Why science failed to define consciousness?
489534
Think about it: how does living tissue that works on electrical and chemical impulses create a consciousness?  How does it create images and thoughts?  It is truly a miracle.  \n\nMy bet is science will never be able to fully answer or explain consciousness.  If you are a person of faith, I think God is the only way to explain such a thing.
380291
We have absolutely no idea what the biological mechanism is, where the seat of conciousness is, not what other animals may or may not possess it. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying-We don't even understand the biological basis of simple learning and behaviour, and cannot, from a complete three dimensional diagram of a 1000-neuron worm brain, tell you anything about it's behaviour. We are as close to understanding the most profound and complex functions of the brain as a monkey is to learning computer programming. I both teach and research in this area, and I guarantee you that we are still at the most basic level of understanding brain function.
967928
You know something, you are very uninformed. For you information:\n\nMost scientists believe in some sort of creator or deity. There is a simple explanation for this, and that is science can incorporate the idea of the supernatural since there are places that science cannot go.\n\nThe creation of the universe is one of them. Science can explain all the way back to 10^-43 seconds, but before that there is no explanation, there is only the unknown that is just as well explained as God as any other theory. So God and science are not at odds here, as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking would agree\n\nSpeaking of my great, great, uncle, several times removed Albert Einstein, he is quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the universe." What he meant by this was a repudiation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, because to Albert the universe was a beautifully ordered and created place, created by God.\n\nSome scientist see God in randomness (Heisenberg). Others see it in harmonies of patterns and chaos (Glick and Mandelbrot). Even Darwin still credited God for creating the universe, though he sought scientific explanations for the evolution of species.\n\nThese men were/are fervent men with fervent beliefs. The fact that they deal in science in no way impedes their beliefs in God.\n\nNow, that being said, what you believe God did or does may not be the same thing that these men believe, maybe because they understand Gods universe better, maybe because they are more open minded than to narrow their vision to a few hundred pages of a book, a book that is interpreted many different ways so that who knows which version is right, if any. But when it comes down to it, they believe in God in one form or another, and maybe their views are more enlightened than most.\n\nYou can count me with them, by the way, as I take a more scientific view of the world. I am Deist, what that means is I believe in God as a first cause. I believe that God set the beautifully intricate stage, that we are still trying to understand, and let it be, to run the way it will, a universe of detail ever unfolding.\n\nBTW I gave you a thumbs up on the question, because while it was indelicate, it was thought provoking and deserved an answer, even if it was mostly my opinion.
1180706
I think we, as humans with limited brain capacity, have to think of things in terms that we can understand. Instead of space being this infinite area, we put a shape to it, a circle.\n\nMy thought is that space truly goes on forever, and does not have a true shape.
117658
Interesting. The brain is a bundle of neurons, but it has no "feeling" itself.  An electrode inserted into the brain is painless.
2717
if he has no consciousness how does he create everything you see around you?\nThat doesn't make much sense. Perhaps he has a consciousness but not in the sense of it being in our interests. \nLike for example we think the whole idea of God revolves around us humans. Perhaps it isn't so shallow and larger than that.\nThen again, if what you said were to be true, I suppose we would be in big trouble.
458400
I wrote an Essay to define "What is Truth?" and "Why did God create man?" In order to do that, I had to define the terms you are seeking: the ability to store knowledge, process it, and act on it. Only the first two or three pages relate directly to your question, but I think you will be interested in the entirety of it.\n\nEssay\nWe must distinguish between “knowing” and having information. “Knowing” is having direct experience of reality, while “being informed,” is having definitions, descriptions, names and narratives. Knowing vs. being informed are direct antagonists of each other. Knowing is a process that begins in the visual processing of the right side of the brain and culminates in the unification of reality and the two brain hemispheres, while becoming informed takes place in the left side of the brain and culminates in the total separation of reality and the two hemispheres of the brain.\n\nThe left side of the brain breaks up the world into finite components and time sequences, and the other, the right side of the brain, focuses on the unity of things in the world. The left hemisphere is the intellectual, syllogistic logical faculty that we measure through IQ tests, which excels in communicating finite concrete ideas, in addition to the definitions and descriptions that makes up the technological processes (chemistry, mathematics).\n\nBut not everything in the world fits neatly into definitions, descriptions and linear logic. Therein lies the problem with predominantly left-brained people, and Western civilization in general, who try to use this faculty to communicate all realities. This problem is compounded by the ingrained belief of most people that information is knowledge. And worse when we try to understand ourselves.\n\n“Know thyself,” they say. But what is real? What is the truth? \n\nWe perceive the world through our faculty of consciousness, i.e., we perceive thoughts, feelings, physical forces and objects through our consciousness. But consciousness exists apart from the things we are conscious of. We are aware of thoughts and feelings, but these were not generated “consciously.” Neither is consciousness an entity (as is usually taught).\n\nWe are also taught that “will” is a separate entity, but it is not, neither separate nor an entity. Consciousness and the will are opposite polarities (passive and active) of the same function. They are not really separate. They\nare two parts of the same thing, so I shall heretofore refer to them as “consciousness/will,” or simply “C/W.” As two parts of the same thing, they act in concert together. But the will also exists apart from the functions it sanctions, initiates, selects, controls, or suppresses.\n\nWe have verbal and graphic thoughts, but we also have a “thought generator, that throws thoughts into the sphere of consciousness, but functions outside and independent of the will. This is the mind.\n\nWe also have feelings, emotions and sensations, but also a “feelings generator” (incorrectly labeled as our soul). The generator of thoughts, emotions, and sensations is one and the same. But we have no perception of its existence and activity. Something (this thing) is working outside our sphere of consciousness that is guiding our physiological, mental, sensual, and emotional functions. This hidden, subconscious, or unconscious agent is called the spirit, the psyche, or soul.\n\nMost people describe themselves with their habitual pattern of thought and emotional responses to events. And too, most people identify themselves as the thought generator (their minds) and its contents (their beliefs).\n\nThis misunderstanding is responsible for the impossibility to “Know thyself.” I have already described a hidden aspect of our selves which we share with God. Our soul or spirit is intended to be shared by God, and carries a designed and specific function. \n\nThe consciousness/will, or C/W, are the indicator
975938
Consciousness refers to the fully waking state of the body and mind.  There is also the psychological definition of consciousness.\n\nI am more Freudian than Jungian and do not believe in the collective unconscious.  There is a reason why noone has ever found proof of this mythical symbolism.  It doesn't follow through logically and testing does not support its existence.  Why would we study history if we knew everything that happened before?\n\nI do like surrealism, though, and have learned a lot about life as a metaphor through the paintings of Salvador Dali.
