How are Dark Mtter and Consciousness different from Spirit?

[Edwardo Piet]

Literally everything is physical, you can't have something exist without it being physical. If you're aware of this spirit malarkey, it means it's having some kind of physical effect on your brain. If this spirit affects your life or the universe, it must interact physically.

I agree. Everything is physical.

I don't consider that a bias because I consider anything that is existent must have some sort of effect and anything that has an effect must effect our physical universe, which requires that it be physical.

"Non-physical" kind of means "Non-existent".

[Angrboda]

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.  

What demonstrable means. Now you're just blowing bullshit.

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.

If it's direct observation, then pinpoint where in the brain for me this consciousness you're observing is located.

"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.  

And you have are empty boasts about observing consciousness in the brain.

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?

They may speak to the OP but they don't correspond to the question which prompted the response, the request for an explanation of the claim that spirit was a discredited hypothesis, something you've still yet to establish. The meaning of spirit under discussion was made plain and all these attempts to draw the subject back to animism and vitalism are just so many more red herrings.

ps. The way you quote leaves so much context out that it's difficult to determine what exactly you are responding to. I've had to make do here by only responding in part, which is just as well as much of your response was mere evasion of the central issue, whether brain as we currently understand it can explain consciousness or not.

[Angrboda]

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. 

You're the one that is projecting, Brian. You do this all the time. You impute motives for your opponent's holding the view that they do and then attempt to discredit the motive. That's called an ad hominem argument and it's fallacious bullshit.

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.

Consciousness is your brain in motion. Well that explains absolutely nothing. Other things in motion, like a ball, do not acquire consciousness, so you're left with the puzzle of why a ball or the heart being "in motion" doesn't give rise to consciousness and the brain, figuratively speaking as "in motion," does. And for that you have no answer.

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.

Evolution and the human brain are a result of conditions. How uninformative. Except we know how lightning and hurricanes work, we don't know how consciousness works. So your analogy, is a false one.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Literally everything is physical, you can't have something exist without it being physical. If you're aware of this spirit malarkey, it means it's having some kind of physical effect on your brain. If this spirit affects your life or the universe, it must interact physically.

I agree. Everything is physical.

I don't consider that a bias because I consider anything that is existent must have some sort of effect and anything that has an effect must effect our physical universe, which requires that it be physical.

"Non-physical" kind of means "Non-existent".

More than 'kind of'; the universe is a physical construct, if something isn't part of the physical realm, it isn't part of anything at all. And even if it did somehow exist in some abstract non-physical form, we would never know about it, we could never detect it, and it could never have anything to do with our universe on any level whatsoever, it wouldn't even be subject to spacetime. It would be timeless, spaceless and immaterial - nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.  

What demonstrable means.  Now you're just blowing bullshit.

......?  Do you disagree....do you think that our metabolism, and the effect of our metabolism, is not demonstrable?  Is my statement so confusing that you think I must have a custom definition for the word? I doubt it.

If it's direct observation, then pinpoint where in the brain for me this consciousness you're observing is located.

-and if it's not it doesn't matter to my summary, which is why I addressed that -very- concern in the first comments we exchanged.

And you have are empty boasts about observing consciousness in the brain.

It's hardly boastful to claim to have observed a brain in action - and you know I don;t see any difference between that and consciousness-, lol...but this is irrelevant to any conversation I hoped to have.

They may speak to the OP but they don't correspond to the question which prompted the response, the request for an explanation of the claim that spirit was a discredited hypothesis, something you've still yet to establish.  The meaning of spirit under discussion was made plain and all these attempts to draw the subject back to animism and vitalism are just so many more red herrings.

I disagree, I think that the failure of spirit or soul to explain the animating force, and the success of what we call a metabolism..is thoroughly discrediting to that concept of spirit or soul, as a hypothetical created to explain the animating force.  I invited you to contribute more, but if you want me to go through each and every mis-attribution man has ever made using those two terms....we'll be in for a long night.....don't you agree....?

ps.  The way you quote leaves so much context out that it's difficult to determine what exactly you are responding to.  I've had to make do here by only responding in part, which is just as well as much of your response was mere evasion of the central issue, whether brain as we currently understand it can explain consciousness or not.

If I wanted to make that a central issue I probably wouldn't have granted you every comment you made at the outset, huh?  You've been trying to pick a fight I'm not interested in, because you misunderstood a statement I made about metabolism..which is, conveniently, exactly the thing that discredits spirit or soul as an animating force.....which is ofc...precisely what I've apparently failed to explain or establish...even though you've had me explain it to you three times now.....-because- you misunderstood.

[Angrboda]

And you have are empty boasts about observing consciousness in the brain.

It's hardly boastful to claim to have observed a brain in action - and you know I don;t see any difference between that and consciousness-, lol...but this is irrelevant to any conversation I hoped to have.

I think you're on crack. If you don't see any difference between what we see in the brain and consciousness, then you're not looking very hard.

