Why Science Fails

[Plato]

There is no explanation for consciousness.

This has been a problem from the very beginning. From the renaissance onwards we have been struggling with this.

Descartes was the first to recognise the problem: how can mind exist in a purely mechanical universe? The answer: substance dualism. There is matter which exists in space and time, and mind which is outside those realms.

Dualism fails on so many levels but the biggest problem is that there is no way mind could act upon matter to control the body. Descartes claimed that the pineal gland in the brain is where the mind controls the body, but I think even he knew he was lying to himself.

Meanwhile, materialism has many many different variations, all of which fail because they can never adequately explain consciousness in terms of matter.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time. I have felt it emotionally before that there is something funny going on here. I have also seen the problem that there is no place for humans or any morality in a materialistic universe. However, this was not enough to convince me... I just took it as an unfortunate fact of reality.

Now I have logical proof that science fails. Back to the drawing board and this time it's my own.

[Daffy Duck]

I'm just gonna be funny here. I looked up the definition of science, and by very definition, it can't fail. And some would argue that the logic you're using in your post IS a form of science.

[magi13]

P.s the title of the article should be why science can't explain consciousness. Science did not fail with respect to other fields. ^^

^,^ Science is not perfect but I like it non the less. It's a start, where people experiment and try to decipher the mysteries of our existence. It utilizes our mind to create inventions and other things.

People often take it for granted without science, there would have been no such thing as computers, electricity and what not. Then again it may be called something else if not called science. ^^,

Change, is our everlasting friend.

[JE Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Plato

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

Now I have logical proof that science fails. Back to the drawing board and this time it's my own.

Did you ever do a science project? Do you remember the steps (form a hypothesis, make a procedure etc.) That and peer-review is all science is.

Just hope you are not one of those creationists.

[Barcs]

Actually science CAN explain the mind and how it controls the body. What you're referring to is consciousness, which is THE big mystery. I wouldn't exactly call science "too limited." Science can explain almost everything in the known universe and why it acts the way it does. Consciousness cannot be explained by science because there is no way to experiment with it, just like all paranormal things. That doesn't mean that it fails, and everything else is wrong. The whole concept of dualism or duality has to do with the spirit and flesh (physical body). Not mind and body. The mind is part of the body. The brain controls the body, not your consciousness, as even when you are sleeping or unconscious the body still functions. The consciousness is just the state of being awake and aware. The thought process, decision making, physical activities, etc etc etc are all caused by the brain, and doesn't need spiritual duality to be explained.

Now with that said, I do believe in a soul, but not because of science, and just because science cannot explain something doesn't mean that it automatically does not exist. Science is proven, though, and you can't discredit it, simply because it can't explain everything yet.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Barcs

What you're referring to is consciousness, which is THE big mystery.

That's what I said.

As for me doing a science project in school... yes, I also did a philosophy degree.

[Subscreet]

I have my doubts about your philosophy degree because your "logical proof that science fails" isn't logically sound.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

This is false. The gigantic body of knowledge gained via the scientific method is constantly growing. Your example with Descartes was a poor one because in four centuries since Descartes' time we have had significant technological advances that he probably couldn't have imagined.

Have you even attempted to read any scientific literature on the field of consciousness or was this just some sort of juvenile "**** you" to science based on one man who was more of a philosopher and a mathematician? I'm sure if you actually took the time to do some research you could learn a lot about consciousness and your life as a conscious observer of this universe. You haven't even come close to "disproving" the scientific method or anything equally inane.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Subscreet

I have my doubts about your philosophy degree because your "logical proof that science fails" isn't logically sound.

This is false. The gigantic body of knowledge gained via the scientific method is constantly growing. Your example with Descartes was a poor one because in four centuries since Descartes' time we have had significant technological advances that he probably couldn't have imagined.

Have you even attempted to read any scientific literature on the field of consciousness or was this just some sort of juvenile "**** you" to science based on one man who was more of a philosopher and a mathematician? I'm sure if you actually took the time to do some research you could learn a lot about consciousness and your life as a conscious observer of this universe. You haven't even come close to "disproving" the scientific method or anything equally inane.

