Angry Christians

[Guest Guest]

"It's not a theory. It's a fact. There are no known conscious entities that have no organic brain. "

How do yo know?

Here are a few links.

From Science Daily in 2009

Bears, et. ano., Cognition, Brain and Consciousness

Bob, Brain, Mind and Consciousness

Grossenbacher, Finding Consciousness in the Brain

Koch and Greenfield, “How Does Consciousness Happen?”

Edited March 28, 2014 by KOTW
Links updated

[Guest Guest]

Here are some of Einstein’s many comments about his views on God.

[Guest Guest]

"Only a maniac would design a universe, and living beings, this way if he was omnipotent."

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

OK, I get it. If a great physicist uses the word "God," that proves that there is a God. Even if he didn't mean "God" the way you mean "God." All he was saying is that he didn't accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Great though he was, Einstein was proved wrong in 1964, when John Stewart Bell demonstrated what is now known as Bell's theorem, also known as Bell's inequality.

Of course, if most of the world's physicists don't believe in "God," that doesn't count. Really, if you want the truth, you have to do more than read some carefully selected quotations, taken out of context to promote the agenda of a theistic organization - or any organization for that matter. Einstein himself said many times that "believers" were lying about his beliefs to get people to think he agreed with them. The least you could do is read the many other things he wrote and said. The people who run around Kearny telling everyone who Christian they are wouldn't like it - which probably is why they never talk about that part.

Einstein described himself as an agnostic and a humanist. His closest religious affiliation was with Ethical Culture. Hmmm . . . Ethical Culture . . . wasn’t someone from Kearny affiliated there? Using Einstein to argue for the existence of a supreme being in a topic about angry Christians in Kearny – now that's funny!

[Guest Guest]

All you do is contradict yourself! Was there a designer or not? You can't have it both ways!!! And stop trying to dazzle us with your brilliance and answer the facking question!!!

I haven't commented one way or the other about it, so I can hardly have contradicted myself on the point. All I've done is explain that Einstein's views on God, religion and the origins of matter and the universe were more sophisticated than you seem to think, which is not surprising considering how brilliant he was. I'm very sorry that his sophistication frustrates you but if you really want to know his views on these subjects, don't waste your time arguing with someone on a town forum; instead, read Einstein's many writings on the subjects, including his books Ideas and Opinions and The World As I See It, and various of his correspondences where he commented on these subjects.

As for how I write: this is how I write. I'm no Einstein but don't be upset with me if you don't understand it.

[Guest Guest]

You really have no clue! I'm sorry and don't mean to be condescending but your beliefs about consciousness at the end of the day will be about as accurate as the theory that the Earth is flat!!!

OK, if consciousness does not come from the organic brain, then where does it come from?

[Guest Guest]

Do you quote your sources? Ummmmm nope think not!!!

Here is a brief list of Einstein’s comments on the subjects at hand. Here is an analysis of a letter in which he wrote that the “word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible, a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” In one letter, he wrote to a Jesuit priest who had written to him, that “from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and always have been an atheist.” Here is an article on Einstein as a secular humanistic Jew. In “The Human Side,” many of Einstein’s observations are collected, including his statement that he could not conceive of a god who would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.

If you’re so fascinated with Einstein, instead of arguing with me, read what he wrote. He left an extensive body of writings. But warning: you won't understand them if you approach them with your own pre-set agenda - unless your agenda is to understand him better.

Edited March 29, 2014 by KOTW
Updated links.

[Guest Guest]

All you do is contradict yourself! Was there a designer or not? You can't have it both ways!!! And stop trying to dazzle us with your brilliance and answer the facking question!!!

When you're in over your head, get out of the water.

[Guest Guest]

You really have no clue! I'm sorry and don't mean to be condescending but your beliefs about consciousness at the end of the day will be about as accurate as the theory that the Earth is flat!!!

If you would think about what you're reading before jumping straight to attack mode, you might realize that the statement was that all KNOWN conscious entities have a material (organic) brain. Speculating about what may or may not be discovered in the future does not change the state of our knowledge today. So unless you have a counterexample, the point is entirely obvious.

[Guest Guest]

That my misguided friend is your interpretation! And from what I've read and researched about Einstein you couldn't be more wrong! And as soon you quote all your sources so will I! I'm sorry ,you have not presented an original thought in this whole thread you are just regurgitating the info your Daddy has fed you Matt ! Sad for a supposedly smart young boy you have never thought for yourself! And don't try to argue we know its you!!!