They may speak to the OP but they don't correspond to the question which prompted the response, the request for an explanation of the claim that spirit was a discredited hypothesis, something you've still yet to establish.  The meaning of spirit under discussion was made plain and all these attempts to draw the subject back to animism and vitalism are just so many more red herrings.

I disagree, I think that the failure of spirit or soul to explain the animating force, and the success of what we call a metabolism..is thoroughly discrediting to that concept of spirit or soul, as a hypothetical created to explain the animating force.  I invited you to contribute more, but if you want me to go through each and every mis-attribution man has ever made using those two terms....we'll be in for a long night.....don't you agree....?

You keep claiming that this metabolism is a better explanation, but I don't see any actual explaining. Just repetition of the same vapid claim. At present, both spirit and the brain explain consciousness equally well, which is to say poorly. Any supposed discrediting of the one hypothesis by the other is solely a product of your imagination. But enlighten me. How does the brain explain consciousness?

[Rhondazvous]

PS:

I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative, I genuinely have no conception of how something can exist yet be non-physical

Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible. That would be an argument from incredulity. But to suppose something non-physical as an explanation would appear to require exhausting all physical explanations there could ever be. How could this be done?

Has anything non-physical ever been observed  to exist? If not, how can it even be suggested as an explanation? Of course, it could be physical, but just behave very differently to the physical stuff we're used to.

Or like... anti matter or something? My science isn't so good at this stage

You're doing a good job, rob (rhyme not intended). This kind of dialogue will help us get to the bottom of the question without fiat credulity.

To proceed.

If you hypothesize that there is some kind of matter which is there but undetectable, how can you ever exhaust physical possibilities? You have made your argument unfalsifiable. You are also engaging in special pleading when you demand that spirit be something that we have experienced but do not make that same demand on dark matter.

[Rhondazvous]

I think the non-physical part is a hangup for many.  But assuming that all things that exist must have a physical, or shall I say 'natural', existence is a presupposition.  As an atheist, I don't believe in the existence of nonphysical entities like ghosts or angels or God, but my disbelief is based on an assumption that only physical things exist.  It is an apriori assumption and is therefore merely axiomatic — it has no empirical support.  It's just assumed.

See, that's where we run into trouble. If we assume that if we believe in spirit we must also believe in god, we're making a big assed leap. Really, I'm not asking anybody to believe anything. This is an exploration of possibilities. Once we identify the fears that underlie our reluctance to explore certain possibilities, then we are free and we can speak intelligently about why something does or does not exist instead of making assertions.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're on crack.  If you don't see any difference between what we see in the brain and consciousness, then you're not looking very hard.

Okay, and I appreciate your opinion... but it wasn't something that mattered to me or my summary....so thats probably why, for the very last time, I accepted your comments from the outset for the purpose of discussion. Call it indirect evidence, call it insufficient evidence, it is still evidence, which is more than we have for soul. Call it an incomplete explanation, call it interpretation, that is still more than we have for soul - which is merely the claim absent of either explanation or interpretation.

You keep claiming that this metabolism is a better explanation, but I don't see any actual explaining.  Just repetition of the same vapid claim.  At present, both spirit and the brain explain consciousness equally well, which is to say poorly.   Any supposed discrediting of the one hypothesis by the other is solely a product of your imagination.  But enlighten me.  How does the brain explain consciousness?

Yes, I keep making the claim that metabolism  is a better explanation -for the observation of an animating force- than spirits or soul.   Because it is.  I can't say I agree with you on the relative status of brain and soul/spirit as they relate to the question of consciousness.  We have an idea of how the brain works, and how that fits into the consciousness question.  I do not have an idea how spirit/soul works and how it fits the question of consciousness - if soul/spirit even exist to begin with (not a question when it comes to brain, eh)...until you (or someone, anyone) provide me with one.   There does not seem, to me, to be the sort of parity you've claimed between them, however poorly you think brain is as an explanation...no one has done the work for soul that's been done for brain, and there is at least no open question of it's very existence. Open to me, mind you, closed to you, by presupposition...apparently.

I think that spirit/soul consciousness is misattribution, same as spirit/soul animating force was, and on top of that it's just as bankrupt as it's -ever- been as an hypothetical explanation for -x-. A placeholder for nothing. This, to my mind, discredits -any- hypothetical.

@ Rhonda Plenty of atheists either believe in spirit or would accept it as a hypothetical explanation. Buddhists and dualists, and even material monists for the purposes of discussion, for example. Exploring spirit, for me, has left me with the opinion that as it's used, -fundamentally-, it's a running argument from ignorance. Nothing more....regardless of any gods or even the existence of spirit. Or, to put it another way, it's no more involved in metabolism (or, imo, consciousness) if it does exist than it is if it doesn't.

[Rhondazvous]

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.

By the same token, someone made dark matter the explanation. As one poster mentioned, the solution might be our misunderstanding of Newtonian physics, which corrected might solve the problem that makes dark matter necessary.