Science, World, and Faith
About this Entry
Posted by: henryjackson

Original: 8/29/2006 8:15 PM
Views: 39
Comments: 9
eProps: 10

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site



Tuesday, August 29, 2006

The Mystery of Self-Consciousness

 

Why are you here and reading this book? What really happened when your eyes read the first line and a second passed? Why do we, the six billion people on earth, share the same time but experience it individually?

Self-consciousness is still a mystery to modern science. Maybe it is because the issue is related to our brain, which is still not understood completely. Maybe it is because many imaginary experiments that could reveal interesting stories can't be realized, because it will kill people to perform them. Maybe it is because our computer devices are not powerful enough at this time to analyze the biological complexity of our body, or to simulate the processes of neural networks. However, we may ask more questions to show that perhaps these possible explanations are not to the point.

What happens to a person's self-consciousness when he or she sleeps and can't experience it? If it existed, what did it look like before he or she was born? After a person dies, what will the self-consciousness look like, and will it still exist? For a person who has mental illness or whose brain is partly injured, what does his or her self-consciousness look like?

All these questions are unlikely to be answered by the scientific method. Self-consciousness is something very different from the normal objects studied in science. In science, the common topics are systematic rules and smart techniques, but consciousness is the being finding systematic rules and creating smart techniques. In science, we discuss what objects exist and how to observe them; with consciousness, our problem becomes why it exists and why it is observed in a particular way. In science, we check how things are composed of smaller things, but perhaps consciousness is an integral concept that is unable to be analyzed in this way. In science, we find reasons behind knowing things, whereas consciousness is the idea that all known experiences are based upon. The problem of consciousness is intrinsic and subtle.

What makes you feel that you own your body, and are separated from the universe? Do you make it clear each time you say, "I" or "me," that you mean the status of your existence or your physical effects on the world? Are your decisions made from your free will (what's that?) or are they just the result of electrical and chemical reactions in your brain? Why do you exist at this time and at this place?

Do you feel confused by the above ? I tried to convince you that the consciousnesses of you, me, and everyone else in the world are very special. They are so special that we have many different names like soul, spirit, mind, etc. used to refer to this subject. All these nouns, as well as their exact meanings, depending on the people who use them, are created to represent the ideas around conscious experiences. Are conscious experiences merely illusions? Do they have some reality? Can they be understood following the pattern of our successfulness on science?

Maybe the idea of self-consciousness can't be explained by science. Let's see what this supposition implies if it is true. If science can't explain a thing at some place, at some time, science can't explain everything in the universe for all time, from the past to the future. In this case, there are some things beyond the capabilities of science. Whether they are some separated single events or they are systematic events, they are some things beyond the capabilities of science. It is more reasonable for us to presume that they are systematic events, like the events in the physical world, which are able to be understood systematically by the scientific method. We may hope that the things beyond science also have their rules and are possible to be understood.

It is not too dangerous to say that all people who ever lived have similar self-consciousness experiences. We believe all of the issues noted here were deliberated and discussed by some other curious people in the same way, or some similar ways, but in different forms. It is not by accident that, from the past till now, some people have believed some things beyond the standard explanations of physical experiences, and left some heritage on this topic. All these things belong to a category of human knowledge called religion.

http://www.swf2007.com/02.html

http://www.swf2007.com/

http://swf2007.com/

 

 Posted 8/29/2006 8:15 PM - 39 Views - 10 eProps - 9 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

9 Comments

Visit AmedeoAmendola's Xanga Site!

Now we come to heart of the matter. You should expand this chapter into four or five chapters, for all the main statements need a lot of elaboration. I will make two critical approaches.

What can science explain or not explain? Ask this more fundamental question, How does a scientist explain anything? Take the case of one pushing a door (which you mentioned). What has to be explained is the movement of the door. The movement is an observed, empirical fact. What is unclear is what is responsible for the door to go from a still to a moving condition. And here you have the observation of a hand moving against a door and, most importantly, your inner experience of the EFFORT you have to make in order to push the door. Now, a scientists is simply a man who analises the whole situation and speaks of a FORCE applied by a body upon another (which has to be expressed in terms of the resistance or "eight" it offers. Force and resistance are necessary correlatives. And in view of the moving or not moving of the door, when forces are applies, he studies quantities of force (or resistance). His explanations are not the making of any supposition about what is responsible for a door's motion; they consists in articulating his DISCERNMENTS made of observed facts. He state a general law of nature when he finds out that his mathematical articulations HOLD for any body. There will be a need of other studies to predict that a door will move or that there will be a solar eclipse.