After all these years, his footprints on your hiney still haven't gone away.

[Guest Guest]

That my misguided friend is your interpretation! And from what I've read and researched about Einstein you couldn't be more wrong! And as soon you quote all your sources so will I! I'm sorry ,you have not presented an original thought in this whole thread you are just regurgitating the info your Daddy has fed you Matt ! Sad for a supposedly smart young boy you have never thought for yourself! And don't try to argue we know its you!!!

Years ago, a friend of mine became convinced that the government had planted electrodes in her head. Her life hadn't worked out very well, and she had to have an explanation. She wasn't wiling to face the fact that her own poor choices were the explanation, so she had to make something else be the explanation.

When you get too close to the truth about some people's beliefs, they'll do anything to deflect attention somewhere else. It's amazing how one kid managed to shake people up so much.

[Guest Guest]

Because we know what produces consciousness. It's a product of the components of the organic brain, like neurons and synapses. We now have real-time MRIs that can measure activity in the brain as it processes information. Researchers can correlate that activity with specific emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc. I've read quite a bit on the subject and suggest you do the same. It isn't a matter of any controversy, and frankly, I'm surprised you would choose to argue about this. Everybody knows that consciousness comes from the brain. See also posts 54 and 55.

No we don't! And you have proven nothing!

[Guest Guest]

"Everybody knows that consciousness comes from the brain. See also posts 54 and 55."

Yes and at one time everybody knew that the world was flat and was the center of the universe!

[Guest Guest]

You really have no clue! I'm sorry and don't mean to be condescending but your beliefs about consciousness at the end of the day will be about as accurate as the theory that the Earth is flat!!!

And who knows, maybe one day scientists will prove that the Earth is flat after all. Slip through a few wormholes, and practically anything is conceivable, which is not to say that it's possible. Point is, society can't function by ignoring all the evidence - like the material foundations of consciousness - and live by speculations fueled solely by a desire to believe that one thing or another is true. Scientists recognize that their truths are all provisional, that is, subject to being changed or overthrown by new discoveries. That does not mean that science can proceed by believing whatever we wish to believe. Which is all you're doing. You're never going to provide any reliable links to support your views. There aren't any.

[Guest Guest]

How do you know! So your saying nowhere in the cosmos is a consciousness without a physically constructed brain that consists of what we believe to be matter? Prove to me no consciousness outside of your narrow minded concept exists! Try as you may you can't!!!

Your demand is illogical, demanding proof of a negative. The statement was that all known conscious entities have an organic brain. That statement is true and requires no further proof. Rather, it is for you to provide a counterexample to disprove the statement as a categorical.

I don't care whether you support your petulant demands with references or not. I've kept abreast of the developments in the neurosciences, so I know what's out there. You won't support your argument with credible references because you can't. There'll always be a few crackpots, like Michael Behe in evolution, who are willing to prostitute themselves professionally to promote a point of view outside their discipline, be it religious, political, corporate or whatever. But they've never made any contribution to science or our understanding of things.

You can live in another world if you so choose. I choose to live in the world that is, where scientists study, research and advance our fund of knowledge. They are the ones who have advanced the human condition. Continued progress demands on an informed and well-educated citizenry that understands and supports science. Regrettably, you do not appear to fit into that category.

[Guest Guest]

How do you know! So your saying nowhere in the cosmos is a consciousness without a physically constructed brain that consists of what we believe to be matter? Prove to me no consciousness outside of your narrow minded concept exists! Try as you may you can't!!!

That's like a three-year-old whose big sister points to a plane overhead and says "Look, grandma's in that plane and she's waving to us." You can be forgiven for falling for that when you're three years old. What's your excuse?

[Guest Guest]

Sometimes people in science can be too narrow. They work every day with what is known at the time but sometimes they overlook things on the cutting edge.

People in religion can be too narrow too. Just because you say "you can't prove that there isn't a designer" doesn't mean you have an open mind. Many people who say things like that have an open mind only about that one thing, which is not an open mind at all. Just the opposite, they've made up their minds and will use any excuse not to change them.

For me, and I think for both science and religion, the best approach is to keep my mind open about everything but at the same time recognize that I have to choose what to focus on and where to spend my time and energy. It's why I don't agree with a lot of the guesswork that comes out of religion. Very often, things are presented as being controversial when the only controversy is the one they create. Some people want to look at things in a certain way. That's OK if it leads to something useful but too many of the things that come from religion don't do that.

