Many scientists are utterly loopy

I've just read the following Does Technology Have a Soul? which is an extract from the book God, Human, Animal, Machine: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning.

Incidentally, the author appears to be referring to a toy robot dog at the beginning rather than an actual dog; something I never initially realised.

The author says:

Today, as AI continues to blow past us in benchmark after benchmark of higher cognition, we quell our anxiety by insisting that what distinguishes true consciousness is emotions, perception, the ability to experience and feel: the qualities, in other words, that we share with animals.

If there were gods, they would surely be laughing their heads off at the inconsistency of our logic. We spent centuries denying consciousness in animals precisely because they lacked reason or higher thought. (Darwin claimed that despite our lowly origins, we maintained as humans a “godlike intellect” that distinguished us from other animals.) As late as the fifties, the scientific consensus was that chimpanzees—who share almost 99 percent of our DNA—did not have minds.

 

Wait... we spent centuries denying consciousness in animals? Scientists and philosophers maybe, but I doubt the average person denied that animals are conscious. The pernicious influence of an "education" can make people believe the most ludicrous things imaginable -- like computers are (or can become) conscious and animals are not conscious!

 

It is breathtaking that the scientific consensus was that chimpanzees don't have minds. Just think about that for a moment. How utterly crazy do you have to be to think this? This also explains their unquestioning acceptance of materialism. Most of them don't care how utterly loopy their beliefs are.

Defining Consciousness

When I say science completely leaves out consciousness in its description of reality, people frequently ask what my definition of consciousness is.

But what do they mean by "definition of consciousness"? They must mean either:

a) What do I mean by the word "consciousness".

or

b) What is the scientific definition of consciousness? i.e how does consciousness fit into our scientific description of reality.

But regarding "a", obviously we all know what consciousness means. It's all our thoughts, feelings, perceptions etc. So, given that the person is conscious, he knows what consciousness refers to. So presumably he is not requesting this (and it's always a he).

So he must be asking for a scientific definition of consciousness. But science completely leaves out consciousness in its description of reality, as I said in the beginning!
This is the type of futile "conversation" I have with people on the net.

The God helmet

Just watched this video about mystical experiences and the God helmet.  The speaker implicitly supposes, but doesn't argue, that the God helmet produces such experiences.

But such a conclusion is simply not warranted.  The fact that "the God helmet" triggers such experiences does not entail that the brain is the origin of such experiences. For example, one could be blind due to damage to the brain rather than the eyes. One could thereby restore vision if that part of the brain were altered to make it fully functional again. It wouldn't thereby entail the things we see are not out there.
The brain might prohibit such mystical experiences in its normal functional state. Altering a certain area might allow us glimpses of a reality normally inaccessible to us as the brain filters out such experiences.

See other essays by me on this topic in my other blog: e.g

Neither Modern Materialism nor Science as currently conceived can explain Consciousness

Consiousness IS what I think it is.

I'd just like to say something about the claim that people make that consciousness isn't what we think it is. They claim that science has shown we are wrong about so many things that we once thought was obvious and this even includes consciousness itself.

Now, I don't actually agree that we are so very wrong about everything, but I'll let that pass and concentrate on consciousness. Consciousness could not be anything other than what we experience it as being. That is to say there can be no gap between what we experience, and the experience itself. The pain of cramp just is what we experience it as being. As is greenness, as is hope, as is despair etc.

Now what we think consciousness is, is what it feels like to us. Since consciousness could not possibly be anything other than what it feels like to us, it cannot possibly be the case that we are mistaken about the nature of consciousness. In other words consciousness is what we think it is since it is nonsensical to suppose it isn't.

Note that in saying this that one is not claiming anything else. It is not being claimed that it survives the death of our bodies, or that it has psi abilities etc (although one comes close -- if not actually to assert -- to saying that consciousness is not material).

All this is bleedin' obvious of course, but I keep hearing people say to me that consciousness is not what I think it is! (or words to that effect).

What I'm really interested in.

I am interested in what the world is, what I am, what we all are. I'm interested in why I'm here. Did I have a choice in being here? Am I supposed to be doing something now I am here? If so, then what? Is it possible I might never have existed? Does the Universe have a purpose? Do we have some ultimate purpose? Do all things have some ultimate purpose? Or are our lives and the Universe ultimately absurd? Is this the only reality? Or are there many realities or dimensions, whether afterlife realms, parallel Universes, or even magical lands like Narnia? I want to know what all things mean. These are the questions I'm interested in.

Naturalism and Materialism are necessarily false

Thoughts exhibit intentionality. Naturalism is the view that all of nature is determined by laws and processes that have no plan, no intentions, at their foundation. Therefore this entails that thoughts cannot literally be identical to a physical process. Since thoughts cannot be derived from physical processes either (i.e they are non-reducible), and thoughts exist, this entails naturalism is false. A fortiori materialism is false too.