Erwin Schroedinger – Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”;
Sir James Jeans – physicist, astronomer, and mathematician “I am inclined to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe… The universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a cell in a universal mind.”
“There is a wide measure of agreement that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail [Cosmic] mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” The Mysterious Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1932), 186. “It looks more and more certain that the only way to explain the universe is to maintain that it exists in the mind of some eternal [Cosmic] spirit”
Max Planck – Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness” “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This [Cosmic] mind is the matrix of all matter.” Das Wesen der Materie, 1944
George Wald – Nobel Prize Laureate in Biology “Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. What we recognize as the material universe, the universe of space and time and elementary particles and energies, is then an avatar, the materialization of primal mind. In that sense there is no waiting for consciousness to arise. It is there always”.
“It has occurred to me lately—I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities—that both questions [the origin of consciousness and the origin of life from nonliving matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals.” His address to the Quantum Biology Symposium titled Life And Mind In The Universe
Sir Arthur S. Eddington – astronomer, physicist “All through the physical world runs that unknown content, which must surely be the stuff of [Cosmic] consciousness. Here is a hint of aspects deep within the world of physics, and yet unattainable by the methods of physics. Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory (1920) “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”
Roger Penrose – mathematical physicist, mathematician “…the contemporary understanding of material is very different now from the way it used to be. If we consider what matter really is, we now understand it as much more of a mathematical thing…But I think that matter itself is now much more of a mental substance…” Journal of Consciousness Studies 1:24
Freeman Dyson – theoretical physicist, mathematician “[Is consciousness] primary or an accidental consequence of something else? The prevailing view among biologists seems to be that the mind arose accidentally out of molecules of DNA or something. I find that very unlikely. It seems more reasonable to think that mind was a primary part of nature from the beginning and we are simply manifestations of it at the present stage of history.” Interview with Freeman Dyson in U.S.News and World Report, April 18, 1988, 72.
the above quotes are an except from: https://theproblemofconsciousness.wordpress.com/notable-quotes/
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
That list would be a lot more impressive if it were a list of people who had received Nobel prizes for research in consciousness, instead of other fields...
You might as well argue that 2 out of 3 top scientists prefer Coke to Pepsi; therefore, Pepsi is better!
Quotes from 1920, 1932, 1944, someone who died in 1961, 1986, 1988, and 1995 by people who do not specialize in neuroscience or consciousness are just so damned compelling! You've convinced us all! Great job P GB!
Physicists, in my experience, do not understand complexity well. They understand randomness as exhibited in decay and quantum mechanics, but they often do not understand non-linear dynamics or chaos theory, and they almost never understand the fundamentals of turbulence theory (to their possible credit, *no one* understands turbulence completely... yet). Biologists almost never understand dynamics or turbulence, and while they generally comprehend chaos and dynamics, most mathematicians have been actively avoiding turbulence theory for more than a century.
The brain is an extraordinarily complicated non-linear system, governed not just by its operation, but by a dizzying array of biochemical and bioelectronic interactions. We can't even grasp the full nature of turbulence (which follows from two pretty straightforward partial differential equations), yet these geniuses claim to have excluded all simple mechanisms for consciousness, when we just barely understand how neurons, proteins, and genetics operate?
Consciousness could be an emergent property of the brain, which is not in conflict with the assertion that consciousness <> brain.
Sorry, meant to say this:
Consciousness could be an emergent property of the brain, which is not in conflict with the assertion that consciousness <> brain.
OK, for some reason the greater than/less than sign is not showing up in my comment. Let's try this a different way:
Consciousness could be an emergent property of the brain, which is not in conflict with the assertion that consciousness is not equal to brain.
Agree here since consciousness could be both part of the brain and more then just that.
We are still researching this field and can only speculate on this subject.
"That list would be a lot more impressive if it were a list of people who had received Nobel prizes for research in consciousness, instead of other fields"
I think the ridicule here just over the top, conciseness is still in the theory phase and thus there cannot be Nobel prizes for conciseness.
Only NYARLATHOTEP could come up with something so stupid.
It is like expecting the Wright brothers to have a Nobel price for aerodynamics or flight, before flight was discovered by them.
I think this was an interesting read:
Here is a nice article about Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/twenty-one-more-famous...
We still do not know exactly what consciousness is so it is best to keep an open mind about it and not let our bias effect our judgement.
You cannot argue with a creationist on this subject without know those things in my openion
jeff - "I think the ridicule here just over the top, conciseness is still in the theory phase and thus there cannot be Nobel prizes for conciseness."
