Before coming to Berkeley in 2003, Alva taught in the department of philosophy at UC Santa Cruz. He received a PhD in philosophy from Harvard University in 1995; he has a BA from Columbia (1986) and a BPhil from Oxford Universiy (1986). He has been a fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (2007-2008). He is a research associate of the CNRS laboratory Institut Jean-Nicod in Paris. In the spring of 2003 he was a fellow of the Oxford Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience and in the 1995-1996 academic year he was a research fellow of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

QuoteIn fact, it is almost universally accepted in modern neuroscience that the human mind does not appear a priori. Next.

.
Perhaps they are on the wrong track as that is why they do not have the answers. Remember the world is flat.

So quantum mechanics implies that consciousness may play a crucial role in the formation and evolution of the universe as we know it  But most researches in psychology an brain science regard consciousness as nothing more than an emergent property of the brain, with no significance for the universe at large. The fundamental assumptions about the nature of the mind according to modern science are largely rooted in the mechanistic worldview of classical physics that dominated the late nineteenth century. And even today students are not required to study 20 th century physics.

Many scientific studies indicate that mental phenomena influence brain function. However  subjectively experienced mental phenomena lack any physical characteristics and cannot be detected with any of the physical instruments of technology, even though many specific brain functions have been identified that causally contribute to the generation of mental processes.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 08, 2009, 02:59:28 PM
[...]
So quantum mechanics implies that consciousness may play a crucial role in the formation and evolution of the universe as we know it  But most researches in psychology an brain science regard consciousness as nothing more than an emergent property of the brain, with no significance for the universe at large. The fundamental assumptions about the nature of the mind according to modern science are largely rooted in the mechanistic worldview of classical physics that dominated the late nineteenth century. And even today students are not required to study 20 th century physics.

No, quantum mechanics implies no such thing (feel free to cite a peer reviewed paper that does, in case I've missed one).  You are completely correct that there are a number of dualist, materialist, neutral monist (etc.) theories of consciousness out there and yes, many materialists do lean towards emergence.   There are some (optimistic) theories that suggest QM might help with the explanatory gap but there's no credible theory of anything more.

Quote
Many scientific studies indicate that mental phenomena influence brain function.

No they don't - for precisely the same reasons you (and I) have just given which is that we haven't confidently proven whether consciousness is or is not simply a brain function.  There are theories, yes - but very little evidence so far.  Part of the problem is, as you say:

Quote
However  subjectively experienced mental phenomena lack any physical characteristics and cannot be detected with any of the physical instruments of technology, even though many specific brain functions have been identified that causally contribute to the generation of mental processes.

The problem, as dualists love to point out, is the epistemological gap that is inherent when dealing with purely subjective phenomena (see Chalmers).  Materialism cannot completely explain the subjective phenomena because, like all science, it's based on evidential, objective study.  The contradiction is obvious and some philosophers claim this makes a materialist explanation impossible.

However, dualism has a similar explanatory gap, because it assumes properties that are non-physical (by definition, if they are outside a physicalist explanation) yet none of these theories can give a rational explanation of origin.  Personally I suspect that this is another example of the human tendency to plug gaps in knowledge with fantasy (see religion, conspiracy theories, etc.) but of course that's nothing more than my opinion

Pretty much every idea you can think of gets aired over the Journal of Consciousness Science mailing list (sometimes with some very credible, well researched suggestions) - if you really want to throw your hat into this knotty debate, subscribe!    You're welcome to have a browse through my articles on consciousness too, if you fancy a chewy debate

Quote from: lisagurl on July 08, 2009, 02:59:28 PM
Before coming to Berkeley in 2003, Alva taught...

He's a philosopher, not a scientist.

QuotePerhaps they are on the wrong track as that is why they do not have the answers.

Oh, so yours must be the "right" one. Scientific advancement is slow, but it gets results. Your philosopher seems to like talking about dancing. By the way, I just recently spent three straight days breakdancing at the state's Independence Day festivities. It was quite a thrill.

