If everything is all scientific and logical where does consciousness come from?

Why does anything exist?
What does it mean to exist?
(I think therefore I am) does not explain why you are.
Asking "why" presupposes a reason.

Consciousness is spiritual, western sciences are hardcore materialists and can never hope to explain consciousness. Simultaneously, since the study of consciousness is a spiritual undertaking and does not require material advancements of technology like materialistic science does, the answers to consciousness have been around forever, people just don't know where to look in this day and age. Hinduism is a religion entirely built around describing consciousness, Brahman, and how it relates to God. Even if you're not inclined to believe in God yet, there's atheistic schools that merely describe consciousness.

i don't know, you (materialist scientists) are the ones making the claim that there's no immaterial reason

Consciousness is divided into four layers. There is the senses, mind, intellect, and the transcendental state. Consciousness is originally transcendental but these lower forms can cover up this original state Luke diet covers a clear window. Additionally they are hierarchical, so you cannot understand mind by way of senses. Similarly, to fully understand consciousness you cannot use the mind and philosophize your way to the truth of consciousness. That is as nonsensical as using your tongue to understand the mind. The closest words you can put to consciousness is calling it "that which is" but even that doesn't fully describe it as consciousness cannot be limited by concepts like words create.

like dirt covers a clear window*

autocorrect fucked me

I've been reading a lot about Hinduism lately.
I chuckled as I found myself in my room with 3 mirrors: 1 to my left, 1 to my right, and 1 in front.

There's more or less no good reason not to accept Hinduism, or at least Buddhism, as a legitimate science of consciousness. Everything they describe is entirely accurate and can be verified through firsthand experience by anyone, as everyone is conscious obviously. Yet the idea of trying to study consciousness is lost to the west somehow.

I already have my doubts about the foundations of language. What was it like before you learned language as a child. Pure sensation, no cognitive "hand signs" to weave to perform the "jutsu" (Naruto reference lol).

mathematics is probably one of the least materialistic sciences

well I wasn't talking about that
it was a collective you

I had a philosophy class in college.
Our first assignment was to answer "What is Truth?"

>>"that which is"
is the answer I settled on.

the brocollie made me laugh. that is all.

Does it matter? If I answered you that question you would just say "ok, but.... why?". And then, when I answer that question, you say "ok, but.... why?".

In other words, the problem isn't the answer but the nature of human thinking.

...

>I wonder why the scientists ignore this.
I was not aware scientists ignored any of these 3 questions.

As for the third question I am sure the string theoreticians are cooking up 53 new dimensions to show that it was there all the time.

There is also the Heim theory.

...

this thread sucks. stop posting shitty threads

...

without questioning you keep yourself ignorant

I'll go with picrelated.

>
>There's more or less no good reason not to accept Hinduism, or at least Buddhism, as a legitimate science of consciousness. Everything they describe is entirely accurate and can be verified through firsthand experience by anyone, as everyone is conscious obviously. Yet the idea of trying to study consciousness is lost to the west somehow.

Whats their consensus then?

>As for the third question I am sure the string theoreticians are cooking up 53 new dimensions to show that it was there all the time
well why do strings and dimensions exist

Before big band there was ragtime

I'm only responding to this thread because I'm 'mirin your trips.

The end of philosophy, in my opinion, will come if there are no more questions that science cannot answer. As of right now, science cannot answer the question of consciousness and so it is the domain of philosophy. This is not to denigrate philosophy; on the contrary, I think this gives philosophy an even more important role than science in the fact that it decides the course of science to pursue. If you're at least semi-literate, you'll know that science was originally referred to as natural philosophy, and I think that name still fits well. So "everything" is not scientific, at least not yet. There may be a point where we can reduce most everything to science, but that is not today. If you want to explore consciousness, you need to explore both neuroscience and philosophy.

It's hard to give a short consensus as the philosophies of both are so expansive and in depth. Essentially a persons real self is his own consciousness, not his body or his mind. The body is born and dies, but consciousness is eternal as it was never born nor can die. So all that exists in reality in consciousness. Because the individual soul is in ignorance and identifying with his body, he is trapped in a cycle of material existence and suffering as a result. Once you eliminate this false sense of ego and realize your actual self, you no longer suffer and interact with material existence, but simply experience pure consciousness. You attain what is called Moksha and attain the state of consciousness known as Turiya.

Again dry philosophy cannot explain consciousness as you're trying to reach consciousness through means of mind, which is not possible. You have to meditate and practice yoga to understand consciousness, as firsthand experience is required. Now once you have the experience you can boil it down into a philosophy, so you can go top down in this way but not bottom up. Neuroscience will additionally never explain consciousness since it's s material science.

Philosophy is not meant to get you an answer in the sense of an empirical explanation. Philosophy will never "explain" consciousness because it fundamentally cannot offer the type of explanation that will be universally acceptable. Meditation will only offer another subjective explanation, the same as philosophy. In fact most meditative practices are built on some type of Eastern philosophy.

>Implying consciousness is not scientific and logical

how do you explain qualia

Can be explained as being a series of chemical reactions etc inside the brain, just like all other thoughts.

The brain is a complex machine, yet at it's core it is still just that - a machine. To claim otherwise requires an extraordinary amount of evidence, and the burden of proof is on you.

well I don't know about you but I experience things
how could machines create your spirit

>Can be explained as being a series of chemical reactions
Okay, explain it for me please. Give me an empirical explanation for consciousness that both explains and predicts specific phenomena.

We do not know if strings exist outside the minds of the string theoreticians.

Memesphere

It's on the quantum level

...

>The brain at it's core it is still just a machine
to claim that requires an extra ordinary amount of evidence

we dont have it yet

>File
theres no reason to assume anything else

well we know that consciousness maps to the brain as demonstrated by lesion studies and other neurobiological manipulations

its an epistemological problems once you realise that all observations and models are theory-laden.

and how does this solve the hard problem?

define "material"