[Guest Guest]

"Everybody knows that consciousness comes from the brain. See also posts 54 and 55."

Yes and at one time everybody knew that the world was flat and was the center of the universe!

You don't get it. Science and knowledge are as much about methods as they are about any current answers. The point is that ALL the evidence we have about consciousness demonstrates that it is a product of an organic brain. Finally, after several days and maybe a couple dozen posts, someone who doesn't like the fact finally admitted that it was true anyway.

If we are to learn anything, and advance, then we must take the available evidence as our guide, not mere wishes that something be so.

[Guest Guest]

No we don't! And you have proven nothing!

OK, you don't know that consciousness comes from the brain. Do you expect a medal for ignorance?

[Guest Guest]

How do you know! So your saying nowhere in the cosmos is a consciousness without a physically constructed brain that consists of what we believe to be matter? Prove to me no consciousness outside of your narrow minded concept exists! Try as you may you can't!!!

In the beginning there was only God, pure spirit without a physical body, perfect and complete in every way. And God decided to create a physical universe, and then man and other creatures. So God said "Bang!" and made a physical universe, so that man's consciousness could reside within a protective covering of bone. And in this physical world, men and women could fight each other, since they had to nourish and clothe their bodies to keep fed and warm. And the men and women fought and argued and bickered, and sometimes killed each other for the physical treasures God had created, including each other. But many lived until their physical bodies wore out and they died. And God said, "it is good, certainly an improvement over Myself who is of the spirit only. I think I'll create a few billion of them."

[Guest Guest]

And as soon you quote all your sources so will I.

No you won't. I've seen this a thousand times. You don't understand your own psychology but it's plain as day to anyone who is well-informed. You're not interested in the truth. You're interested in being told that you're right. So you defend your beliefs by putting up walls. But they are not walls of information or reason. They're walls of deflection. And you'll say anything to defend what you already believe. You'll demand 100% proof positive from anyone who challenges your views but nothing of yourself. And when the scientific community agrees on something, you'll accept it as true if it supports your views and dismiss it if it doesn't. The result is that you ignore a mountain of evidence and side with a wish. Because reason and evidence are not the organizing principle of how you think. Your organizing principle is that if you wish to believe something, you'll say it's true no matter what. This is all plain as day from what you write.

[Guest Guest]

Your demand is illogical, demanding proof of a negative. The statement was that all known conscious entities have an organic brain. That statement is true and requires no further proof. Rather, it is for you to provide a counterexample to disprove the statement as a categorical.

I don't care whether you support your petulant demands with references or not. I've kept abreast of the developments in the neurosciences, so I know what's out there. You won't support your argument with credible references because you can't. There'll always be a few crackpots, like Michael Behe in evolution, who are willing to prostitute themselves professionally to promote a point of view outside their discipline, be it religious, political, corporate or whatever. But they've never made any contribution to science or our understanding of things.

You can live in another world if you so choose. I choose to live in the world that is, where scientists study, research and advance our fund of knowledge. They are the ones who have advanced the human condition. Continued progress demands on an informed and well-educated citizenry that understands and supports science. Regrettably, you do not appear to fit into that category.

Consciousness

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

Quantum Processes

Stuart Hameroff, an anesthetist at the University of Arizona, and Roger Penrose, a mathematician from the University of Cambridge, have raised many of the limitations of the conventional brain based theories above. In particular they argue that the conventional brain based theories cannot fully explain the observed features of 'the self'. They further argue that there are single-celled organisms such as amoeba that, despite lacking brain cells or brain cell connections (synapses) are able to swim, find food, learn and multiply. Hence they suggest that there must be a different mechanism other than the activity of brain cells and their connections with each other that leads to a sense of self.

They propose that perhaps very small protein structures called mictotubules that are found in all cells whether simple single celled organisms such as amoeba (who thus do not have a separate brain) or the most complex organisms such as humans may be what leads to conscious awareness and thoughts - or in other words 'the self'. Furthermore they argue that consciousness is thus not a product of direct brain cell to cell activity, but rather the action of processes occurring in the smallest possible level within the microtubules of brain cells- the subatomic level - where things are even smaller than atoms.

