Hari I suggest you re-read Hofstadter & Dennett’s research papers.

Both of them fully confirm consciousness as scientific fact.

(computational intelligence was the focus of my first degree,

and I’ve done related work for the Department of National Defence,

so this is not entirely just avocational for me).

 

Hofstadter doesn’t have much to say specifically on physics,

but he has written some good introductory material

on what constitutes science, in a way that’s easy to understand.

 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Hari Kumar
Sent: April[masked]:50 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: Free Thought RE: [physicsnorthyork] Science (and what it's not)

 

To Hugh:

Oh no! You got it all wrong! I am surprised to hear this coming from a skeptic :-)

There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support "consciousness". There are many theories in support and against, but no conclusive proof.

Your quoting Descartes is laughable :-D I seem to see this trend in North America, your knowledge of historical philosophy does not go east of Greece. I wonder why? 

Did you read the Wikipedia phrase that clearly affirms that skeptics by and large do not support the idea of consciousness as a separate entity from the body as you imply ("robot bodies carrying our consciousness"). If one believes that robot bodies can carry our consciousness, it won't be hard to derive that "pseudoscientific" ideas such as transmigration, possession could be true!

 

To Chandiran:

If Richard Dawkins believes in the idea of "consciousness" as described above (which I don't think is true, since he has gone on record stating consciousness is in the DNA, which is a very physical thing and could actually imply it being an emergent phenomenon as I had stated earlier), on the other side of the fence we have esteemed scientists such as Douglas Hofstadter who in his wonderful tome has strongly put forward that consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain. So the jury is still out...

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Hugh <[address removed]> wrote:

Study of consciousness goes back to Descartes and even earlier.

It’s covered cursorily in elementary grade school science at least here in North America,

so everybody is familiar with it and the classic quote “I think therefore I am”.

 

In point of fact, consciousness is the only thing you can scientifically prove with certainty,

in the face of solipsism.

 

Everything you think you know about the world, the universe, and people around you,

is filtered through your perceptions. You have no way to prove there is anything outside your mind.

With that as a starting point, you can build math, and physics so they are internally consistent.

Thus there is always a possibility that the universe exists.

 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Hari Kumar
Sent: April[masked]:53 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: Free Thought RE: [physicsnorthyork] Science (and what it's not)

 

No offence intended, but I cannot help noticing how skepticism is being equated to 'free thought' while at the same time calling ideas that do not fit the world view of the skeptical scientist as 'pseudo-science', 'nonsense', 'crap' etc. I am not meaning you in particular, but generally those who label that which they do not understand, as pseudo science. So I guess, 'free thought' according to this group of skeptics is thought that is within the strict boundaries imposed by them. To me it sounds more like intolerance, and is no different from the intolerance practiced by some of the leading religions. At least the Talibans and Evangelicals are honest about their intolerance.

 

I also note that you speak of 'our consciousness' (in your email below). Isn't this 'consciousness' too 'pseudoscience'? There is no empirical evidence for the existence of the 'consciousness' that you imply below. So how can you be sure that it exists? Our mind and thoughts could merely be an emergent phenomenon (Google Emergence/Emergentism) that arises out of the complexity of our brains and the neurochemical reactions taking place within it. Wikipedia, which you seem to have an affinity towards, has this to say about Consciousness (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Is_consciousness_a_valid_concept.3F) : 

 

Is consciousness a valid concept?

 

The most compelling argument for the existence of consciousness is that the vast majority of mankind have an overwhelming intuition that there truly is such a thing.Skeptics argue that this intuition, in spite of its compelling quality, is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions.

 

I seem to get the feeling that most in this forum call themselves skeptic, because they think it is "cool". I believe it gives them a false sense of intellectual superiority over others.

 

Please think. And think some more :-)

 

Warm regards,

 

Hari

 

 

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Hugh <[address removed]> wrote:

I understand the strong resistance of many people against free thought

(some of you have been calling free thought ‘skepticism’).

 

We are priviledged here in Toronto (centre of the universe)

with a rare and excellent resource

supporting inquiry into all areas of science

as well as humanism, transhumanism, secular support in all aspects.

 

Anyone here who is not already a member of the Ontario chapter

of the Centre For Inquiry, look into it, and I recommend you join.

 

A peek at the calendar shows some groups with upcoming events of interest:

 

http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/the_psychological_forces_opposing_critical_thought/

 

http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/committee_for_the_advancement_of_scientific_skepticism_cass_meeting/

 

For those who like to read:

 

http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/SPBC_2011/

 

Plenty of other resources on topics such as Climate Change.

 

In response to Stan:

You describe exactly why pseudoscience is so tempting,

but I argue actual science is even more tempting.

 

Some of the most beautiful art is in highly constrained art forms.

Similarly, empirical science, including physics, imposes many constraints.

Within these constraints we still find infinite and elegant truths.

 

Sure I’m depressed that global warming will be the death of our planet

when the Sun inevitably engulfs it.

I’m also concerned about how humanity can survive the end of the universe.

But that doesn’t mean I wish science could care about our petty desires,

or that a higher power were even aware of us.

 

Sure we have to get off this planet, there are many ways we can, and we have.

The stars are not beyond us either.

We just need patience, persistence, and vision.

Our robot bodies can carry our consciousness,

our genetic progeny can carry our legacy.

 

The only thing that seems impossible to me (within the bounds of reality)

is how anyone could possibly be bored, with the entire universe unexplored.

 

 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Stan Racansky
Sent: April[masked]:59 AM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [physicsnorthyork] Science (and what it's not)

 

Hi Hugh,

 

I have read the Wikipedia description of pseudoscience. Then most of the quantum mechanics, especially string theory falls into that category. I like a other description, anything what you can not question with impunity is pseudoscience. I have also my private description, everything what we consider a science is wrong. Its depressing for me if Einstein was right. Can you imagine no space travel. Speed of lights is too slow. We would be stuck in this god forgotten little piece of space. 

 

Stan

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Hugh ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Hugh, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Hari Kumar ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Hari Kumar, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Hugh ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Hugh, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

 

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Hari Kumar ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Hari Kumar, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Hugh ([address removed]) from North York Physics Group.
To learn more about Hugh, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]