Fellow seekers, let us no longer pursue to answer this question because our own opinions are clashing in a negative manner.

Let us just respect the thread starter's opinion, since we ourselves has shown proof otherwise.

Peace

[strawbear]

read the first post but not the rest. i think the scientific method is lame and just a paradigm and just a sure way to validate our thoughts about this mysterious world. i do admit i am not sure i clearly understand the scientific method but i think it's along the lines that you have a theory and do experiments to see if it's true or false, and a strong theory is one that can be falsified.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Subscreet

I have my doubts about your philosophy degree because your "logical proof that science fails" isn't logically sound.

This is false. The gigantic body of knowledge gained via the scientific method is constantly growing. Your example with Descartes was a poor one because in four centuries since Descartes' time we have had significant technological advances that he probably couldn't have imagined.

Have you even attempted to read any scientific literature on the field of consciousness or was this just some sort of juvenile "**** you" to science based on one man who was more of a philosopher and a mathematician? I'm sure if you actually took the time to do some research you could learn a lot about consciousness and your life as a conscious observer of this universe. You haven't even come close to "disproving" the scientific method or anything equally inane.

Wow, touched a nerve huh?

I actually got 82 for the philsophy of mind module. In the British system that's an absurdly high mark.

I will admit that my post was highly provoactive, one sided and vague. I still agree with myself though. Our "advances" have not cleared up the problem of consciousness because the foundations of the scientific method are a flawed paradigm.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Plato

That's what I said.

As for me doing a science project in school... yes, I also did a philosophy degree.

I thought you quit "uni".

[bluedragon]

I just realized. What if all of you don't actually exist and it's only me imagining you? It's so interesting when you actually feel something like that.
I found a lot of essays on the subject of consciousness on this interesting site.

[Sherpa]

Originally Posted by Plato

That's what I said.

As for me doing a science project in school... yes, I also did a philosophy degree.

I don't buy it. Even a sophomore philo student could compile a better argument than this puerile attempt. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Plato

There is no explanation for consciousness.

What would constitute an explanation? And are you looking for an explanation of how the consciousness could have arisen and how it operates and why we have it? Or are you asking for some vague explanation for the so-called qualia?

This has been a problem from the very beginning. From the renaissance onwards we have been struggling with this.

We've been struggling with a good many of the questions your namesake has posed still with little conclusively to say on them.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

What foundations would these be? And what happens when they get contradicted? What it is mean when you say "you are free".

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time.

Cool, just please don't be a mechanical engineer for fear that you might be forced to rely on that faulty science when you build a bridge.

Now I have logical proof that science fails.

Even if this muddled bunch of nonsense were a coherent argument, it would not be a logical proof. How can you have a degree in philosophy and not know what a logical proof is?



Sorry about being so combative on my first post, but I read this and it was so absurd I just had to respond.

[Arboretor]

Anyone interested science and consciousness should read

Amazon.com: The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind Series): David J. Chalmers: Books

and the author's website
David Chalmers

I have recommended it before, but I don't think anyone looked into it. It discusses the problems of consciousness from the viewpoint of traditional logic and arrives at interesting conclusions. I believe it is an important book. Unfortunately it is not easy to read (it requires very clear and precise logical thinking), and it is impossible to go into the details on a forum like this. But it is worth reading if you are really interested in the theory of consciousness.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Arboretor

Anyone interested science and consciousness should read

Amazon.com: The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind Series): David J. Chalmers: Books

and the author's website
David Chalmers

I have recommended it before, but I don't think anyone looked into it. It discusses the problems of consciousness from the viewpoint of traditional logic and arrives at interesting conclusions. I believe it is an important book. Unfortunately it is not easy to read (it requires very clear and precise logical thinking), and it is impossible to go into the details on a forum like this. But it is worth reading if you are really interested in the theory of consciousness.

My position is inspired by Chalmers. Without this dude I'd never had the courage to realise our modern conception of the universe is based on a mistake (materialism).

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Plato

The answer: substance dualism. There is matter which exists in space and time, and mind which is outside those realms.
Dualism fails on so many levels, but the biggest problem is that there is no way mind could act upon matter to control the body.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science,
then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time.
Now I have logical proof that science fails. Back to the drawing board and this time it's my own.