That is just the point. There are no authorities on consciousness, so any argument from authority on the subject is ridiculous.
The guy just listed guys that have a particular opinion on a subject.
I saw no claims in this particular post from his side, so I saw this kind of behavior very stupid and biased towards him.
No it is not your point, you are claiming that he is doing an argument of authority which is not the case.
The more correct and fair reply should be:
"Is there a reason why you are posting this?"
Expecting a Nobel price for something which has not been discovered is pushing it too far, Physicists and scientists can only speculate with the evidence there is at the moment until further research is done.
So the best attitude is to have an open mind and not jump to any conclusion.
And when something will be discovered, it won't be a guy who already has a Nobel price in consciousness for sure.
Which makes your comment just pointless and stupid.
Consciousness is still in the theory stage? What is the theory stage?
Theory Phase, not Theory Stage,
Theory Phase:
in the process of being evaluated, tested, analyzed so it can eventually become a theory.
And who is putting likes without commenting should be ashamed of himself.
"And who is putting likes without commenting should be ashamed of himself."
Huh? Why on earth should someone be ashamed for using the Like button? What the heck? Seems to me that using that button IS a comment.
"It seems to me that who uses that button without commenting is just a coward, that does not have anything to say to justify his like."
This is not politics or a "like" contest but a debate forum which requires comments.
And don't be stupid, a like is not a comment, a like is as LIKE, meaning I LIKE your comment because...(put a reply here).
No reply = no comment = a sheep or a fan that doesn't know why he likes the comment especially when the comment is so flawed and wrong on many levels.
This is a forum not Facebook so use it accordingly and contribute to it with actual intellectual comments.
If we are gonna start turning a forum (where there should be discussions) in a place where people just want to display their bias, then the forum will loose it's credibility since only few people can actually contribute and the rest are just like any other fan.
Jeff, since you do not know who is, in fact, clicking the Like button, you actually have zero data on whether they have commented in the string or not. Or have you become an admin here and have access to those data?
Seems to me you wanted the Like button for "statistical purposes" as you said that in another string.
I'm stupid for saying that liking a post is a comment? Would it be a comment if I typed, "I like what you just said"?
If I click the Like button on a comment then I am a sheep or a fan who doesn't know why I like the post? Precisely how do you know that?
Especially when the comment is so flawed and wrong on many levels? Flawed and wrong to whom, Jeff?
This is a forum not Facebook so use it accordingly? According to whom, Jeff?
If I like what someone has to say it is bias? How do you actually know that?
The forum will lose its credibility? Credibility with whom?
Only a few people can actually contribute? Actually, anyone who comes to the site and creates a profile can contribute.
CyberLN - "Jeff, since you do not know who is, in fact, clicking the Like button, you actually have zero data on whether they have commented in the string or not. Or have you become an admin here and have access to those data?"
Apparently he also knows the gender of this/these people.
"Jeff, since you do not know who is, in fact, clicking the Like button, you actually have zero data on whether they have commented in the string or not. Or have you become an admin here and have access to those data?"
I know that you are not that good in mathematics but this is quite basic, if I see 2 Likes and just 1 comment(which was yours), I know for a fact that someone made a 'Like' without a comment.
1+1=2, basic, but it seems you cannot handle that.
BTW i wasn't referring to people who put likes but people who put likes without commenting, so I was not referring to you, but you jumped in anyways.
"Seems to me you wanted the Like button for "statistical purposes" as you said that in another string."
TRUE, but if you go to that particular 'string', I also said that the comments should be used for displaying your opinion or contribution.
I never said that Likes should replace comments or be used alone without comments.
SO get your facts strait.
"I'm stupid for saying that liking a post is a comment? "
I did not say you are stupid, I said don't be stupid, meaning; don't look like stupid.
Yes liking a post is not a comment, it is a claim that you like it.
"Would it be a comment if I typed, "I like what you just said"?"
It would be considered an unsupported comment which would make you like a fan or a sheep.(but you haven't typed it)
That is why we have a button for that, to avoid such unproductive comments.
"If I click the Like button on a comment then I am a sheep or a fan who doesn't know why I like the post? "
If you do it without commenting, yes you look like one.
"Especially when the comment is so flawed and wrong on many levels?Flawed and wrong to whom, Jeff?"
To those people who understand that there cannot be anybody who has a Nobel prize for something which is not even a theory yet.
Clearly not you it seems.
