How Could Consciousness Transcend the Brain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

First and foremost it's impossible to clearly differentiate between "scientific questions" and more "practical matters".

Not sure what you mean by "practical matters" in this context, and even less how you think it doesn't qualify for scientific scrutiny.

Obviously events and processes that can be well quantified AND we have equations to solve are scientific questions.

No. Not everything in the scientific realm can be poured into an equation. Quite some natural sciences have no math expressions at all.

But even in solving the amount of fuel necessary for a specific rocket launch is more complex than merely equations and numbers since without an overall and overreaching perspective there's no certainty the rocket should be launched at all. There's no certainty that the fuel should go into a different rocket or applied to something more important like trying to define "consciousness" or why we should nuke anyone.

Huh? You seem all over the place.

Reductionism is fine and specialists are usually required to reduce reality to what can be studied in the lab and to invent new technology. But in our mad rush to understand everything we have forgotten most of the fundamental questions of existence and we never really understood that the most important questions might never be reducible.

What questions would that be?

We never knew there existed or sought other kinds of science or even noticed that we engage in another science every night before we dream.

Que? What are you talking about?

We've learned virtually nothing about ourselves that doesn't apply to every member of the species in all these centuries of reductionism and there's no indication this is going to change in the foreseeable future for anything other than the prescription of medication suitable for specific individuals. We have no definition for "consciousness" so anything we say about from a "scientific perspective" it is mere speculation and Look and See Science.

So?
To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson: It might very well turn out that there really is no such a thing as "consciousness" at all and that the very question "what is consciousness" is therefor an invalid question. And that the actual underlying phenomenon is something very different from what we think it is.

The point is that consciousness as a phenomenon (in the causational sense, how it works) is an unknown at this point. Scientists who are working on this problem, do it by studying the brain. And they do that for good reason.

It sounds to me that you are trying to build your entire case based merely on the fact that presently, the causational framework of what we call "consciousness" is an open question at this point.

So really, it sounds like you're trying to build an argument from ignorance.

[qutoe]
I believe that the questions can be answered not by reductionism but rather by studying reality in new terms by individuals trained in a new perspective.[/quote]

And what would that perspective be and how have you determined that it is a method which will yield accurate answers?

This is hardly to say we should abandon modern science but rather we should use another science working in tandem with it that they might check one another and even become wholly synchronous. One of the first things I believe we'll learn is that much of what we take as a given is false or is true from a very limited perspective.

Any time you wish to stop with this abstract vagueness and get concrete and specific concerning this mysterious new "method"............................

One of the first we'll need is a working definition for "consciousness".

No. The first thing we'll need is you being less abstract and vague about this mysterious new method of inquiry.

 

[cladking]

Not sure what you mean by "practical matters" in this context, and even less how you think it doesn't qualify for scientific scrutiny.

Did you read the post. Things that have unknown variables or unquantifiable variables are not scientific questions. In science things must be strictly defined as well.

How can this elude you?

Quite some natural sciences have no math expressions at all.

Without experiment it is not science. Observation and logic is not the basis of theory.

Que? What are you talking about?

I meant the statement literally.

To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson: It might very well turn out that there really is no such a thing as "consciousness" at all and that the very question "what is consciousness" is therefor an invalid question. And that the actual underlying phenomenon is something very different from what we think it is.

I have less respect for this guy almost every day.

Obviously he could be right but maybe the sky isn't blue and somebody could survive without a heart if he just kept running. God only knows what's possible and what isn't but in my world consciousness is real and mostly just as we and other creatures experience it.

To each his own.

I suppose if you deny the existence of unicorns there's no need to study one if it bites you on the nose.

It sounds to me that you are trying to build your entire case based merely on the fact that presently, the causational framework of what we call "consciousness" is an open question at this point.

We don't know anything about consciousness and lack even a definition.

Yes, we also don't know what might cause what we can't define.

And what would that perspective be and how have you determined that it is a method which will yield accurate answers?

Studying reality without first reducing it.

I don't believe it's really relevant in this thread except to the degree it impacts "consciousness" and that consciousness is probably irreducible so can never be studied by modern science. . The science would be founded on common sense axioms and one would be "consciousness" is that which allows all life to survive. Of course this is a corollary of "all life is individual".

No. The first thing we'll need is you being less abstract and vague about this mysterious new method of inquiry.

It would do you no good for me to flesh it out because you don't understand how experimental science works and this is far more complex metaphysically. I don't know why "Observation > Experiment" throws so many people but this is the simplest way to express modern metaphysics. "Observation > Logic" is the simplest way to express a "new" science but without understanding the nature of "logic" you can not understand this science. It will become massively complex very very early so would require the use of computers to use it and at that point humans won't really understand it.