Okay, so I said humans have the potential to transcend the biological laws of evolution and survival - and you disagree with me and say humans can't.
That is very interesting
The atheist churches of America
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
That is very interesting
The correct scientific answer is we don't really know.
Daylight63
Verified User
That's fair, but I thought the goal was to keep it out of the scientific realm. The scientific answer is definitely "we don't know", but the route TO the answer will pretty much HAVE to go through the physical brain as we have no other data for anything else.
That's the frustrating thing about all this: if we want to take a solidly scientific approach then the answer will likely be limited to a physical approach. It will work only with those things which are objectively present.
And it's also the most uncomfortable approach. It may be that there isn't anything other than the physical, but it sounds as if that is really unappealing to you. And that's understandable. A lot of things don't always line up the way we personally would like them to.
And that unappealing aspect is very much a likelihood when approaching it from a scientific perspective.
Lao Tse
Verified User
of course we're all gonna die.
that doesn't mean you mass murdering eugenics assholes get to kill everybody.
you're the sociopath.
I stated no goal.
One of the best answers a scientist can give is 'I don't know'. A bullshitter will wave their arms, and claim omniscience.
As far as I am concerned, there are two possible resolutions to this: either 1) we have not yet developed a scientific discipline that can achieve explanatory power for human conscience, or 2) we will have to decide that this is not really a scientific question.
Lao Tse
Verified User
it's called optimism. dumbass.
why are you so fucking stupid.
you think your own spiritual depression is rationality.
so sad.
Daylight63
Verified User
I believe you have consistently said that this is not a question answerable by science as it currently stands.
Yes but if you ask a scientist to explain something they will not invoke things which cannot be objectively detected or have no objective definition. (If you don't mind I have thought about an example which I will post subsequently so in case it is too long for you, you can skip it but I hope it clarifies my point).
I see a third: It is one you are not going to like but it is very much a possibility:
3) our thoughts, our feelings, our beliefs, all of that is nothing more than what neural activity feels like to a physical brain. That there really is NOTHING behind it all.
That's super-unsatisfactory in terms of "feeling" but it might be the reality.
Daylight63
Verified User
@Cypress here's a comparison set of examples.
Neutrinos and Phlogiston.
It sounds like you are already fully aware of what these two concepts are so I won't bore you with background you already have but they share something in common:
Science faced a problem they couldn't explain. Phlogiston was proposed to explain burning and oxidation. It was proposed as a thing to explain this but there was no evidence for it. Turns out that it was NOT necessary to explain the effect. It was, if anything, a placeholder until something could be understood. But it was an example of our tendency to seek something "other" to explain what is happening in front of us without any need for the "other" explanation.
Neutrinos were likewise not "discovered" so much as fell out of the math. We knew they HAD to be there if the math was right and the math seemed to be right so the neutrino was likely real. But there was no easy way to detect it. In fact it interacted with regular matter so seldom that it was almost impossible to detect. But detect it we did. But again, the need was OBVIOUS. The effect could NOT be explained without reliance on this thing which was almost impossible to detect.
I see this as the same sort of thing we are at with regards to "mental states". You seem to be proposing a "phlogiston" for this and holding out hope that one day it will come to the fore even though there is a possibility that there is no NEED for such a placeholder.
I think, however, that you are hoping what you are seeking is a "neutrino".
We are both seeking the "neutrino" in this example but I am not a firm believer that the "neutrino" in this metaphor is required to explain the effect.
Neutrinos and Phlogiston.
It sounds like you are already fully aware of what these two concepts are so I won't bore you with background you already have but they share something in common:
Science faced a problem they couldn't explain. Phlogiston was proposed to explain burning and oxidation. It was proposed as a thing to explain this but there was no evidence for it. Turns out that it was NOT necessary to explain the effect. It was, if anything, a placeholder until something could be understood. But it was an example of our tendency to seek something "other" to explain what is happening in front of us without any need for the "other" explanation.
Neutrinos were likewise not "discovered" so much as fell out of the math. We knew they HAD to be there if the math was right and the math seemed to be right so the neutrino was likely real. But there was no easy way to detect it. In fact it interacted with regular matter so seldom that it was almost impossible to detect. But detect it we did. But again, the need was OBVIOUS. The effect could NOT be explained without reliance on this thing which was almost impossible to detect.