The theory proposed by Hameroff and Penrose however still fails to answer the fundamental question of how subjective experiences and thought processes arise. Some have, however, also argued against their theory by pointing out that microtubules exist in all cells throughout the body and not just in the brain. Also there are drugs that can damage the structure of micotubules but appear to have no effect on consciousness.

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

The history of science is full of examples of situations in which scientists have been confronted with seemingly unsolvable problems using the scientific principles of the time. For example when the British scientist Maxwell first discovered electromagnetic phenomena in the nineteenth century, electromagnetism had to be described as a scientific entity in its own right, as it could not be explained according to known scientific principles. It was many years later that the first radio waves (which are electromagnetic waves) were recorded by the German scientist Hertz and now we have a whole area of science that is based upon them, not to mention numerous devices such as radio, television, microwaves and infrared cameras.

Some scientists have also suggested that consciousness or the self, too, is at present not reducible in terms of currently understood mechanisms of brain cell activity and its true nature may only be discovered when our science progresses further.

The limitations of all the theories mentioned above has thus led to the suggestion that consciousness or the self may in fact be an irreducible scientific entity in its own right, similar to many of the concepts in physics, such as mass and gravity, which have also been irreducible entities. The investigation into consciousness and the self has thus been proposed to be similar to the discovery of electromagnetic phenomena in the nineteenth century or quantum mechanics in the twentieth century, both of which were inexplicable in terms of previously known principles.

Some, such as David Chalmers, have argued that this new irreducible scientific entity is a product of the brain, whereas others have argued that it is an entirely separate entity that is not produced by the brain.

The late Sir John Eccles, a neuroscientist who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1963 for his work on brain cell connections (synapses) and was considered by many to be one of the greatest neuroscientists of the twentieth century, was perhaps the most distinguished scientist who argued in favor of such a separation between mind, consciousness and the brain. He argued that the unity of conscious experience was provided by the mind and not by the machinery of the brain. His view was that the mind itself played an active role in selecting and integrating brain cell activity and molded it into a unified whole. He considered it a mistake to think that the brain did everything and that conscious experiences were simply a reflection of brain activities, which he described as a common philosophical view:

'If that were so, our conscious selves would be no more than passive spectators of the performances carried out by the neuronal machinery of the brain. Our beliefs that we can really make decisions and that we have some control over our actions would be nothing but illusions.'

He further argued that there was 'a combination of two things or entities: our brains on the one hand and our conscious selves on the other'. He thought of the brain as an 'instrument that provides the conscious self or person with the lines of communication from and to the external world, and it does this by receiving information through the immense sensory system of the millions of nerve fibers that fire impulses to the brain, where it is processed into coded patterns of information that we read out from moment to moment in deriving all our experiences-our perceptions, thoughts ideas and memories'.

According to Eccles,

'We as experiencing persons do not slavishly accept all that is provided for us by our instrument, the neuronal machine of our sensory system and the brain, we select from all that is given according to interest and attention and we modify the actions of the brain, through "the self" for example, by initiating some willed movement.'

Eccles' theory has been well described in his book The Self and Its Brain. However, he acknowledged that he was still unable to explain how the mind carried out these activities and how it interacted with a separate brain.

Inspired through the work of his father, the late Ostad Elahi a distinguished philosopher, jurist, and theologian - Bahram Elahi, a well respected professor of surgery and anatomy with a distinguished academic and clinical career has also studied the question of the 'self' for over 40 years. During his work he has applied the same rigor of his scientific background to this subject and concluded that although the mind and the brain are separate - unlike some of the traditional 'dualists' views, consciousness or the self is not immaterial. Rather, it is composed of a very subtle type of matter that, although still undiscovered, is similar in concept to electromagnetic waves, which are capable of carrying sound and pictures and are governed by precise laws, axioms and theorems.

Therefore, in Elahi's view, everything to do with this entity should be regarded as a separate undiscovered scientific discipline and studied in the same objective manner as other scientific disciplines. He argues that as science is a systematic and experimental method of obtaining knowledge of a given domain of reality, then 'consciousness' or the 'self' can and should also be studied with the same objectivity. Each scientific discipline such as chemistry, biology and physics has its own laws, theorems and axioms, and in the same manner the science of 'the self' or the 'soul' should also be studied in the context of its own laws, theorems and axioms. In his view, consciousness is also a scientific entity and a type of 'matter', however it is a substance that is too subtle to be measured using the scientific tools available today. Therefore in his view the brain is an instrument that relays information to and from both the internal and external world, but 'consciousness' or 'the self' is a separate subtle scientific entity that interacts directly with it.

