Will Science Ever be able to explain Consciousness?

[Rilles]

First ask yourself, can you think of consciousness? What does it look like? Tell me! 

Then when you have found out what it is and what it looks like then you can start doing experiments.

[purerogue]

Just as Leo said, it is hard to imagine that science will ever be able to explain it, as everything is just concepts, even logic is just concept that you believe makes sense, but there is nothing to make sense of in a sense, road ends there, but who knows. 

[Inliytened1]

@SQAAD negative bro.  

Its experience.  Its being itself.  Cant describe it.

Now science can learn THAT.   Only when enlightenment becomes mainstream which is hundreds of years from now.  Thats when science and spirituality will merge into the new "science"

 

[outlandish]

Science has changed a lot over the years, as has out idea of what science is and can be, and it continues to evolve. What makes science pretty cool is that it doesn't have a fixed doctrine. Fundamentally it's about asking questions and being open to new possibilities to explain reality. Perhaps the science of the future will include a way of understanding consciousness.

 

[thesmileyone]

Science already does somewhat. The big bang occured, everything stemmed from that single point of origin. This is why I don't understand when sciencey people say how can everything be One...everything came FROM one, in scientific terms.

[Highest]

No. Never will anyone ''explain'' consciousness or reality or God, not by looking outside, not by using the mind. Science is within the dream and they still buy into materialism which is like child deception, no chance whatsoever. 

[Truth Addict]

@SQAAD

Not even anyone or anything else can ever explain It, only you can.

[Shin]

Even if it could, there would still be one huge problem,
It needs to be experienced for oneself to understand what it is.

It's just waaaaaay too intimate and experiential to be explained.
Every explanation, no matter how good it is, even if it is grasped, will always be millions miles away from what it actually is.

Forget about understanding what it is, it's a game you can't win

Edited February 1, 2019 by Shin

[tecladocasio]

@SQAAD Science can explain all sort of things , but remember : the explanation is not the thing , and in a relative domain you can explain everything in infinitly different forms 

[Preetom]

Will Science Ever be able to explain Consciousness?

No. The explanation of Consciousness is not in itself Consciousness.

[Shin]

17 hours ago, Preetom said:

Will Science Ever be able to explain Consciousness?

No. The explanation of Consciousness is not in itself Consciousness.

This sentence is not properly written.

[Preetom]

1 minute ago, Shin said:

This sentence is not properly written.

[Shin]

16 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Don't worry, I'm french,

My english skill sucking is superior to yours.

I am superior ?

[tecladocasio]

On 22/01/2019 at 11:07 PM, Serotoninluv said:

it's all a game of relativity

@Serotoninluv Point me something that is not a game of relativity ? You don't like the game of relativity ? Okay , you don't like life .

[Aaron p]

I'm so confused...how can you guys talk about consciousness when there is only my consciousness?????? Your all in my consciousness. Your consciousness doesn't exist. Wtf

[Preetom]

7 hours ago, Aaron p said:

I'm so confused...how can you guys talk about consciousness when there is only my consciousness?????? Your all in my consciousness. Your consciousness doesn't exist. Wtf

Notice how you framed this.

A confusion is here because you are still seeing a distinction between us and ''your consciousness''.

As long as there is consciousness ''of something'', so long this nagging paradox will seem unresolvable.

Notice that there is no 'something' you can separate out and point towards. 

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Preetom

[Preetom]

On 1/23/2019 at 3:22 PM, Leo Gura said:

Adam and Eve partook of the devil's Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and here we are.

Contemplate

They consciously/unconsciously separated themselves out as individual subjects and thus started to know a distinct object for the first time. That was the first fall.

Adam and Eve are literally the parents of all egos aka objective knowledge!

Mind=blown 

8 hours ago, Shin said:

Don't worry, I'm french,

My english skill sucking is superior to yours.

I am superior ?

Edited February 4, 2019 by Preetom

[thesmileyone]

Logic is of the mind and the mind is of form and form cannot fully understand formless, which is Consciousness.

[luckieluuke]

I feel like science is similar to that part of self inquiry when you ask yourself, Am I my body? : no....Am I my feelings? : no....Am I my thoughts? : no....am I....
Current science will keep asking: what is the smallest building block of the universe? how does material stuff exist? Science has been obsessed by this question in a similar way that I as a person am obsessed with "who/what am i?"
I don´t think science is as blind to it´s own illusion as one might think cause it keeps asking these question and with quantum mechanics science understand that it´s not what it thought it was.
When science has emptied it questions it will realize that itself does not exist, science does not exist, reality exists. Then science can start the journey of answering what is science and well be on track!   

[outlandish]

I agree that science isn't so blind to it's own illusion/limitations.

Most of the discussion on this thread is built on the presumption that science is a static philosophy based solely on logical reasoning and what is measurable/observable in the "objective" world. However, this has not always been the case, nor will it always necessarily be the case.

I just read a fantastic book called "What is Real" by Adam Becker https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35604796-what-is-real - a fascinating look at the history of quantum physics and it's impact on modern science. It touches a lot on the topic of what we know, how we know, how science proceeds, and how our conception of science has changed even just over the last century. One of the points in the book was that it's a fallacy that science is purely logical and based only on measurement and observation, despite the hype. There is an interesting interplay between creativity and what we decide to try to measure, then how we choose to interpret it, and how this guides the next iteration of investigation.

Consciousness is no longer the taboo topic in science that it once was. "The hard problem of consciousness" is a long way from being solved, but many scientists are looking at it, and if progress is made in answering this question, the whole idea of what science is will surely need to shift.