have gotten more specific and detailed with the development of cognitive science techniques - PET scans, MRIs. Specific brain activity can be associated with specific mind activity - memory, emotion, thought, perception. This information has been used to try to understand the functional processes that go to make up consciousness. The one source I can steer you toward is "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. I don't like the book much and I'm not sure if I buy his conclusions, but I found it a very plausible example of what a neuroscience description of consciousness might look like. — T Clark

I did a degree in Philosophy and Psychology with a module on philosophy of mind. I had to do a lot of reading in this area including about mind-brain correlation, interpreting brain scanning results, language processing, meaning etc.

There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap.

The idea of one specific experience has problems because experiences have many different features. However say you correlated something like someones memory of their grandmother to some specific neurons their would still be a fundamental puzzle of how activation of this area produced conscious experience.

We don't have a measure of consciousness so that we can prove anyone any organism is consciousness. There is wide range of problems in the field and a massive literature. It is a very optimistic stance to take to believe the field is near an explanation of consciousness.

Morality is a matter of human value and preference. No amount of study will come up with a definitive statement. — T Clark

Peoples moral beliefs affect how they behave. Moral certainty or the reverse moral nihilism can impact behaviour negatively but moral agnosticism can lead to caution.

Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both claimed to be moral nihilists who converted to religion in prison. On the other side religious fanatics/fundamentalists claim their religion commands them to commit atrocities.

There are people including myself who might have vengeful and nihilistic feelings but restrain themselves based on moral uncertainty. Whereas in some countries/conflicts tit for tat violence continues with both sides feeling justified.

There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap. — Andrew4Handel

I think that's what I don't get. What's the big deal? What explanatory gap? If you have trouble grasping how the mechanics and electronics of our minds turn into feelings, perceptions, and thoughts, that doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. Do you doubt that deer or chimpanzees have most of those same experiences? Do you think chimps see images in their minds? Do sheep have movies playing in their heads the way we do? Seems likely to me they do. And that isn't consciousness, it's just awareness. Consciousness is something added on top of that.

All the things you say are true. My point is that none of these things is unknown in the sense that the nature of dark energy or the existence of extra-terrestrial life is unknown.

There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap. — Andrew4Handel

And yet it does. It's OK to accept a truth instead of a proof when the proof involves the first person realm, the only place where quailia are; tough to get in there.

You say that someone cannot be sure about the Non-Existence of the deity (any deity) but that is simply not true, is perfectly possible to prove a negative but the thing is, it is not necessary, nobody needs to "debunk" the existence of God because nobody has proven his/her existence in first place.
The problem is what you consider to be God...The Christian God? all-powerful, all-knowing in all places? So that would be a being that can do anything but doesn't do anything because he doesn't want to interfere but at the same time, he dictates who you should marry and what you should eat, the being that is all love but if you have sex before marriage you will burn throughout eternity?
Or maybe you talking about the Egyptians Gods, so now when you die you can take your employees and your money to the afterlife but at the gate, your heart will be weighed against a feather.
Or maybe you talking about a God that no human knows it but feels it and IT can do whatever whenever ignoring all rules of physics and chemistry.

But as you say there is no amount of logic and evidence that will convince someone that there is no god simply because they do not understand the evidence... and because of the complexity that the universe seems to have the only explanation is that something superior did it.

I have a different question for you mate, what would be an absolute proof that God does not exist?
Because for me absolute proof of God's existence would a simple hello.

I have a different question for you mate, what would be an absolute proof that God does not exist?
Because for me absolute proof of God's existence would a simple hello. — Filipe

Evidence is not straight forward.

Democritus suggested an atomic theory of matter thousands of years ago and the existence of atoms was only considered proven about a hundred years ago (although the nature of atoms is still mysterious and they are not indivisible as initially though)

Democritus probably like most people can looked at his surroundings and experiences and tried to understand what reality consisted of.

When something exists that is evidence for something and scientists, philosophers and other thinkers speculate about what reality is, what is causing their experiences and what stuff is made of and how it came to exist..

The problem is something is not usually if ever evidence of nothing. So to prove a creator deity did not exist you would have to present a compelling case that reality could be explained in terms of something from nothing, self creating and self sustaining.

There is no explanation of how anything in the brain gives rise to or could give rise to mental phenomena without leaving a large explanatory gap.
— Andrew4Handel

And yet it does — PoeticUniverse

There are different models of consciousness, Dualism argues that the mind and brain interact but are independent. You might use the radio signal analogy

Panpsychism suggests everything is imbued with consciousness.