Related Pages

Subatomic Physics

Horizon Research Foundation is a Registered Charity No. 296655 in the UK

[Guest Guest]

"Everybody knows that consciousness comes from the brain. See also posts 54 and 55."

Yes and at one time everybody knew that the world was flat and was the center of the universe!

That statement only proves that you don't understand how science works. And therefore, you don't understand what science is. Science is at least as much about the method as it is about the results. Your comment shows that you do not appreciate the difference.

[Guest Guest]

Consciousness

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

. . .

This lengthy post is lifted verbatim from the website of Horizon Research Foundation, an organization whose central mission is not science but the promotion of views pertaining to consciousness at the end of life. It contains some interesting speculations but that's all they are to date. There is no evidence, for example, that an amoeba is conscious. Everything the amoeba does appears to be a function of its chemistry. If you're going to just lift someone else's writing, you might at least tell us what conclusions you draw from them.

The self is not the same thing as consciousness. The two concepts address different sets of questions. However, there is no evidence that an amoeba has a sense of self either.

Another question addressed in the essay is whether scientists have fully explained consciousness. Of course they haven't but that does not mean that we don't have a database of knowledge about where consciousness comes from.

And even assuming that we find out someday that amoebas are conscious, the amoeba still is a physical organism. Such a discovery, which is entirely in the realm of science fiction at present, would still leave us without evidence of even one conscious entity whose consciousness did not arise from matter. By extension, the idea of a supreme being existing before matter did still flies in the face of everything we know about science, even if we extend science far enough to encompass Hameroff and other proponents of non-conventional scientific hypotheses. (They're not theories until they have evidence to support them.) Hint: the term "non-conventional" has a meaning and a significance.

[Guest Guest]

Consciousness

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

Quantum Processes

Stuart Hameroff, an anesthetist at the University of Arizona, and Roger Penrose, a mathematician from the University of Cambridge, have raised many of the limitations of the conventional brain based theories above. In particular they argue that the conventional brain based theories cannot fully explain the observed features of 'the self'. They further argue that there are single-celled organisms such as amoeba that, despite lacking brain cells or brain cell connections (synapses) are able to swim, find food, learn and multiply. Hence they suggest that there must be a different mechanism other than the activity of brain cells and their connections with each other that leads to a sense of self.

They propose that perhaps very small protein structures called mictotubules that are found in all cells whether simple single celled organisms such as amoeba (who thus do not have a separate brain) or the most complex organisms such as humans may be what leads to conscious awareness and thoughts - or in other words 'the self'. Furthermore they argue that consciousness is thus not a product of direct brain cell to cell activity, but rather the action of processes occurring in the smallest possible level within the microtubules of brain cells- the subatomic level - where things are even smaller than atoms.

The theory proposed by Hameroff and Penrose however still fails to answer the fundamental question of how subjective experiences and thought processes arise. Some have, however, also argued against their theory by pointing out that microtubules exist in all cells throughout the body and not just in the brain. Also there are drugs that can damage the structure of micotubules but appear to have no effect on consciousness.

Non-Conventional Theories of Consciousness

The history of science is full of examples of situations in which scientists have been confronted with seemingly unsolvable problems using the scientific principles of the time. For example when the British scientist Maxwell first discovered electromagnetic phenomena in the nineteenth century, electromagnetism had to be described as a scientific entity in its own right, as it could not be explained according to known scientific principles. It was many years later that the first radio waves (which are electromagnetic waves) were recorded by the German scientist Hertz and now we have a whole area of science that is based upon them, not to mention numerous devices such as radio, television, microwaves and infrared cameras.

Some scientists have also suggested that consciousness or the self, too, is at present not reducible in terms of currently understood mechanisms of brain cell activity and its true nature may only be discovered when our science progresses further.

The limitations of all the theories mentioned above has thus led to the suggestion that consciousness or the self may in fact be an irreducible scientific entity in its own right, similar to many of the concepts in physics, such as mass and gravity, which have also been irreducible entities. The investigation into consciousness and the self has thus been proposed to be similar to the discovery of electromagnetic phenomena in the nineteenth century or quantum mechanics in the twentieth century, both of which were inexplicable in terms of previously known principles.

