It appears to me that physics (and chemistry and biology etc) routinely fails to explain aspects of mind and the common solution is to downgrade the nature of mind but how ever far you downgrade the status of experiences and cognitions physical laws still fail to explain them... (Gravity tells us nothing about thought..entropy doesn' explain dreams..etc)

..this is one of the many reasons that I am an agnostic.... (Not religious to the utter c****s that claim that)

This lack of knowledge is obvious to me but severely glossed over by mainstream science reporting as if we were on the verge of explaining (away) mental phenomena..

(The motive being institutional atheist bias?)

..

Andrew4Handel wrote:It appears to me that physics (and chemistry and biology etc) routinely fails to explain aspects of mind

So your complaint here is that science is not omniscient....

Andrew4Handel wrote:It appears to me that physics (and chemistry and biology etc) routinely fails to explain aspects of mind and the common solution is to downgrade the nature of mind but how ever far you downgrade the status of experiences and cognitions physical laws still fail to explain them... (Gravity tells us nothing about thought..entropy doesn' explain dreams..etc)

..this is one of the many reasons that I am an agnostic.... (Not religious to the utter c****s that claim that)

This lack of knowledge is obvious to me but severely glossed over by mainstream science reporting as if we were on the verge of explaining (away) mental phenomena..

(The motive being institutional atheist bias?)

You don't understand what a scientific explanation is do you? An explanation, in scientific terms, is the use of a theory or theories, plus facts, to explain how something works.

Antarctic ice fish don't have blood > apparent anomoly > but gases dissolve more readily in cold water > therefore no real anomoly as no physio-cehmical laws have been broken. Modify rule to "all vertebrates have red blood unless their environment allows sufficent uptake of oxygen in cold waters without haemoglobin", thus no mystery.

I'm confused. Why would we expect physics or chemistry to answer questions of the mind or consciousness?

Mr.Samsa wrote:I'm confused. Why would we expect physics or chemistry to answer questions of the mind or consciousness?

Because it is one of the gaps that A4H is trying to shoehorn God into.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Why would we expect physics or chemistry to answer questions of the mind or consciousness?

It's a good hideaway if you don't want them answered.

Mind and consciousness don't downgrade below the level of neurons, i.e. living cells. Life comes first, mind and consciousness thereafter.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I'm confused. Why would we expect physics or chemistry to answer questions of the mind or consciousness?

Not answer. But we would not expect mind or consciousness to defy phys or chem because the brain is made of matter. That is not to say that the brain reduces to physio-chemical laws, but rather depends on them.

Andrew4Handel wrote:It appears to me that physics (and chemistry and biology etc) routinely fails to explain aspects of mind and the common solution is to downgrade the nature of mind but how ever far you downgrade the status of experiences and cognitions physical laws still fail to explain them... (Gravity tells us nothing about thought..entropy doesn' explain dreams..etc)

..this is one of the many reasons that I am an agnostic.... (Not religious to the utter c****s that claim that)

This lack of knowledge is obvious to me but severely glossed over by mainstream science reporting as if we were on the verge of explaining (away) mental phenomena..

(The motive being institutional atheist bias?)

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!

Which "... aspects of mind" does it fail at? Let's watch philosophy fail to explain what it's talking about. Once again.

My Key issue is that there is a big gap in science and that the current paradigm isn't intending to change to accomodate the mind.

As I said it seems that basic physics doesn't explain ideas like consciousness, subjective experience. But on the Wonders of the universe Bryan Cox was arguing that we are all made of matter created in stars.

If we are fundamentally made of the elements produced than there should be a theory of emergence to explain the relationship between these fundamental elements and consciousness.

The reality is that we know that mind is fundamentally and experientially different than elements (unless one is a panpsychic who believes consciousness is a fundamental property of all the universe)

Like I mentioned in a previous thread about meregence and determinism everything that created the "now" had to be conceptually available at the hypothesized big bang or earlier stages of the universe.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Like I mentioned in a previous thread about meregence and determinism everything that created the "now" had to be conceptually available at the hypothesized big bang or earlier stages of the universe.

Why did it have to be conceptually available? You mean YOUR concept of consciousness had to be available prior to the creation of the universe? How about your concept of your backside?

Your phenomenal view of reality is not reality. Part of your phenomenal view of reality is your phenomenal view of having a phenomenal view. Also not reality. Your PR-phenomenal reality is well suited to thinking of objects and substance. As humans we also create concepts of concepts. We do that well but we are not very good at understanding the limitations.

We are also not well suited to understanding that we have a phenomenal view of things. When you end up trying to create a concept of a phenomenal view of how we have phenomenal views, can you not see how difficult this might be?

Doesn't Roger Penrose suggest that we do not currently have all the physics necessary to explain consciousness, are we not like people in other times who thought they knew it all but it turns out there was a gap in our scientific knowledge, Penrose claims that this is where quantum mechanics and relativity theory meet.