No advance in technology was discovered by people who had Nobel prizes in those same technologies, so whoever says something so stupid must be wrong or insane.
"This is a forum not Facebook so use it accordingly? According to whom, Jeff?"
You wanna deny that this is a forum now?
The like button was just introduced and you are already claiming that it is OK to abuse it in this manner.
"If I like what someone has to say it is bias? How do you actually know that?"
I want to know who thinks that such a stupid thing is right because that would tell me who is just biased against me and not an intellectually mature individual.
"Credibility with whom?"
To the quality of discussion, if everybody just puts a Like to their friends or enemies of their enemies it becomes childish.
"Only a few people can actually contribute? Actually, anyone who comes to the site and creates a profile can contribute."
An other unsupported claim, do you include spammers and hackers (that created profiles) as contributing?
Jeff, I have read your response, thought about it, and respectfully say that I do not find it anywhere near compelling enough to change my opinion about use of the Like button.
I disagree with you. That's all.
Referencing what you've said, I'm willing to look stupid to you, willing to hear you say that I cannot handle arithmetic, willing to jump in on conversations you have (or even have not) taken part in, willing to appear to you not to have my facts straight, willing to make what you decide are unproductive comments, willing to appear wrong or insane to you, willing to Like a post without commenting on it and not consider it abuse as you seem to, willing for you to think I am not intellectually mature, willing for you to think I am childish.
I just disagree with you, that's pretty much it. I suppose that if you consider someone clicking the Like button on another's post to be a bias against you, there's just not much that can be done to assuage your, well, concern.
There's always the possibility, Jeff, that a Like on someone else's post has nothing to do with you but everything to do with the comment that was Liked and the person liking it.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is: chillax. It's just not that big a deal. I'll not chide you again on the use of a button and will hope that this sidebar can be put to rest.
Pour yourself a cold one, Cheers.
"Jeff, I have read your response, thought about it, and respectfully say that I do not find it anywhere near compelling enough to change my opinion about use of the Like button.
I disagree with you. That's all."
Yes we agree to disagree there.
You are the one who said:
Huh? Why on earth should someone be ashamed for using the Like button? What the heck? Seems to me that using that button IS a comment.
And here you asked the question and I answered.
You also seemed to imply that my opinion on this matter was somewhat unrealistic or something, when you said: "What the heck?"
Then you pushed it even further by making a false statement "that using that button IS a comment." which is not true, but it is a way to avoid unproductive comments you were so nice to point out:
"Would it be a comment if I typed, "I like what you just said"?"
"I suppose that if you consider someone clicking the Like button on another's post to be a bias against you, there's just not much that can be done to assuage your, well, concern."
Yes, it is not an assumption, it is a very probable scenario IF the comment in question is so stupid that only biased people would put a Like to it.
I accept the fact that one can put 'likes' without commenting but what my argument was here, is that if someone puts a 'Like' to a very stupid comment when 2 persons are debating on something so obvious then there most likely there is some bias involved.
Like all the 'Likes' put on Christopher's post, which everybody knows that he is an alt of 'kenny schweiger'. He is biased against me since i got him banned by showing how stupid he is when trolling.
Same concept, Nyarlathotep makes very stupid claims and since he made it his mission to try and discredit and attack everybody who disagrees with his stupid comments, I came to the conclusion that is better to face him and show how much nonsense he sprouts in every post he makes.
He is a prime example why theists and atheist alike do not join theist and atheist forums since he attacks people with no reason even when they contribute.
Pentagon GB for a change, posted one of the best posts posted by a theist/whatever since he gave directly the source and make no claims.
I for one was surprised to learn that max plank had such an opinion.
This is the bases of a good debate, where people use reason and source for their claims.
People like Nyarlathotep just hinder the quality of a good discussion with his personal and biased attacks.
I just decided to stop being silent about it, that is all, and if you are mature enough you would admit that what he did is wrong and reduces the quality of the forum.
The argument of authority does not work here because there is no authority on the subject, the only authority are the physicist/etc.. so by quoting physics opinions on such a subject is the most scientific way to approach the subject.
There is nothing wrong with that, scientist themselves compare their results of tests on previous physicists and scientists works and opinions to base their assumptions. Darwin theory of evolution in Natural Selection paper is one such example.(compares biologist results and opinions and makes assumptions)
This is well known fact.
"So I guess what I'm trying to say is: chillax. It's just not that big a deal. I'll not chide you again on the use of a button and will hope that this sidebar can be put to rest.