Some, such as David Chalmers, have argued that this new irreducible scientific entity is a product of the brain, whereas others have argued that it is an entirely separate entity that is not produced by the brain.

The late Sir John Eccles, a neuroscientist who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1963 for his work on brain cell connections (synapses) and was considered by many to be one of the greatest neuroscientists of the twentieth century, was perhaps the most distinguished scientist who argued in favor of such a separation between mind, consciousness and the brain. He argued that the unity of conscious experience was provided by the mind and not by the machinery of the brain. His view was that the mind itself played an active role in selecting and integrating brain cell activity and molded it into a unified whole. He considered it a mistake to think that the brain did everything and that conscious experiences were simply a reflection of brain activities, which he described as a common philosophical view:

'If that were so, our conscious selves would be no more than passive spectators of the performances carried out by the neuronal machinery of the brain. Our beliefs that we can really make decisions and that we have some control over our actions would be nothing but illusions.'

He further argued that there was 'a combination of two things or entities: our brains on the one hand and our conscious selves on the other'. He thought of the brain as an 'instrument that provides the conscious self or person with the lines of communication from and to the external world, and it does this by receiving information through the immense sensory system of the millions of nerve fibers that fire impulses to the brain, where it is processed into coded patterns of information that we read out from moment to moment in deriving all our experiences-our perceptions, thoughts ideas and memories'.

According to Eccles,

'We as experiencing persons do not slavishly accept all that is provided for us by our instrument, the neuronal machine of our sensory system and the brain, we select from all that is given according to interest and attention and we modify the actions of the brain, through "the self" for example, by initiating some willed movement.'

Eccles' theory has been well described in his book The Self and Its Brain. However, he acknowledged that he was still unable to explain how the mind carried out these activities and how it interacted with a separate brain.

Inspired through the work of his father, the late Ostad Elahi a distinguished philosopher, jurist, and theologian - Bahram Elahi, a well respected professor of surgery and anatomy with a distinguished academic and clinical career has also studied the question of the 'self' for over 40 years. During his work he has applied the same rigor of his scientific background to this subject and concluded that although the mind and the brain are separate - unlike some of the traditional 'dualists' views, consciousness or the self is not immaterial. Rather, it is composed of a very subtle type of matter that, although still undiscovered, is similar in concept to electromagnetic waves, which are capable of carrying sound and pictures and are governed by precise laws, axioms and theorems.

Therefore, in Elahi's view, everything to do with this entity should be regarded as a separate undiscovered scientific discipline and studied in the same objective manner as other scientific disciplines. He argues that as science is a systematic and experimental method of obtaining knowledge of a given domain of reality, then 'consciousness' or the 'self' can and should also be studied with the same objectivity. Each scientific discipline such as chemistry, biology and physics has its own laws, theorems and axioms, and in the same manner the science of 'the self' or the 'soul' should also be studied in the context of its own laws, theorems and axioms. In his view, consciousness is also a scientific entity and a type of 'matter', however it is a substance that is too subtle to be measured using the scientific tools available today. Therefore in his view the brain is an instrument that relays information to and from both the internal and external world, but 'consciousness' or 'the self' is a separate subtle scientific entity that interacts directly with it.

Related Pages

Subatomic Physics

Horizon Research Foundation is a Registered Charity No. 296655 in the UK

The argument made by Penrose and Hameroff is not accepted by their colleagues. It’s still entirely speculative, and may always remain so. As one of their colleagues writes, their argument “is no better supported than any one of a gazillion caterpillar-with-hookah hypotheses.” (See the previous link.)

Penrose proposes a computational model of the mind, a minority view within his field of expertise. He does not deny the physical foundations of consciousness. He makes that clear on page 12 of his book Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, where he writes that such a denial “is the viewpoint of the mystic,” to which he does not subscribe.

Penrose’s views on this subject, like the man himself, are complicated, as one might expect of someone of his intelligence. However, those who would argue for God as a conscious entity pre-dating matter can find no solace in Penrose, who is a self-described atheist and a supporter of the British Humanist Association.

If you’re going to try to match someone else’s writing: (1) make sure you understand what you’re putting out there, and (2) don’t just lift an entire section from someone else’s writing, especially if you don’t understand it.

[Guest Guest]

That statement only proves that you don't understand how science works. And therefore, you don't understand what science is. Science is at least as much about the method as it is about the results. Your comment shows that you do not appreciate the difference.

Read post 94! It is your own arrogance that will not let you open your mind!