Consciousness and action

[agnosticatheist]

Apparently, consciousness is not necessary to explain an organism undertaking various actions. The neuronal correlates in the brain are sufficient to explain how an organism undertakes various actions.

So, it would seem that our (human's) consciousness is merely along for the ride.

Where does this fit into religion?

If our decisions are made in the brain and not by a paranormal soul, how can we be held accountable in an afterlife for our decisions? The physical brain made those decisions, not the soul.

[ventura23]

As I read these posts, I got the impression they were based more on philosophy than on Christianity.

[ventura23]

As I read these posts, I got the impression they were based more on philosophy than on Christianity.

[arian]

As I read these posts, I got the impression they were based more on philosophy than on Christianity.

Hello Ventura23.

Well Christianity, or the Christian Religion has it's own POV, and its members are not really allowed to philosophize too much on their doctrines cause it leads them to knowledge that is contradicting to doctrine.

My personal view is that we aught to look at the Bible from a philosophical POV, as in "what is truth?"

Like God of the Bible for instance, are we to have a religion interpret God for us (trinity, and about 40,000 other various interpretations) or should we look for more realistic scientific answers to Gods existence?

Are we to accept God on blind faith (what religion requires of their interpretation) or are we to seek, knock considering all possibilities, like science for instance? This is what I was hoping to see from this OP, the relation between consciousness and action. It is where we can actually see (not with the eye, but with the mind) God.

So from my understanding we are to understand the Bible, especially Christ's teaching from a philosophical POV, rather then (as you said) Christianity.

Jesus didn't come to start a religion, but a church, a unity, friendship, a family. But because today the word 'Church' is understood as religion, Christ's Church, or what He meant by 'His Church' is ignored. People are content with religion.

[arian]

[Replying to post 17 by arian]

You ever hear the expression: "Actions speak louder than words"?

Trees perhaps notwithstanding, animals at least communicate with each other all the time.

Yes I did hear that, but without words, or the minds ability to make the mouth, throat and lung say those words, there would not be any action.

Animals do communicate with each other, each given enough mind after their own kind, and that's it. There is no drive for them to evolve to a higher mental state, that was given to man only.

This is why we can't teach monkeys to really communicate even on a 2 year olds level, only responds to training and imitating some very basic moves like Koko, or a dog, or a pig. They are not able to use that and build on it, but a 2 year old human can. And boy do they ever. Actually it starts right after birth. My little 1 year old nephew can turn on his moms I-pad, flip through pages of aps, click on YouTube and finds His favorite show, and hits play. He watched his mom, and now he does it, he was not taught to do it.

The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up, it's all our minds reaction on the brain that does that.

[H.sapiens]

Apparently, consciousness is not necessary to explain an organism undertaking various actions. The neuronal correlates in the brain are sufficient to explain how an organism undertakes various actions.

Sounds about right.

So, it would seem that our (human's) consciousness is merely along for the ride.

Hardly, consciousness evolved as an adaptive response to pressures on the niche occupied by early hominids.

Where does this fit into religion?

It doesn't. Nothing does, however, unless force fit.

If our decisions are made in the brain and not by a paranormal soul, how can we be held accountable in an afterlife for our decisions? The physical brain made those decisions, not the soul.

First, prove the existence of an afterlife before you worry your purdy head about who and how is accountable for what. Second, do the same for: "the soul."

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 24 by arian]

Hi Arian. You responded to my old post a second time.

I hardly even remember what I was thinking back when I posted that.

[Replying to post 17 by arian]

You ever hear the expression: "Actions speak louder than words"?

Trees perhaps notwithstanding, animals at least communicate with each other all the time.

Yes I did hear that, but without words, or the minds ability to make the mouth, throat and lung say those words, there would not be any action.

No action? Not sure what you mean. No action of speaking??

Animals do communicate with each other, each given enough mind after their own kind, and that's it. There is no drive for them to evolve to a higher mental state, that was given to man only.

"Given"? Any evidence of this "giving"?

