How are Dark Mtter and Consciousness different from Spirit?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, but why is it discredited?

I suppose we could count the ways off? We could begin with perhaps the earliest and most primitive conception of spirit or soul as the "animating force or substance" - which turned out to be, rather than spirit, metabolism.  Simple mis-attribution. I'm sure you could contribute.  What other things were attributed to spirit or soul, that the answer "soul or spirit" was proposed as a hypothetical in reference to?  

Saying that it is discredited without giving a reason why is just an argument from consensus.  And I would have to disagree with your assertion about consciousness.  If by observed we mean witnessed by our perceptual systems, consciousness as a brain process has never been observed directly.

What do you think we're watching when we watch the brain work?  Nevertheless, I think that a more direct observation would be that which you experience with regards to your own.  Take it either way you like., or, if you prefer leave it...we'll consider consciousness to be indirectly observed.

 That places the hypothesis that consciousness is a brain process in the same category as the explanations that involve dark matter. There is indirect evidence, but no direct observation.  

Taking all of this on it's face and arguing nothing, then within that category consciousness would still rank considerably higher.  We have a far greater weight and volume of indirect evidence for consciousness....than for dark matter

  Which is the same situation in which the hypothesis about spirits and souls is in — there is indirect evidence but no direct observation.  So your tripartite scheme collapses into itself.

Would you share some of this indirect evidence for spirits and souls? Metabolism, "the animating force" is out, I see you mentioned that consciousness might be such evidence. So, "the thinking stuff"? Seems to me to be another example of metabolism, of mis-attribution.

I wonder what soul or spirit would be taken to mean in the absence of animating forces or consciousness? What's next on the list of things that spirit might be or do if the latter is removed as was the former?

[Angrboda]

Yes, but why is it discredited?

I suppose we could count the ways off? We could begin with perhaps the earliest and most primitive conception of spirit or soul as the "animating force or substance" - which turned out to be, rather than spirit, metabolism.  Simple mis-attribution.  I'm sure you could contribute.  What other things were attributed to spirit or soul, that the answer "soul or spirit" was proposed as a hypothetical in reference to?  

Aside from the fact that you still haven't given a reason for discrediting the hypothesis, pointing to other hypotheses that are about different things than the current discussion and discrediting them does nothing to further your argument. It's attacking a straw man at best.

Saying that it is discredited without giving a reason why is just an argument from consensus.  And I would have to disagree with your assertion about consciousness.  If by observed we mean witnessed by our perceptual systems, consciousness as a brain process has never been observed directly.

What do you think we're watching when we watch the brain work?  Nevertheless, I think that a more direct observation would be that which you experience with regards to your own.  Take it either way you like., or, if you prefer leave it...we'll consider consciousness to be indirectly observed.

Are you suggesting we are observing consciousness when we observe the metabolism of the brain? That's a bold claim. It's too bad you really have nothing to back it up with other than your say so. I can do that too: Is not!

 That places the hypothesis that consciousness is a brain process in the same category as the explanations that involve dark matter. There is indirect evidence, but no direct observation.  

Taking all of this on it's face and arguing nothing, then within that category consciousness would still rank considerably higher.  We have a far greater weight and volume of indirect evidence for consciousness....than for dark matter

And all of that evidence is inconclusive and largely a product of the interpretation laid upon it. More "because I said so" evidence. Simply because you interpret an effect upon consciousness as stemming from the brain does not make it so when the evidence is ambiguous.

  Which is the same situation in which the hypothesis about spirits and souls is in — there is indirect evidence but no direct observation.  So your tripartite scheme collapses into itself.

Would you share some of this indirect evidence for spirits and souls?  Metabolism, "the animating force"  is out, I see you mentioned that consciousness might be such evidence.  So, "the thinking stuff"?   Seems to me to be another example of metabolism, of mis-attribution.

I wonder what soul or spirit would be taken to mean in the absence of animating forces or consciousness?  What's next on the list of things that spirit might be or do if the latter is removed as was the former?