Just as one cannot predict whether a door in your house will ever move, one cannot predict whether a consciousness or a self-consciouness will occur. The movement of a door, the rise of a consciouness, etc. are contingent events. Oxygen and hydrogen will form water under certain conditions, but the main condition is that they be adjacent. So, you cannot predict that water will ever be formed in your house. But if consciouness rises, you may rightly search for what is responsible for beringing it about. A man's lack of  knowledge as to how consciouness occurs, or how an atom is formed, or how a certain organic compound splits into two identical parts has no implication on the nature of their causes: ignorance is precisely  ignorance. (There are elements which do no occur on the earth but have been produced in laboratories -- that is, nature has been acted upon and induced to produce new elements and new compounds. There is no need of a man or of a god to account for what happens spontaneously in nature.)

The difference between a moving door and a seeing eye is that movement can have an impact upon something else, in which case we can call it a force. Visual consciouness (or any consciouness) is not a force. Nor is it something that can be visually observed, You cannot see somebody else's seeing. So, the content of a consciouness is not something extended, a surface, which you might chop up into parts (any more than motion is something extended.  Cosciouness is an activity, but it is not like the activity of a body. That's why many people have called it "psychic" [spiritual, not corporeal].

Continue the analysis at this point, and beware of the fact that physics is no longer simply the physics of BODIES. Let us say that nature is corporeal as well as etherial. Under the term "etherial" I included what are vaguely called waves of sound, light, etc. And now you may immediately see, for instance, the ambiguity of the word "light", which we use to designate both wave events in nature and visual experiences or consciouness [experienced patches of red and green or other colors]....

Posted 8/30/2006 10:53 AM by AmedeoAmendola - reply

Visit henryjackson's Xanga Site!

Hi,

I have another chapter call More on the Mystery of Self-Consciousness in this book. The size of that chapter is several times of the size of this one.

Henry

Posted 8/30/2006 11:01 AM by henryjackson - reply

Visit AmedeoAmendola's Xanga Site!
Sorry, I did not realize I could not edit my text after submitting it. Place "weight" after "resistance" and please mentally correct all the typographical errors while you read.
Posted 8/30/2006 11:03 AM by AmedeoAmendola - reply

Visit Roaring_T_Rex's Xanga Site!

I would like to see quotations and references.  C.S.Lewis' The Problem of Pain would be a good start.

Posted 8/31/2006 12:48 AM by Roaring_T_Rex - reply

Visit atheistthoughts's Xanga Site!
Consciousness is beyond science the same way God is, it doesn't exist objectively. That's my opinion, and I can prove it, but what is even more certain still is that either we and animals with brains have consciousness or nothing has consciousness. One way you can "prove" consciousness is to ask "Why are you and not me?", but you can also ask that to a chimp and they will say they are themselves. There is no way to prove any consciousness outside yourself, since many things that we can say (based on Christian beliefs) that do not have consciousness (like computers and intelligent animals like dolphins, octopi, and chimps) are identical to humans mentally, with the only exception being that we have more brain power. So, the reason consciousness is not explained by science is because it doesn't objectively exist. God, on the other hand, must objectively exist.

Tony
Posted 8/31/2006 7:06 PM by atheistthoughts - reply

Visit AmedeoAmendola's Xanga Site!
Tony,
I don't know where to begin... I suppose that when you say that God exists ojectively, you mean God is a substance (something which exists on its own), whereas consciouness is not a substance, a thing (with its own existence.
The movement of an object is not a substance either, nor is its shape a substance. "Seeing" [which is a conscious activity of process] is not a substance or a property.
Now think of this: I exist, a tree exists, the sun exists, but what is EXISTENCE? It is not a substance; it is not something you would call "objective." MOTION, CONSCIOUSNESS, EXISTENCE, LOVE, HATE, etc. are not substances. It's a man that exists or moves, or is conscious. A scientist does not study a conscious man or an existing man or what you call God, because existence, etc, are are perceptible to the senses.
You cannot EXPERIENCE the existence or the consciouness of another man, of God, or of the tooth fairy. So, on what basis do you say that any of these three things exist?
Posted 8/31/2006 9:31 PM by AmedeoAmendola - reply

Visit IntellectualSpirit's Xanga Site!
What happens to a person's self-consciousness when he or she sleeps and can't experience it?