Idealism suggests everything is mental and is a position that has been and still is supported by several physicists

Solipsism is profound skepticism that one person might be imagining reality and questions the existence of other minds. I have not heard a convincing refutation of solipsism and agree with Descartes Cogito about the primary certainty being of our self existing in some form.

Do you doubt that deer or chimpanzees have most of those same experiences? — T Clark

I have no idea. I only have access to my own mind and my own experiences.

I don't think creating analogies between your own experiences and other people or other organisms is sufficient. Some experiences are widespread and we can imagine common experiences in a basic way such as having a headache or feeling cold but the rich personal world including many experiences and values we don't share is is unlikely to be something one can imagine or see on a brain scan.

This also relates to the Mary's room Knowledge argument so that unless Mary has seen red she can't simply imagine it and Knut Nordby a real life achromatic said he couldn't imagine colours even though he had extensively studied the visual system and psychology etc.

↪Andrew4Handel All the things you say are true. My point is that none of these things is unknown in the sense that the nature of dark energy or the existence of extra-terrestrial life is unknown. — T Clark

I don't know. I gave examples of unknowns such as the precise numbers of grains of sands and stars. These are hypothetically knowable. So I am differentiating between the hypothetically knowable and currently inaccessible knowledge (which we don't even have a convincing framework or set of reliable axioms to study them with).

Dark energy, dark matter and the multiverse are like a God of the gaps. Unknowns posited to explain gaps in data or to rescue current theories. They are seen as credible because they apply scientific terminology.

Some people are trying to give materialist or scientific account of morality which they view as giving it more credibility and more of an empirical basis.

The nature of consciousness is a scientific question - a matter of fact. People are working on it and have had success. Consciousness is no great mystery.
Morality is a matter of human value and preference. No amount of study will come up with a definitive statement.
As for God, I think that's a funny mixture of both fact and metaphysics.
I guess ditto for the afterlife. — T Clark

Consciousness is no great mystery?

I'm trying to interpret this in a way which is not grossly misspoken.

I understand that there have been efforts to de-emphasize the nature of consciousness (qualia), suggesting that it is illusory. I am not a researcher in the field but have an abiding interest in the topic and looking to my personal library have books I own and read (pop science all) from Dennett, Ramachandran, Pinker, Churchland, Tononi, LeDoux and Penrose. Now, as a layman, I find it very hard to swallow that all of these words (and so many more) have been written regarding a topic which is 'no great mystery'.

Is there a means to interpret your glib reflection on the topic that would jibe with my experience that it is one of, if not the, central mysteries of human existence?

I have objections to your other mentions in my quote, but want to understand the context of your first claim. I'm wondering if there has been some breakthrough that I'm unaware of or if there is a context for your statement that makes my appreciation and yours mutually compatible.

I'm trying to interpret this in a way which is not grossly misspoken.

I understand that there have been efforts to de-emphasize the nature of consciousness (qualia), suggesting that it is illusory. I am not a researcher in the field but have an abiding interest in the topic and looking to my personal library have books I own and read (pop science all) from Dennett, Ramachandran, Pinker, Churchland, Tononi, LeDoux and Penrose. Now, as a layman, I find it very hard to swallow that all of these words (and so many more) have been written regarding a topic which is 'no great mystery'.

Is there a means to interpret your glib reflection on the topic that would jibe with my experience that it is one of, if not the, central mysteries of human existence? — JosephS

Science is full of subjects that are under study but which are not fully understood. Consciousness is one of those. It's not a "mystery," it's a subject that requires further study. I think an understanding of consciousness seems to be much more important than it really is because it is so close to home for all of us. It is right at the heart of how we see ourselves. Things that are about us seem more significant. We want to believe our innermost, intimate experiences are mysterious.

Science is full of subjects that are under study but which are not fully understood. Consciousness is one of those. It's not a "mystery," it's a subject that requires further study. I think an understanding of consciousness seems to be much more important than it really is because it is so close to home for all of us. It is right at the heart of how we see ourselves. Things that are about us seem more significant. We want to believe our innermost, intimate experiences are mysterious. — T Clark

Subjects of inquiry are mysteries to a greater or lesser extent (dark matter is both a mystery and an inquiry requiring further study) and, as the dominant species on the planet, what humans consider mysteries bears disproportionate weight to the judgment (dogs have neither science nor philosophy to provide their input).

And it is a mystery because, as opposed to -- gravity, economics, sociology or psychology -- our self awareness resists an explanatory reduction. 10th graders can talk about the inverse square law of attraction, the law of supply and demand and how racism arises from human tribalism. Could any explain consciousness short of reflecting on the brain as its seat and its role in our sense of individual identity?

It's not as if we haven't been studying it for a while. That this inquiry is so significant to our individual identity supports rather than undermines its status as a great mystery.