QuoteRemember the world is flat.

The world, if you are referring to the planet Earth, seems to be an oblate spheroid.

QuoteThe fundamental assumptions about the nature of the mind according to modern science are largely rooted in the mechanistic worldview of classical physics that dominated the late nineteenth century.

Umm...you haven't studied this subject very deeply, have you?

Quotegap that is inherent when dealing with purely subjective phenomena

All objective science was created by subjective phenomena.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 08, 2009, 05:35:54 PM
All objective science was created by subjective phenomena.

*plonk*

Quote from: lisagurl on July 08, 2009, 05:35:54 PM
All objective science was created by subjective phenomena.

You don't even know how to apply phenomenology. Quit being pretentious, and stick to the subject.

I kinda think that Lisa is right, the original notion of what is, or is not, worth noting or studying is, in fact, subjective.

Quote from: heatherrose on July 09, 2009, 01:00:30 AM
Why does that phase bring to mind a news story from a while back,
about Japanese scientist who had developed a process to recycle food,
ya I said recycle.

Is that recycling food that's been discarded (i.e. plate scrapings) or food that's already been through somebodies intestines?

Empirical measurement only measures the objective physical world. Things like the placebo effect tells us there is more to life than just empirical measurement. Perhaps science should should look at the effect of synthetic food on subjective mental thought.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

Guess you're not going up to the space station, 'cause guess what the source for their fresh water now is?

Quote from: lisagurl on July 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM
Empirical measurement only measures the objective physical world.

Yeah, we have the objective, physical world, and we have this magical fantasy world that you made up for the benefit of your political agenda. Can your pretentious gobbledy-gook, and stick to the point. You are being deliberately evasive. You are dishonorable.

QuoteThings like the placebo effect...

...have been studied empirically, and this effect in particular is actually fairly well-understood.

At this point, Lisa, you are, to quote our President, "making stuff up." You are a fraud, Lisa. Own up.

Knowing something, like the placebo effect, is not the same as understanding - and though we might know and understand enough to get it to work at times, that is still not knowing how it really works on a mechanical level, which we don't understand. 

QuoteAt this point, Lisa, you are, to quote our President, "making stuff up." You are a fraud, Lisa. Own up.

When I said the world is flat I was referring to the lack of looking to the future and answers that are not in the majority's belief. Every new step comes from stepping into the unknown. If you do what you always done you get what you always got. You can call me names and mock critical thinking but it will not get you any further in understanding . I propose ideas and thoughts to think about. I will eat as little synthetic food as possible and continue to research and think about issues that are not clear and absolute.

I am past having to have a career or worry about working. My education was questioned by me which has put me in a unique place in this mass society of mass beliefs. Follow your path that is well worn, but the best of life is off the path.

Quote from: lisagurl on July 09, 2009, 10:30:12 AM
Empirical measurement only measures the objective physical world. Things like the placebo effect tells us there is more to life than just empirical measurement. Perhaps science should should look at the effect of synthetic food on subjective mental thought.

The problem with going down the path of things outside the physical world affecting things in the physical world is the explanatory gap of interaction - don't forget that non-physical doesn't mean intangible, a magnetic field is still part of the physical world.  Non-physical means *outside physics*  so a credible dualist theory of things being outside the physical world and still having an effect has got one huge explanatory gap.

What I personally cannot fathom is why, if there is something we don't fully understand (and the placebo effect is just one of a great many), some people seem to positively gallop into the supernatural with absolutely nothing more than a fantasy to go on.  This is really just a god of the gaps argument in a different guise - "science cannot explain 'x' ergo god/gaia/woo/whatever did it".

There's nothing wrong with not knowing something and striving to figure it out - that seems a far more rational approach than making utterly groundless assertions of the supernatural.

Quote from: heatherrose on July 09, 2009, 12:13:22 PM
They won't give me my deposit back
[...]

Sure they will, with onion gravy and mashed potato by the sounds of it

Nice tasty "deposit" anyone? hehe