Scientific discovery, & Science contextually does succeed quite well.

The challenge, re MIND: with current foundations & technology, Public-understanding of it continues limited.
Many of us are working to change this, by empowering... people with more of their own choices...

MIND, as you correctly said, "exists outside Space/Time limitations", what a Blessing! do you realize this?

Your subconscious mind, in fact re-creates your own body routinely, & momentarily.
And
your own precious opportunities are in LEARNING to re-create your body as *you* want. question is: Do you know how...?
.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Plato

There is no explanation for consciousness.

This has been a problem from the very beginning. From the renaissance onwards we have been struggling with this.

Descartes was the first to recognise the problem: how can mind exist in a purely mechanical universe? The answer: substance dualism. There is matter which exists in space and time, and mind which is outside those realms.

Dualism fails on so many levels but the biggest problem is that there is no way mind could act upon matter to control the body. Descartes claimed that the pineal gland in the brain is where the mind controls the body, but I think even he knew he was lying to himself.

Meanwhile, materialism has many many different variations, all of which fail because they can never adequately explain consciousness in terms of matter.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time. I have felt it emotionally before that there is something funny going on here. I have also seen the problem that there is no place for humans or any morality in a materialistic universe. However, this was not enough to convince me... I just took it as an unfortunate fact of reality.

Now I have logical proof that science fails. Back to the drawing board and this time it's my own.

Of course there's an explanation for consciousness, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Maybe we don't know what the explanation is, but believe me, there is one.

The same situation existed with the flu in the late 18 and 1900s. People were dying by the thousands from the flu epidemic, and had no idea why. It was thought at that time that maybe a spirit was making people sick, thus the word influenza was adopted, Italian for influence, or spirit. Eventually the real culprit was found; we just had to wait for someone smart enough to not buy into the theory of ghosts making people sick, and for someone to invent the technology to see really small things, like bacteria. Eventually scientists started putting facts together, and now, it’s not so much of a mystery.

For some strange reason, we tend to have a kind of arrogance about our knowledge of things, in assuming that we know everything there is to know; therefore if we don’t understand something, there must not be an explanation. Surely it can’t be that we just don’t know that yet, can it?

Absolutely, it can. And this is one reason why some things aren't as obvious to us.

I don’t think we mean to be arrogant about our knowledge on purpose. We just don’t know that we don’t know something; otherwise we would know it, right?

Consciousness isn’t an easy subject to understand, for various reasons, none of which are really all that mysterious, but it does require some fancy thinking, and the ability to see from a different perspective.

First of all, remember that we’re trying to use our consciousness to understand our consciousness. You may at first think that there’s nothing wrong with that statement, but think about it for awhile and you may start to see a reason why this might not be so easy to do.

Hint: think about the last time you took a picture of some friends together. Why is it that you weren’t in the picture? After all, you were there too, right?

I know that sounds stupid, but the reason consciousness seems so mysterious, as though it isn't there, really isn’t all that different from the situation I just described with the camera. It's a problem of perspective, and also of asking the wrong questions, which makes us think the reason we aren't getting answers is because it's mysterious, that some kind of magic must be involved.

Also, it's not like scientists can look at another's consciousness to see how it works, because what are they supposed it see it with, other than a consciousness? I know this seems very wierd, but it can be understood.

However, with some tricky thinking, we can do something smart, like take a picture of a mirror and reveal something about the consciousness who is doing the seeing.

This is a very interesting topic.

[autarko]

Originally Posted by Starman

First of all, remember that we’re trying to use our consciousness to understand our consciousness. You may at first think that there’s nothing wrong with that statement, but think about it for awhile and you may start to see a reason why this might not be so easy to do.

Yes, things often have to be studied indirectly. Have you ever tried counting the stars of the Pleiades? If you look straight at them they are a blur but if you look slightly to the side you may be able to count them.

And with the PET brain scans of people.... are you observing thought itself, or are you observing variable concentrations of radionuclides? Or are you just looking at the results of an image processing algorithm? Who cares, so long as you can spot an interesting pattern which seems to tally with experience.