Is there an architecture that can be pointed to that, when instantiated, ticks off the boxes of what we consider conscious at a human level of awareness? When we can explain what is and is not self aware, we will have made progress to resolving the mystery.

And it is a mystery because, as opposed to -- gravity, economics, sociology or psychology -- our self awareness resists an explanatory reduction. — JosephS

I disagree. Again, it's nothing mysterious. It's only not fully understood. The scientific tools for looking at it closely are relatively new. Our self-experience and self-importance clouds our perceptions and understanding.

Have you met @S? I think you might agree with him, but he is not as agreeable as you.

I tend to value @Andrew4Handeland @JosephS’s insights. That’s my persuasion. However, @S would say that I am a wishful thinker.

By the way, go fuck yourself, S. Piece of shit.

Have you met S? I think you might agree with him, but he is not as agreeable as you.

I tend to value @Andrew4Handeland @JosephS’s insights. That’s my persuasion. However, @S would say that I am a wishful thinker.

By the way, go fuck yourself, S. Piece of shit. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, @S and I are close personal friends. And yes, he is a piece of shit.

Although, in this situation, I'm not sure how that matters. I don't question @JosephS's and @Andrew4Handel's approach to this because I am a crusty old materialist. I just think their romantic views distract from a serious understanding of what is going on.

I just think their romantic views distract from a serious understanding of what is going on. — T Clark

At least you can disagree without being disagreeable.

At least you can disagree without being disagreeable. — Noah Te Stroete

@s is a sweet little red spotted toad. He used to be mean. Now he's cute and nice.

Also - I am perfectly capable of being disagreeable.

Also - I am perfectly capable of being disagreeable. — T Clark

So am I, obviously. Something about his personality strikes me as defective, though. This from someone who knows personal defects. He’s absolutely pathological. I hope he seeks professional help.

I disagree. Again, it's nothing mysterious. It's only not fully understood. — T Clark

The mechanism is not understood at all. We do not know what creatures have and which do not. There is a growing number of scientists that think plants have it or may have it. We can't measure it, though we can measure behavior and reactions and things, and not suprisingly we grant consciousness first to things like us. In fact this bias was so strong that up until the 70s it was taboo in professional contexts to assume other animals had it and were not just machines. We don't know which matter has it, though we can track reactions like memory and response to some degree, but again these are functions of the conscious matter not consciousness itself. The word 'mysterious' is floppy and hard to nail down, but it seems mysterious from the persepctive of materialism that begins with dead matter banging around and forming connections and since this is presumed to be not conscious and still the building blocks of all other matter. Now, sure, it could be an emergent property. But we don't know where it emerges, though we can look at effects on response and behavior in life forms like us, but whether this means there is no consciousness below that in simpler matter, we have no way of knowing. Yes, people hit on the head go unconscious, though is this a lack of certain functions, like memory and response, rather than the end of awareness? Deep dreamless sleep one can be conscious during, after meditation practice. I've experienced this with some regularity. Is this me shoving consciousness into that state. Or is this my ego connecting to a consciousness that persists but which I do not usually remember? Mysterious is a word that includes the already placed paradigm of the person using it or experiencing it or not. So it depends on that. I think it should be mysterious to physicalists, so far. Maybe it won't be in a few years or in a hundred years, maybe not.

However I think that when it comes to the nature of consciousness, the afterlife,morality and gods these are important unknowns. — Andrew4Handel

Well, we know plenty about consciousness through experience and science, and we know plenty about morality through experience and sociology. And, realistically, gods and the afterlife aren't really unknowns. That's a misleading statement, a bit like saying that dragons and fairies are unknowns. To the best of our knowledge, there's nothing there to know. They seem instead to be merely a product of our imagination.

So I don't agree with your classification of the things you've mentioned. I don't agree with the way that you've assessed them and grouped them together.

I call myself a general agnostic because there are things I can't know and so I live without factoring in certainty in these issues. — Andrew4Handel

This point has been made hundreds of times, but clearly it bears repeating: that something is uncertain doesn't amount to much in terms of epistemology. There are innumerable things which are uncertain, and only a relatively tiny number of things which are certain. So that's a poor criterion upon which to base your epistemological methodology. Knowledge doesn't require certainty.

Also I can't pretend as if I know. Some people try and argue with you such as saying gods are really implausible or there is no afterlife etc. I don't think you can entirely prove something by argument but only evidence resolves things. (I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling). — Andrew4Handel

In another discussion, I recently brought up a useful distinction I make between acknowledging a possibility and taking it seriously. Merely pointing out that something is possible or uncertain is, in itself, insignificant. A sophisticated epistemological methodology would take into account other factors, most importantly evidence. If there's practically zero evidence in favour of an afterlife, then that doesn't warrant being taken particularly seriously in my book. The burden of proof lies with the proponent of an afterlife.

