@
AlexT I've given some extra thought on how to make a productive discussion with Krauss… not an easy task, imo :)
Honestly I think you could press him as hard as you want on the evidence coming from PSI / NDE research... it will have no effect, as usual with these people. I am sure Krauss is probably an honest guy and he will simply admit he's a physicist, not a neuroscientist so he's not familiar with the details of the studies you will bring to the table.
Next he will play the "appeal to authority" card, authority that, of course, comes strictly from his own team (the usual Blackmore, Harris, Woerlee, etc…). He will appeal to the "scientific consensus", not enough evidence, the usual "no evidence in 100 yeas of parapsychology" mantra etc... everything but engaging in the details.
As regards the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to have consciousness you'll get the usual promissory note… "we'll figure it out". No surprise there either.
I don't know… I would probably question his position of atheist apologist instead, which sounds pretty much incompatible with the open inquiry of science:
1) Atheism and science.
Atheists profess a universe that is driven by blind, mechanic principles… how can this be a scientific approach? Shouldn't a scientist avoid rigid mental filters to investigate reality? If one strongly professes an a priory view on the subject of his studies how can he be free from his own prejudices?
Also, in the name of the same modesty he appeals to in his video posted by Ian G, we should remind ourselves that "we don't know everything" (Krauss' own words). It's always good to remind us that the best physics we have is struggling to investigate the monumental proportions of a tiny slice of universe that is supposed to represnt 4% of the real deal.
But that 4% is a
rough guestimate that could be entirely wrong as we have no way of knowing what exists beyond the limits of the visible (to us) universe. It could be 4%, it could be .00004%… it could be 4% of infinite :D
To claim that we have it all figured out and we know what Nature does or does not is not just silly,
it is a crime of reason.
Which reminds me the title of the latest book of Stephen Braude, by the way :D
http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Reason-Mind-Nature-Paranormal/dp/1442235756
There is even new solid evidence for a universe with no beginning:
http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning
and with computer code (error correcting codes), embedded in the the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles.
If we live in a simulation ... who is simulating it? :)
Bottom line… why should Atheists claim to have superior knowledge of these matters? If we remove the politics we remain empty handed.
Shouldn't be science free of political activism?
2) Nature of consciousness.
Atheists relegate the mind as an epiphenomenon arising from unconscious brain cells. There's no real intentionality, volition or free will… only complex chemical reactions that obey the laws of physics.
If that's the case why should science be relevant? If our agency in this world is purely illusory and dictated by mechanistic chemical processes science is as good as reading tarot cards or astrology. They all come from the illusory mind :)
How is not an extraordinary claim (requiring extraordinary proof) to assert that consciousness arises from inert bits of matter?
The neural correlates of consciousness are perfectly compatible with all philosophical positions on consciousness (idealism, panpsychism, physicalism etc…) So why should this be sufficient to give more merit to one position only?
Why should we discard evidence that doesn't fit the current paradigm, besides defending an ideological agenda?
Isn't science about discovering the world and ourselves for what it is? (Instead of what we think it is)?
cheers