217329
OK, this is the Physics section, but your question is more a philosophical one, so let me try to answer in a philosophical way. Every time we speak about "the universe" we are easily engulfed into paradoxes, because the subject itself is ill-defined. You can't apply to the whole universe concepts and procedures that are defined and thus applicable only *inside* it. Like "measure", "big" and "small".\nAs the great Argentinian author Jorge Luis Borges once wrote, "There is no classification of the universe not being arbitrary and conjectural. The reason is that we do not know what the universe is".
86107
Unfortunately, there's no easy answer there.  Simply put, a dream is where you become conscious of some activity in the brain that occurs seemingly randomly in the brain while the normal mechanisms that make your conscious reality--both actions and perceptions--are disabled (partially of completely).\n\nThe problem with finding a good scientific answer is that the dream is by definition subjective rather than objective. Science might try to localize where certain brain functions occur in the brain, and they might be able to show what parts of the brain correlate to conscious perception, but they can't -explain- consciousness per se.  Consciousness is subjective, and science is objective.
376370
A gruesome over-simplification of both science and religion.\n\nScience admits the existence of circumstances required for life to begin on this planet were very specific.  The "systems" you speak of were in place (i.e. the nature of the things that were on this planet that dictate how those thing interact.)\n\nChristianity allows for another type of "accident" (if you'll allow me to use such a term).  The "system" is free-will that God allows us in our lives.\n\nTrying to discredit either religion or science (or any other "system") on over-simplified generalizations and semantics is easy enough, but not thorough enough to be valid.
80037
That's a philosophical question.  In fact, it's probably one of the top-ten fundamental questions of philosophy that people have been pondering for millenia.  \n\nMy take on it is, it's like asking if a story is a physical object.  The media that it is stored on is certainly physical (a book, a cd, a neural network in a storyteller's mind...) but the story ITSELF is an abstract noun; something much less tangible.  \n\nI would say the same of the mind.  The mind certainly exists on a physical media, but the term "mind" also implies the intangible aspects of a set of neural networks... what it represents and means to that person, and to other people.  Mind is to brain as story is to book.
1005227
Some Philosophers say that thought exists simultaneosly on different dimensional layers, like existences can also exist simultaneously. \nIt could explain time travel, warps where people sometimes slip through, being able to foresee, dream or imagine things.\nThey also say that we cannot think up anything that has not already been thought up.\nWe also only use a minute portion of our brain...less than 5%..one day we will learn how to use the rest and then be able to tap into all the thoughts that are surrounding us.\nI feel that thoughts are drawn from another dimension that is around us and part of us all the time, and we simply send it back.\nWe are part of a huge cosmos that we know so little about.
469682
What you are reffering to is the mind/body problem.\n\nThe question assumes that Consciousness is something that can be purely manifested in either physical matter or simulated in program, these kinds of statements dot not solve the mind-body problem.\n\nIf you consider the concept of a soul than this is a better model for consciousness. Otherwise one would be forced to except that nerve cells which are made up of atoms can possess an attribute known as consciousness. If that where the case then there is no reason as to why any other atoms can not possess a conscious. Since the laws of Physical state that one atom can not be no different to another atom. This would mean ultimately to except that we have a conscious, we would also have to except that any other objet can also have a consciousness (such as a rock, or toaster) but we now that is not true. Rocks do not feel love, hate or get angry.\n\nIn short, your computer can not have a consciousness, nor can it be “emulated” as it is not a physical phenomenon, rather the physical mind is merely the transmission medium between consciousness and the physical world.\n\nHope that helps\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
237097
I guess your question is--can the existence of spirits be proved by scientific means?\n\nAs per my concept of the soul or spirit (called aatma in Hindi), the soul can only be known by consciousness.  Science deals with nature and things that happen in nature.  The soul is beyond nature; it is neither matter nor energy; it is consciousness and existence together.  When it is in the body, the body goes through a set of physical/chemical changes called life; when it is gone, the body does not have 'life'.  Thus, we can study the body with the help of science, but the soul which is not in the domain of science cannot be studied with the help of it.  The knowledge of the soul is altogether a different field, called metaphysics, and well, there are enough reasons in history and metaphysics to believe in the existence of the soul.  I do believe in spirits.
4829
Mysticism is not a part of science, and is science is not a part of mysticism.  The early sciences, however, had some mysticism.  And, some mysticism has the looks of science.
402674
not the field of science, totally different realms of magisteria.  Science will never have an answer.  Science can only say that near-death experiences can be explained by oxygen loss to the brain.