This is why we can't teach monkeys to really communicate even on a 2 year olds level, only responds to training and imitating some very basic moves like Koko, or a dog, or a pig. They are not able to use that and build on it, but a 2 year old human can. And boy do they ever. Actually it starts right after birth. My little 1 year old nephew can turn on his moms I-pad, flip through pages of aps, click on YouTube and finds His favorite show, and hits play. He watched his mom, and now he does it, he was not taught to do it.

Humans are by far the best at it, no one disagrees.

The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up, it's all our minds reaction on the brain that does that.

Seems like a needlessly complicated system. Why have a brain at all? Why no just have our minds control things directly?

[H.sapiens]

As I read these posts, I got the impression they were based more on philosophy than on Christianity.

Hello Ventura23.

Well Christianity, or the Christian Religion has it's own POV, and its members are not really allowed to philosophize too much on their doctrines cause it leads them to knowledge that is contradicting to doctrine.

Last time I checked damn near every Christian waxes philosophical concerning doctrine and there are few who agree with each other, thus the current state of Cafeteria Christianity that is so prevalent.

My personal view is that we aught to look at the Bible from a philosophical POV, as in "what is truth?"

Unsupported personal views are not what this subforum is about, let’s see some evidence.

Like God of the Bible for instance, are we to have a religion interpret God for us (trinity, and about 40,000 other various interpretations) or should we look for more realistic scientific answers to Gods existence?

Obviously “realistic scientific answers� are preferable. But they all tell us, to the best approximation possible, that God is a mythical creation of human imagination.

Are we to accept God on blind faith (what religion requires of their interpretation) or are we to seek, knock considering all possibilities, like science for instance? This is what I was hoping to see from this OP, the relation between consciousness and action. It is where we can actually see (not with the eye, but with the mind) God.

There are so many specious assumptions inherent in your construct (e.g., there is a God, this God has a mind, consciousness exists, etc., that your thesis, at least as stated, is meaningless.

So from my understanding we are to understand the Bible, especially Christ's teaching from a philosophical POV, rather then (as you said) Christianity.

There is a similar problem here, let’s first ascertain that there was a “Christ� and then examine what it is that he was alleged to teach before we worry about the second and third order questions that depend upon the first order questions to begin with.

Jesus didn't come to start a religion, but a church, a unity, friendship, a family. But because today the word 'Church' is understood as religion, Christ's Church, or what He meant by 'His Church' is ignored. People are content with religion.

… and this relates to science how?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 17 by arian]

You ever hear the expression: "Actions speak louder than words"?

Trees perhaps notwithstanding, animals at least communicate with each other all the time.

Yes I did hear that, but without words, or the minds ability to make the mouth, throat and lung say those words, there would not be any action.

Animals do communicate with each other, each given enough mind after their own kind, and that's it. There is no drive for them to evolve to a higher mental state, that was given to man only.

You seem to be suffering under some confusion concerning the evolution of organisms. When increased communication is, on balance, advantageous to an organism, then over time communication abilities are enhanced, there is no “drive� toward a predefined situation or condition, there is no “higher� or “lower� state and nothing is “given� to any organism. Current finding in anthropology and archeology indicates that Homo sapiens are not the only “kind� of human and thus the entire idea of “given to man only� is antediluvian claptrap.

This is why we can't teach monkeys to really communicate even on a 2 year olds level, only responds to training and imitating some very basic moves like Koko, or a dog, or a pig. They are not able to use that and build on it, but a 2 year old human can. And boy do they ever. Actually it starts right after birth. My little 1 year old nephew can turn on his moms I-pad, flip through pages of aps, click on YouTube and finds His favorite show, and hits play. He watched his mom, and now he does it, he was not taught to do it.

No … wrong, wrong, wrong! You cannot teach monkeys to communicate as humans do for the same reason that you cannot teach humans to branchiate as monkeys do or to dive as whales do. All animals are advantaged and limited by the evolutionary background and to attempt to evaluate one specie on the basis of its ability to do (or not do) as another specie does is ignorant of the actual situation, especially when applied in a taxocentristic fashion.