Pour yourself a cold one, Cheers."
The problem was not the button, it was about people abusing the Like button to try and discredit the argument at hand without commenting.
BTW I am drinking a beer now, I am a person that just happen to CARE for an honest and mature debate.
Bashing every theist with stupid comments is unproductive and deserves attention.
Dead horse....
Yep, as Cyber is saying, here is a Hitchens video dedicated to Madre Teresa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
Lol wrong tab, mistake.
Btw Cyber you keep misunderstanding what i said like:
"theory stage "
instead of
"theory phase"
"someone be ashamed for using the Like button?"
Instead of
someone be ashamed for using the Like button 'without commenting'?
is this a mistake or is there more to this?
Sorry, but i can't see how this argument gets us anywhere useful really,.. although I've great admiration and respect for all of these people, it still boils down to an argument from authority, and a flawed one at that...as has been pointed out already, they are not experts in the relative fields of consciousness or neuroscience. Look at the language used,.. "inclined to the theory", "seems to be", "assuming" this, and "regarding" that.... They're all fairly old quotes too,-how much has been learned in the relevant fields since???
guys, sorry if my post is taken as a spam. I myself have been researching the subject for at least 10 years and sometimes I take the main problem for granted forgetting that most people don't even realise the problem exists and how severe it is. I fully support those who think that organized religion, the bible, and things along those lines are plain BS and the world would be a better place without that stuff.
However, the problem of consciousness is such that it's resolution IS what is going to decide if we ourselves are just physical particles in the physical universe or we are immaterial minds/consciousness in the Cosmic Mind/Consciousness. The latter is not traditional God of organized religions, but it's still of course identified with God albeit in a completely different way.
The reason I posted the quotes is because those very great minds have very great intuitions. Even though they are not expects in consciousness per see, they work with fundamental physics and they can see that there is nothing in there that can even remotely account for the phenomena of consciousness. Many don't realize how incomprehensible the problem is within the materialistic paradigm. They think somehow the physical brain does it. But please realize that the problem is so inconceivable that many materialistic philosophers out of complete despair started insisting that consciousness is not even real (check out Quine, Daniel Dennett, Churchland). It's a complete desperation to deny something that it is the most real thing in existence - even more real than external world. One can deny existence of external world, but there is no way to deny that we are conscious.
I don't think it is spam. I just don't see any difference this argument and the other thread "The founders of QM and the Vedic scriptures".
If you are going to use the opinions of the greatest scientist as arguments: perhaps you should start with arguably the greatest physicist of all time: Newton. He believed in the Philosophers stone, the elixir of life, biblical prophecy, the lost continent of Atlantis...
Don't apologize GB, I have been following, and I assure you that you are doing just fine. I must warn you, the skepticism that you'll encounter on these forums ranges from tacitly engaging to mildly amusing to bitterly denying to the utterly delusional lol.
Having said that, I hear and understand the Atheist's plight concerning people who believe in God, without enough physical or "scientific" evidence in their opinion. But, when someone (like some individuals on this forum) so easily rejects and dismisses the findings or insights of people within their own scientific community and learned accolades of some of the great minds and great institutions of our generation...you have to ask yourself one simple question - "why?".
Well, I will give you one answer..."They are more interested in THEIR ANSWER than the actual question". You see, it's the intellectual equivalent to a petulant child who deliberately sticks his/her fingers in their ears before loudly declaring "la la la la la...", knowing full well that whatever parental wisdom, instruction, or QUESTION that will soon "materialize" must be immediately refuted and rejected without exception.
A child that person is, and a child they will remain so long as such an attitude and behavior persists.
So, friend, in addressing your particular subject of post it appears we have the "camp" of the theist, who supposedly believes in this or that or another thing without enough "reason" or sufficient "evidence", but who chooses to believe - perhaps due to whatever "consciousness" they have been afforded through some miracle of the cosmos, God, or hallucinogenic brain matter lol...
...and then we have the camp of the atheist, who is often inclined to believe and assert absolute truth about any and all spiritual matters IN SPITE OF any reasonable question, observation, authority, or evidence to the contrary. That is a choice as well. Surely, their brain MUST be feeding them the MORE realistic, accurate and existential sum of their both materialistic and experiential parts - oh yes, ESPECIALLY concerning that of the Material Universe (or better still, "Universes"), stream of Consciousness, and very (non)existence of an Almighty Creator...