What happens to 70 mph when a car idles? Nothing happens to 70 mph, it stays right where it's at—it's the car that changes functions. Likewise the brain during sleep sets into different functions, functions which do not account for experiential information via the senses. Thus environmental consciousness (of oneself and other objects) does not occur.

If it existed, what did it look like before he or she was born? After a person dies, what will the self-consciousness look like, and will it still exist?

These questions assume, without apparent justification, that self-consciousness is a corporeal object, perhaps with a shape and an ability to reflect photons. I am not aware of any evidence that consciousness is not a process. Nor am I aware that processes can cease to exist, I only know that particular instances of processes can start and stop. Similarly, I do not see why one should speak of 70 mph "looking like" something, or should entertain the thought that 70 mph can "cease to exist."

You are taking certain assumptions tied to the religious notion of the "soul" and transposing those upon the mysterious nature of consciousness. You ought to justify your doing so. What if self-consciousness and the soul are two different things? What if a soul has self-consciousness, but can exist without it?

All these questions are unlikely to be answered by the scientific method.

More than that, I know for certain they will not be answered through the scientific method. They are scientifically invalid questions, akin to asking a theologian "why is there God instead of no God?" You are secretly espousing a religious philosophy of the soul, crouched in terminology normally associated with science.

Self-consciousness is something very different from the normal objects studied in science.

Here again you assume self-consciousness is an object. Have you considered the possibility that consciousness is a process instead? Objects versus processes upon objects raise different issues concerning how they are to be studied.

...consciousness is the being finding systematic rules and creating smart techniques.

Though you have thus far considered consciousness an object, here you switch perspectives and are now saying consciousness is a process. Let me explain. The word "being" here used as a noun is in fact in form and derivation a verb (the verb "be" and the suffix "ing" inescapably connote activities or processes), which when used as a noun refers to the state of a process in motion. So if I were to paraphrase your statement, it would look like this:

"Consciousness is the [state of the process of] finding systematic rules and creating smart techniques."

That doesn't sound so inherently impossible for science to study.
Now, perhaps you will say, you are instead using the word "being" to mean the same as the noun "existence," so as to avoid any apparent reference to consciousness as a process or activity of the brain. In which case, let me translate your statement:

"Consciousness is the [existence of] finding systematic rules and creating smart techniques."

Again, it is clear that either way you are now considering consciousness as a process, which strongly contrasts with your previous statements and treatment of consciousness as an object. So it would appear that this is an issue you should attempt to settle before building a book on it.

In science, we discuss what objects exist and how to observe them; with consciousness, our problem becomes why it exists and why it is observed in a particular way.

Indeed, as consciousness is a process, the problem of science remains that of why the process of consciousness occurs and why does it render particular observations like particular brain-wave patterns that differ between mental activities and times of day.

In science, we check how things are composed of smaller things, but perhaps consciousness is an integral concept that is unable to be analyzed in this way.

Consciousness as an irreducible object is a hypothesis that, of course, can be examined through science and attempts to reduce consciousness to its constituent parts. Neuroscientists have through the process of elimination shown that individuals are divisible and that self-consciousness is a complex process.

Well I think that's enough to chew on for now. Good luck.
Posted 8/31/2006 11:21 PM by IntellectualSpirit - reply

Visit pjcomposer's Xanga Site!

Have you read my paper on Dennett?  It's closely realted.  No definite answers (although Jesse Prinz is definitely on the right track (he's definitely worth checking out)), but it does refute one of the more blatantly ridiculous explanations.

"MOTION, CONSCIOUSNESS, EXISTENCE, LOVE, HATE, etc. are not substances."

They all can be measured and have substance.  Motion is a form of energy.  Love and Hate are chemical reactions.  Likewise, consciousness and existence are substantial.  We just don't have a thorough understanding of them.

Posted 12/21/2006 6:36 PM by pjcomposer - reply



Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
  • Say it with Minis! (?)

Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to henryjackson's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in henryjackson's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)