(I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling) — Andrew4Handel

Philosophy doesn't need evidence, it arrives at truth through raw thought power. Science, for some poor reason, has come to supplant philosophy. If you want to be a scientist, think scientistically. If you want to do philosophy, think philosophically. Philosophy was originally written in verse. Today, there are those who would have it it must be constrained by evidence-based objectivity. Philosophy isn't objective at all in the same way as science.

However, S would say that I am a wishful thinker. — Noah Te Stroete

Because you clearly are.

So am I, obviously. Something about his personality strikes me as defective, though. This from someone who knows personal defects. He’s absolutely pathological. I hope he seeks professional help. — Noah Te Stroete

:lol:

Philosophy doesn't need evidence... — Anthony

That would be a subset of philosophy known as bad philosophy.

It hasn't been subsumed by science, though. A syllogism isn't physical evidence, e.g.

And I've had a hard time understanding how scientists revel in evidence, yet think. Thinking has no evidence. There's no evidence for the empirical method, it was born of thought. "Science" (personifying it here), from a certain persepective is stuck at the level of sensorium. The senses have nothing to say, they're dumb. Any time we have a thought, idealism has entered the domain. Scientists are exceedingly ignorant of this point. The entire enterprise of science lies on a foundation for which there is no evidence because it is idealism. A heavy contradiction to put it mildly.

I oriented in science until realizing it can't address truth. It makes sense for the half of reality which is physical...but to only see half of reality is a chimerical chase...especially when the part of reality closest to each of us is without evidence.

We don't have a measure of consciousness so that we can prove anyone any organism is consciousness. — Andrew4Handel

And it's impossible to prove consciousness/mind even requires energy as we know it. Seeing the mind as though it were an open system the same as the body (open to energy) fails to understand the mind or conscious awareness is in need of organization and information in an entirely different manner than food intake. Extensive knowledge without processing or thought about what is known amounts to a very low level of intelligence.

Important unknowns. All information is incomplete. Knowing this is more important than the "content" of what is unknown. Really, being able to ask a question distorts the concept of the unknown unless the question is "what is unknown?" This would be about the extent of what you could even ask regarding the unknown. If it's unknown...you can't say anything about it. Whatever you can say something about is a derivation of the known, not the unknown.

The mechanism is not understood at all. — Coben

That's not true.

We do not know what creatures have and which do not. — Coben

We have an idea of various animals that might have it. Again, it's unknown, not mysterious.

There is a growing number of scientists that think plants have it or may have it. ....We don't know which matter has it, though we can track reactions like memory and response to some degree, but again these are functions of the conscious matter not consciousness itself. ... Now, sure, it could be an emergent property. But we don't know where it emerges, though we can look at effects on response and behavior in life forms like us, but whether this means there is no consciousness below that in simpler matter, we have no way of knowing. ....is this my ego connecting to a consciousness that persists but which I do not usually remember? Mysterious is a word that includes the already placed paradigm of the person using it or experiencing it or not. So it depends on that. I think it should be mysterious to physicalists, so far. Maybe it won't be in a few years or in a hundred years, maybe not. — Coben

None of this makes any sense to me unless we want to completely change the current meaning and usage of the word "consciousness." Which I don't.

Also - of course consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. I'm not sure what "we don't know where it emerges" means. Do we know where any emergent property emerges?

We can't measure it, though we can measure behavior and reactions and things, — Coben

That's how we measure all psychological phenomena. Consciousness is nothing special.

We have an idea of various animals that might have it. Again, it's unknown, not mysterious. — T Clark

I can live with unknown as the adjective.

We have an idea of various animals that might have it. Again, it's unknown, not mysterious.
— T Clark
I can live with unknown as the adjective. — Coben

Indeed. Any further argument devolves into dictionaries and word play -- boring.

Imbued within the word 'mystery' is some sense of wonder which I accept as personal.
If someone can live without mysteries, more power to them. I choose not to.

Indeed. Any further argument devolves into dictionaries and word play -- boring.

Imbued within the word 'mystery' is some sense of wonder which I accept as personal.
If someone can live without mysteries, more power to them. I choose not to. — JosephS

It's not just word play. It has significant consequences. If you call something a mystery, you treat it differently than if it were just unknown. I think it was Alan Watts who said that what we call mysteries are parts of ourselves that we're not aware of. That makes a lot of sense to me. If you want to mix your personal mysteries in with science and philosophy, that's fine, but it undermines the credibility of your argument.