...or any other external phenomenon outside of themselves for that "matter". lol get it? Therein lies the punchline, as well as the principle central to your contention about consciousness and the absurdity of the atheist position concerning the recognized conundrum.
And all this acumen coming from the usual "gang" on Atheist Republic, with most likely a decade's less schooling and 50 less IQ points than your average Nobel laureate lol. That's quite a feat, my naysaying cronies, especially when considering it ALL comes down to the BRAIN...
...very hypocritical in my opinion :(
Oh yes indeed. Now please tell me which camp seems to have more "faith" and sounds more "religious" to you.
Atheists! This OP has been patient and generous with you for a SECOND TIME on this subject, in an effort to simply get you to THINK about something that could potentially wake you out of your slumber, but you choose to close your eyes and continue to sleep...and dream...
...very cowardly in my opinion :(
GB, the work that those credentialed people on your list are doing, just like yourself, is just to pose a very serious (or "severe", as you have offered a few times now), and worthwhile question/problem...then endeavor to find an or THE answer.
That's all. And you see, most of these people don't even want to hear you. They most certainly do not want to hear THEM. Ironically, they seem to want to just blissfully entertain the ghosts and goblins and theories from Christmas past, and collect tooth fairy deposits from underneath their "benevolent" pillows, a state of mind from which I'm sure many more dreams may come, like the Theory of Evolution. But of course, they believe in that whole heartedly. So much so, I'll bet that some of them don't even know it's a theory and not...um, if you'll excuse the expression, gospel lol.
It seems half don't understand the problem, and the nearly other half don't even want to ponder the Question. Simply put, "What is consciousness, and how can we explain it in terms OUTSIDE the realms of the religious, supernatural, superficial, unintelligible, or esoteric." A fine arena in which the atheist should find himself most comfortable, even thrive - not mentally recoiling while blindly thumb sucking in the figurative fetal position lol. Yes, shouldn't the atheist embrace the scientific, mathematical, philosophical, physical, metaphysical, and logical means by obtaining resolutions to such weighty inquiries? Well??
And sadly, the ones who do hear and understand, must now deny, deny, deny to keep their comfortable and extremely "flat-earth" worldview. And do it in such a haughty fashion and insidious effort to deride, discredit, an perhaps dare I say CONVERT you and others. Shame!
You see, my sympathetic, albeit well intentioned and enthusiastic Poster, you've been effectively tuned out, shut down, dismissed, shown the door, sent packing, bamboozled, and the like. Don't worry, been there done that my friend, so here's some more friendly advice... "Do not cast your pearls before swine"...ten years is a long time to devout to this subject, and they would have you believe that they can dismantle and disassemble your labors in ten minutes. Ha! Do not fall for such a ploy of pathetic narcissism and lackluster stoicism. Most importantly, do not let them "turn to attack you", once the "pearls have been trampled". That is advice not just from myself, but from Christ in the true Gospel(s).
However, I will also say to the original Poster, if you truly wish to one day be "nobel", as many of those pioneers and true contributors to society have been appropriately dubbed, then you need not apologize to the "la la la"ers of the world, and least of all this Forum.
I''ll close in sharing that even the renown crackpot, L. Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology), who consulted many fields of study (including neuroscientists by the way) before laying the foundation of his very comprehensive, although somewhat misguided and exploitive, approach to the human condition, mind, and material universe, admitted that the most intriguing part of man's existence in this universe is that he is "aware of being aware".
Thus, aptly describing a phenomenon not yet fully understood, but worth exploring, and also heretofore known as "Consciousness...".
Try it people, you just might like *it :-)
Um...no, *not Scientology, the other thing we've been talking about.
Really? Again?
Have you ever given a GOOD account for why the level of consciousness we experience depends entirely on the state, condition, and health of the brain? Basically, everything we know about consciousness appears to point to it being dependent on the brain, yet you are still claiming that it is somehow magically independent of the brain. Do these transcendent and unobservable consciousness fairies exist in the same dimension as gods and unicorns?
Yo, Travis...whaddup dawg lol.
First, thank you (Jeff and Pragmatic as well) for the help with posting links on AR - worked like a charm. Please see the "darkmatter2525" video concerning the somewhat recent "Hitler...Christianity" debate.
Ok, to briefly address your question - What are your thoughts on even "higher levels" of consciousness, experienced and reported by individuals who have had near death or out of body experiences?
Like giving extremely accurate accounts of their surroundings while on an operating table, eyes closed, "unconscious', heart stopped, etc.
Let's start with that if you don't mind, as I am working right now...thanks!