A Conscious Universe

[Ben Davis]

Hi bennyboy,

That doesn't say much about the framework in which brains exist, which is the question.

But it does address the question of where consciousness comes from: brains of sufficient complexity. The framework for that complexity is formally addressed by evolutionary biologists.

Evidence is the collection of information through the senses, and the processing of said information in the mind. But you have not established that the nature underlying the senses (or the mind) is really as you experience it. How would you go about doing that, except for saying, "Seems real, feels real, must be real!"

Really? I'm surprised you don't understand that we're not solely reliant on our individual intuition in order to come to our conclusions. Serious study results in practical and theoretical experimentation. It's crucial to remember that the 'collection of information through the senses' is not done in isolation and we don't automatically trust our biological senses but instead create mechanisms & tools with which we can in/validate what we sense and intuit.

This is a statement of faith, and I find it strange that you've chosen to emphasize it as such.

No, it's a statement of trust, earned trust, not just in the methodology which is being applied but also in response to the findings already made. It couldn't be further from 'faith'. If the methodology had been poor or the results so-far unrepresentative of a physical cause for/explanation of consciousness, my position would be other than that which it is.

There's no plausible explanation of psychogony right now,

There's plenty plausible! Integrated Information Theory is starting to yield some interesting results. And just because there's no current, robust, comprehensive explanation doesn't mean we discount the progress that has been made.

nor has any similar problem been solved in the past which gives us reason to think that the question of mind will be solved at any point in the future.

Untrue. Many supernatural assertions have been overturned as a result of the application of methodological naturalism. So many, in fact, that I feel quietly confident saying that 'the question of mind' will likely yield similar results. I'm not averse to being proved wrong however it seems unlikely, given all that we currently know.

Saying science has solved MANY problems, so it will eventually solve THIS problem, is downright Heywoodian.

Not 'will' but 'may' and I feel it's likely to be so. Crucial difference.

Which part of the Bible does that come from again?

Stop confusing earned trust for quasi-religious faith, please.