I see this as the same sort of thing we are at with regards to "mental states". You seem to be proposing a "phlogiston" for this and holding out hope that one day it will come to the fore even though there is a possibility that there is no NEED for such a placeholder.
I think, however, that you are hoping what you are seeking is a "neutrino".
We are both seeking the "neutrino" in this example but I am not a firm believer that the "neutrino" in this metaphor is required to explain the effect.
Yakuda
Verified User
You could have asked for clarification instead of making an incorrect statement. Humans can "transcend the laws of evolution and survival" and their weak human natures but not on their own.
Btw evolution isn't a replacement for God
That's not an explanation because it doesn't show how electrical signals in the brain are transformed and translated into conciousness, subjective psychological experience, conscience.
The electromagnetic force and electrical potential exist in all parts of our body, but it doesn't neccessarily produce conciousness.
Pointing to neurotransmitters is an observational and chemical property of the brain. But it doesn't explain conciousness anymore than falling apples explain gravity. There are no reputable scientists who claim we understand conciousness because we can measure electrical gradients in the brain
I didn't make any claims one way or the other about how humans are able to transcend the physical and chemical laws of survival and evolution.
Lao Tse
Verified User
yes.
nihilism is boring.
I told this to your other sock many times.
you're not smart, you're very dumb.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Yakuda
Verified User
Ok, if not through a transcendent being then how are humans..." able to transcend the physical and chemical laws of survival and evolution."?
Lao Tse
Verified User
how do you feel about "mark to model" stock pricing that was proposed a few years ago?
Daylight63
Verified User
There's a possibility that it does.
It could be that this is what a brain does.
I don't know how many times I can reiterate this but "wetness" doesn't exist at the molecular level.
These emergent properties are all around us. There is no special "wetness" concept that manifests when you see a liquid. It arises from the complex interaction not only of the fluid BUT ALSO THE SUBSTRATE IT'S ON. It isn't even a feature of a single FLUID. It arises because of the interaction of the fluid and the surface.
Emergent properties abound and they are not mysterious, nor are they simple "handwaving".
What is handwaving is to say "Science doesn't currently understand it so all guardrails are off and it can be literally anything we can imagine". That most certainly is not science.
So if the goal is to completely remove this from scientific pursuit or we have to accept the limitations science puts on explaining things.
Possibly.
But we are already able to transcend sensory experience and physical materialism probably without that. We can discern key truths completely separate from material objects, by abstracting universal principles from material objects and sense observations. This is widely recognized as the scientific principle.
Where we got this ability to transcend sensory perception and material objects is open to question.
No, a perfectly good answer for a scientist to give is that they don't know, as anyone with a science degree can attest.
Faking omniscience is terrible for a good scientist to engage in
Arm waving is when a scientist tries to bullshit his way through something without sufficient data or understanding.
None of your post explains how electrical signals between cells produce vivid and subjective mental images in the mind about the world around us, or how they produce our palpable and occasionally uplifting sense of truth, justice, goodness, and beauty.
Last edited:
Daylight63
Verified User
Well, technically speaking, this is true for EVERYTHING science "knows". It's all just the best guess with the most evidence.
We don't really understand gravity but no one is suggesting it has some metaphysical component to it.
Well, at least we are at the same point: no real knowledge of anything here.
If you want to talk about this as "scientists" then you must admit that science will limit itself to only those explanations that can be objectively observed by all the same or similar way.
Meaning that, at the end of the day, my preferred approach will be closer to how scientists will approach the problem than yours. But I honestly thought you wanted to keep this away from the sciences altogether precisely BECAUSE of that.
Was I mistaken?
I placed no limits on the boundaries under which this could be discussed - science, religion, philosophy.
Even when there are no answers, the best science starts out with asking the right questions.
Einstein was famous for saying framing the right questions is really more important than getting the answer, and once correctly framed the right question usually leads quickly to the answer. Socrates is universally known for saying we have to explore the boundaries of our ignorance before we can make any progress in acquiring knowledge.
Most people don't even ask these questions. Most people assume that because we have neurons and neurotransmitters, then somehow somebody must have already explained consciousness and conscience. The right questions don't even occur to them. That's like saying because we see apples fall from trees we must have explained gravity.