You're writing a check that your ego can't cash. No way can you demonstrate that consciousness is the metabolism of the brain and that's all there is to that. As far as indirect evidence, the evidence that something is interacting with the brain which is conscious is pretty much the same evidence that points to the brain being the source of consciousness, and that's behavior. And behavior won't get you to the goal of "it's brain metabolism." If it had, you would be giving me evidence of this metabolic process called consciousness in the brain instead of distracting with red herrings about prior uses of the word 'spirit'.

[robvalue]

It is very weird.

The best way I can try and describe it at the moment is that consciousness is a byproduct of functioning brains. Somehow, this manifests as "an experience". How this happens, "who" is experiencing it or whether anything is really happening at all are questions I can't even begin to answer.

The conscious mind also seems to be the brain telling itself stories about things the subconscious has already decided.

[Rhondazvous]

Yea, I agree. We once didn't know the atom molecular makeup of the atmosphere, but even then we certainly knew air existed because the motion of it had an affect trees and grass and our hair.

Air is translucent, but that doesn't make it magical. Once you start a proposition with a naked assertion, no matter what follows, your answer will be flawed.

The air analogy is not bad. It is conceivable that 10 years from know we make DM in the lab, detect and measure it and know most its properties. If we're lucky and it is comparatively easy to detect.

What is keeping us from detecting it now? It cannot be detected through electromagnetic means. Why do we not already have other means?

[Alex K]

The air analogy is not bad. It is conceivable that 10 years from know we make DM in the lab, detect and measure it and know most its properties. If we're lucky and it is comparatively easy to detect.

What is keeping us from detecting it now? It cannot be detected through electromagnetic means.  Why do we not already have other means?

We don't know yet what the dark matter particle's detailed properties are, in particular how strongly they interact with atoms. As experiments become more and more sensitive, they cover more and more ground there, but there is still plenty of room for them to hide from us by having even weaker interactions or lower masses than we can currently detect.

[Rhondazvous]

Dark matter is physical. Spirit is not. Spirit is also hocus-pocus nonexistent bullshit.

Consciousness is the one thing in the world we have absolute proof exists. The lights are on.

That is all.

We recognize our own consciousness. But this recognition is very subjective. I am conscious because I am conscious and that is the end of that.

The purpose of this thread is to take us beyond mere assertions. What objective definition would we use? Can we define consciousness in a way that excludes the possibility that computers are conscious?

[The Grand Nudger]

Aside from the fact that you still haven't given a reason for discrediting the hypothesis, pointing to other hypotheses that are about different things than the current discussion and discrediting them does nothing to further your argument.  It's attacking a straw man at best.

My apologies, I thought I made it obvious.  Soul or spirit -as animating force- does not explain what it purports to describe, and something else, something demonstrable....metabolism, does.  Is there some more complete way that a hypothetical can be discredited?  Not only have the proponents of spirits or souls as such failed to describe how this -would- work to begin with, how spirit would animate, the observation to which it was proposed as a hypothetical has been explained by other, demonstrable, means.  

You feel that I haven't addressed some specific example to which soul or spirit can be raised as a hypothetical, but that doesn't mean I've given you no reason, or that I've pitched an ounce of straw.  You'd simply rather discuss some other type of spirit or soul.  There are many.     

Are you suggesting we are observing consciousness when we observe the metabolism of the brain?  That's a bold claim.  It's too bad you really have nothing to back it up with other than your say so.  I can do that too:   Is not!

Not sure why you'd think I'd suggested that.  I do think we are observing consciousness when we  observe the brain, however.  I see it as direct observation, you might see it as indirect.  I was willing to roll with that, as I made explicit in my comments.  It doesn't matter much to me or my summary of the difference between the three.    

And all of that evidence is inconclusive and largely a product of the interpretation laid upon it.  More "because I said so" evidence.  Simply because you interpret an effect upon consciousness as stemming from the brain does not make it so when the evidence is ambiguous.

You're responding as though I had not simply accepted your comments in their entirety for purpose of conversation.  Read my comment again.  

"All of that evidence" is all I commented upon.  You may think that it does not pass the bar for x (and as I already said, I can run with that), but it remains a fact that for consciousness we have "all of that evidence" and for spirit....we have as yet unspoken hypotheticals and previously discredited hypotheticals.  