The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up, it's all our minds reaction on the brain that does that.

Those are unsupported claims, both as to the duality of a separate brain and mind as well as to your claim that “The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up.�

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 1 by agnosticatheist]

Obviously our best and most recent understandings of the brain/consciousness via contemporary neuroscience is not especially kind to religion, or even dualistic/idealistic philosophies; and understanding the physical/neural basis of consciousness has all but eliminated any rational grounds for belief in an immaterial soul, since everything that was once thought to be a part of our soul (personality, memory, emotion, reason, etc.) is now known to be a function of the brain. When you take away everything that is physical about a human, there isn't much of anything left for the soul to do, or be, any more.

[arian]

[Replying to post 24 by arian]

Hi Arian. You responded to my old post a second time.

I hardly even remember what I was thinking back when I posted that.

[Replying to post 17 by arian]

You ever hear the expression: "Actions speak louder than words"?

Trees perhaps notwithstanding, animals at least communicate with each other all the time.

Yes I did hear that, but without words, or the minds ability to make the mouth, throat and lung say those words, there would not be any action.

No action? Not sure what you mean. No action of speaking??

Hello FarWanderer. I don't see where I answered that particular post of yours, but it does seem like we go over the same subject over and over again. That's what's nice about debating, .. I catch things I may have missed previously.

What I mean by 'action' is to your response that "action speaks louder than words".

We the mind/spirit speak by creating/making our body form words (lung, tongue, facial muscles etc.) so the term "action speaks louder than words" really doesn't make sense. I (the mind/spirit) want to say something (words) I make my lungs, mouth, tongue form those words (action), .. so in this sense action IS words. Without the action of my mouth you wouldn't be able to understand my words (what I have to say) right?

Animals do communicate with each other, each given enough mind after their own kind, and that's it. There is no drive for them to evolve to a higher mental state, that was given to man only.

"Given"? Any evidence of this "giving"?

Yes, .. robots we create. But since there is no evidence of man creating man, THE Creator must have done it. The only thing now is; "who is the Creator?" Is it Darwin, Georges Lemaitre, or God? The two humans have assumptions about intricate things man could never create, but God-Creator in the Bible is matter-of-fact. The rest is obvious as we examine things through science. The I.D. in human body alone is mind boggling, it screams of a Creator.

This is why we can't teach monkeys to really communicate even on a 2 year olds level, only responds to training and imitating some very basic moves like Koko, or a dog, or a pig. They are not able to use that and build on it, but a 2 year old human can. And boy do they ever. Actually it starts right after birth. My little 1 year old nephew can turn on his moms I-pad, flip through pages of aps, click on YouTube and finds His favorite show, and hits play. He watched his mom, and now he does it, he was not taught to do it.

Humans are by far the best at it, no one disagrees.

Yes obviously, .. but why is that? I mean we have monkeys and all these other animals we humans supposedly evolved side by side with over the past 4.2 billion years, same solar system, same sun, on the same earth, same location, same air, same food source, same trees of which one makes their house for the night out of leaves, and we humans build elaborate houses with!? Why this enormous difference between your human-apes and all the other apes and animals??

(Please respond with evidence, I heard enough sci-fi fairytales.)

The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up, it's all our minds reaction on the brain that does that.

Seems like a needlessly complicated system. Why have a brain at all? Why no just have our minds control things directly?

Interesting question, so why do we have computers with keyboards? Does the computer create the OP's? Does it form the responses? Or why do we have 'rewind' on our VCR's .. sorry, on our DVD players? The answers lies within God, our Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", and His 'Word', .. or should I say; 'Son Word'.

This is where I see complexity, in reality, the reality that we see, touch and experience, the more complex, the more enjoyable. Like a good book, it's the complexity and the special arrangement of those words that gives us pleasure (make us laugh, cry etc.) .. all for our pleasure, for our enjoyment.

Did those words evolve, or were they 'created', .. Intelligently Designed to give us enjoyment?