I wouldn’t use Sam Harris as guide to what I am driving at but he’s taken the time and effort to experientially explore some of the issues and well knows the limititations of an absolutist, brain-based perspective. He states, “The root question of the relationship between consciousness and matter may not be answerable. Or it may not be answerable given our current concepts (mental v. physical; dualism v. monism; etc.)”

What he means here by the word “concepts” is the way we use language, the limit of the evaluating mind to only deal with things and values and aspects, limits our ability to approach consciousness as anything other that another piece of data, a mere function, a capacity, a brain-based agency—and Harris admits the impossibility of this model of investigation bearing definitive fruit that will fit into that particular system. What Harris does not get into is the fact that the material-empirical system, in the hands of those who use it with absolutist fervor—it itself limited.

Harris goes on to talk about the relationship between consciousness and the physical world. “If consciousness really is an emergent property of large collections of neurons, then when these neurons die (or become sufficiently disordered) the lights must really go out. The point I make in my book is that, while we know that mental functions (like the ability to read) can be fully explained in terms of information processing, we don't know this about consciousness. For all we know, consciousness may be a more fundamental property of the universe than are neural circuits.”

The point is, there is no result in neuroscience that rules out dualism, panpsychism, or any other theory that denies the reduction of consciousness to states of the brain. “To my mind," Hasrris concludes, "neuroscience has demonstrated the supervenience of mind upon the brain.”

Here, Harris has all but said that consciousness is a more fundamental property of reality than “neural circuits,” or the physical matter that harbors same.

One of the most ironic things to come out of all of this is the the whole issue of religion (which is totally different than spirituality), which is not my particular interest, but remains the interest of some scientists insofar as they are out to debunk it entirely. But as they say, if science destroys religion, and demands obeisance to its principles, it IS a religion.

I basically agree, but for some reason I can't quite put my finger on it makes me a little uneasy to bring probability into the argument (though it doesn't surprise me that you would do so :P). The part that's convincing to me is that adding any of those supernatural Gods to the universe doesn't add explanitory power (as you mention).

Oh, and regarding the OP:

People who have faith: 97% of all human beings.

People who don't: a tiny fringe minority of wackos.

End of faith?

Let's not pretend you've got it on the ropes just yet, eh?

:lol:

Depends on your definitions. Unless you're totally atheistic and include no supernatural component of any kind in your worldview, you have faith of some sort. The number of people falling into that category is very, very small.

http://img.timeinc.net/...ry/images/stalin.jpg

Yep, the overwhelming majority (97%) are uneducated barbarians -- so what?
Does not mean that it is acceptable for a normal modern person who was not deprived from access to educational benefits to believe in ridiculous myths! Besides, I doubt 97%. The US, Iraq, Asia -- yes. Civilized Europe -- not.

annak -- too lazy to go to my own laptop to post.

So, I think the rational reason to ignore more complex models that appear not to add explanatory power is inherently probabilistic.

I think you're abouit half right here. If you read Harris closely, you'll clearly understand that to him, the word "consciousness" is an altogether different order that "data processing," ...

Harris is saying somthing quite different: that the evaluating part of the evolved neo-cortex is in no wise the selfsame thing as consciousness, and that arguments suggessting that consciousness is "produced" by the evolved brain are totally specious--the most specious being that when we have more data, THEN we can show that the brain creates consciousness.

Ultimately Harris is saying here that the criteria and language generally used, and the means of applying that criteria, belongs almost if not entirely to the evolved, evaluating part of our brains, and that this criteria and language are great when dealing with content, with things, elements, capacities, functions, states, and so forth, but are not suited for that which does not fall within measurable parameters.

You've basically hit on the snag in all of this: The evaluating mind, which carries out neuroscience, is specifically evolved to deal with material in ways that can be proved or disproved.

What Harris has stated over and over is that when expl;oring the nature of consciousness itself (nto just the content of consciousness), language and numerical-based approaches are a dead end for the very reasons you have described above.

Fracture--and this is getting a little thick-headed in my honest opinion--you're simply stuck trying to think this through in the same old way. You're stuck on content. The content is created, but you're entirely incorrect to imply that neuroscience has shown that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain--Harris says the EXACT opposite seems to be the case, especially when one does the consciousness work. I'm not a huge Harris fan and I don't agree with all of his ideas or insights, but he's adamant about this in his writing.

Geeze. Tell me you didn't ask that question. I've said fifty times in this thread alone that spirituality and religion are usually totally different persuits.

Spirituality is empirical, experiential and involves a ton of hard work that has nothing to do with thinking, cognating, beliefs, faith, proofs, and so forth. Religion is doctrinal based--basically second-hand descriptions. Science becomes a religion when people believe (but don't know) that the criteria and methodology of absolutist materialism can describe consciousness itself.

Rather than hash out points ad nauseum, and try and force you to expand your perspective, let's just go back to one point that Harris made, a point that no one can argue: "The only claim I have made in my book about consciousness is that it must be explored, systematically, from a first-person perspective." This "first-person" perspective is what I was earlier referring to as a direct, experiential investigation.

Perhaps you are not curious about what he, and I, and many others are talking about?

This is hooked up to your belief system and there's no evidence that you're willing, or capible, of changing this belief.

"But it has to be studied scientifically if you really want to understand it."

This is hooked up to your belief system and there's no evidence that you're willing, or capible, of changing this belief. You have a fundamentalist/absolutist belief in this, and that's your right. But as Harris said himself, and I'm saying now, you'll never "understand" consciousness through measuring, no mater how vigorously you believe you can.

Consciousness is not a mechanism, but we've already said that.

The question is--why is that so? Because measuring has to do with the content of consciousness, not the infinate field in which content (and behavior) arises, and into which it receeds.

I don't fault you for believing as you do because you apparently have no experience beyond content, and till you do, you'll think about consciousness in terms of an emergent digital processor that was "programmed" through evolution.

Rather than hash out points ad nauseum, and try and force you to expand your perspective, let's just go back to one point that Harris made, a point that no one can argue: "The only claim I have made in my book about consciousness is that it must be explored, systematically, from a first-person perspective." This "first-person" perspective is what I was earlier referring to as a direct, experiential investigation.

JL

I should add that that "tiny fringe minority of wackos" apparently includes around 80% of the Fellows of the Royal Society, 93% of scientists elected to the National Academy of Sciences, 60% of American scientists in general and all but a handful of Nobel laureates. A "fringe minority of wackos" indeed!

:lol:

Nice statistics, blondgecko, hit'em with the data! Not that they care about any proofs, unfortunately.

I should add that there are examples of religion handicapping the most prominent minds. Einstein, for example, could not accept Quantum Mechanics -- because he believed in god and that "god does not play dice". Typical example of disregarding the host of the physcial evidence on the basis of faith. What he would achieve if not for his spiritual handicap? ??

Actually, Einstein quite vocally did not believe in anything that any Christian would recognise as "God" - he just happened to have a somewhat poetic turn of phrase at times. It's generally accepted that this was just his way of saying he wasn't ready to accept that the principles of the universe were based on randomness. His true reasons for this are not something I'm familiar with.

Actually, Einstein quite vocally did not believe in anything that any Christian would recognise as "God" - he just happened to have a somewhat poetic turn of phrase at times. It's generally accepted that this was just his way of saying he wasn't ready to accept that the principles of the universe were based on randomness. His true reasons for this are not something I'm familiar with.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.