You're writing a check that your ego can't cash.  No way can you demonstrate that consciousness is the metabolism of the brain and that's all there is to that.  As far as indirect evidence, the evidence that something is interacting with the brain which is conscious is pretty much the same evidence that points to the brain being the source of consciousness, and that's behavior.  And behavior won't get you to the goal of "it's brain metabolism."  If it had, you would be giving me evidence of this metabolic process called consciousness in the brain instead of distracting with red herrings about prior uses of the word 'spirit'.

The trouble, Jorg, is that you've gone off the rails with the metabolism bit.  I said nothing of the sort.  Now that, lol...is how you pitch straw.  

Prior(and current; some -still- believe it is "soul" or "spirit" that animates us, rather than our metabolism) uses of the spirit/soul hypothetical aren't a distraction, they speak to the OP question.  They just don't interest you, apparently.  So you're 0 for 2 on logical fallacy bingo this post.  Is there some sense or use or meaning under wich the terms spirit or soul seem useful to you, something other than the type of misattribution I've been expressing?  I'm game for that, but what is it?

[Rhondazvous]

Right off the bat, there is an implied parity of observational weight or volume (and nature) between the three that isn't representative of the actual situation.  

Consciousness is not hypothetical, and is directly -and- indirectly observed to such an extent that it's inclusion in this list of three seems absurd.

Dark matter is an open hypothetical, and is indirectly observed.

Spirit is a thoroughly discredited hypothetical, that has never been directly or indirectly observed - and worse, a hypothetical whose purpose for existence has long since yielded to more accurate and factual explanations.

Yes, but why is it discredited?  Saying that it is discredited without giving a reason why is just an argument from consensus.  And I would have to disagree with your assertion about consciousness.  If by observed we mean witnessed by our perceptual systems, consciousness as a brain process has never been observed directly.   That places the hypothesis that consciousness is a brain process in the same category as the explanations that involve dark matter.  There is indirect evidence, but no direct observation.   Which is the same situation in which the hypothesis about spirits and souls is in — there is indirect evidence but no direct observation.  So your tripartite scheme collapses into itself.

I gave kudos to those who grappled honestly with the question. The rejection of the possibility of spirit is based on the fact that it is not defined, has never been observed. To ignore the fact that the same is true of dark matter is not the way a scientist would deal with the question. Scientist believe that one day they will be able to observe dark matter. And one day, the theists tell us, god will reveal himself, meanwhile you just have to believe that god/dark matter is there for some reason other than direct observation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here again, I think you've missed the mark by virtue of your original premise.   Dark matter-is- a description for a set of observations.  Indirect ones, granted.  That without some x we cannot explain some y. Spirit is not even -that-, until someone makes it so.

[Brian37]

Dark matter is physical. Spirit is not. Spirit is also hocus-pocus nonexistent bullshit.

Consciousness is the one thing in the world we have absolute proof exists. The lights are on.

That is all.

We recognize our own consciousness. But this recognition is very subjective. I am conscious because I am conscious and that is the end of that.

The purpose of this thread is to take us beyond mere assertions. What objective definition would we use? Can we define consciousness in a way that excludes the possibility that computers are conscious?

We have defined it, it is just that you are having a hard time accepting it. That is an evolutionary reaction on your part out of a sense of wanting to survive. You are wanting some sort of "forever" subconsciously without realizing it, and the truth is there is no "forever" for your brain. You are merely projecting your own desires into this discussion. 

Consciousness is an abstract word used to describe your brain in motion. Once your brain dies, you die, that is it. It is a manifestation of electrico-biochemical activity combined with our particular species structure of brain. It is an outcome of evolution. But when that structure is destroyed beyond repair, there is no more you.

AI isn't the same thing, that is why it is called artificial, and yes, increasingly computers are learning to learn. But we are not talking about human inventions, we are talking about evolutionary biology. Don't confuse the two.

"All this" is a result of a giant weather pattern that started in a tiny space 14 billion years ago, but it is not conscious as a whole, we are merely an outcome of that weather pattern. We are a very temporary and finite blip. While you are alive your light is on, but you were off and did not exist before you were born, and your light will go out when you die. 

Nothing created us like a factory boss makes a product. Just like you know Thor is not the cause of lightening and you know Poseidon is not the cause of hurricanes. Both lightening and hurricanes are a result of conditions, and the same with evolution and the human brain.