Does Consciousness Support Theism in Any Way?

[jgh7]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

I'm still not convinced that consciousness is any more than the byproduct of electricity in the brain. Once the brain dies and has zero activity, consciousness dies with it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 40 by OpenYourEyes]

the mind... without a brain, I don' think that we can say that we have a mind.

Your explanation just covers up the issue and begs the question of what the mind is.

COVERS UP THE ISSUE.

Can you explain that?
I tried to explain what I mean by "mind" and "brain" and how they interact.

What ISSUE do you think I am covering up, and HOW am I covering it up? I'd like to know my mistake so that I can correct it.

When we say that the brain causes the mind, we clearly know what that means.

Oh good... I'm happy we agree.
So, what was I covering up?

We know that certain activities and regions (all of this being physical) of the brain effects consciousness.

I think you mean "affects", but we agree.
What was I covering up?

When we say that the mind effects the brain, we are referring to unobserved 'subjective' stimuli (thought, feelings, or qualia) effecting physical system, ie the brain.

Yes, it seems that there is some kind of mechanism by which our thoughts can affect the brain. Mind and brain seem to be tightly correlated.

But I don't know what "unobserved stimuli". Most people observe thoughts. At least their own conscious ones. And we can easily observe the thoughts of others when they express them. As we are doing right now. We are observing our thoughts by way of electronic medium.

They seem to be pretty "observable" to me, anyway.

There are centuries worth of philosophical analysis that elucidates the distinction.

I'm not actually sure what distinction you are talking about.... Thoughts can affect the brain and other parts of the body.. I think that's been proved, if that's what you mean. We can't yet read minds.... ok. But not being able to read minds doesn't mean that there is no mind there.... It's just that we have to rely on people telling us what's "on their mind".

And granted, that's pretty tricky.
I still don't get your objection. What is the problem with my original explanation ?
I'd like to fix it if it's not good.

This is reflected even in the sciences where neuroscientists study the physical structure of the brain.

Right. There is a VERY tight correlation between "brain" and "mind". And scientists are discovering new things about it by leaps and BOUNDS these days. The science is having a great bout of success right now. Not that we don't have a long way to go.

No mind reading machine yet, I'm afraid.
No ultimate answer to the problem of consciousness right now.

Meanwhile psychologist and social scientist study the "mind" via external behavior AND internal behavior, BUT the latter is done through surveys and questionnaires.

Just to be clear, I use the word "mind" to refer to "The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/mind

For short, I just say that the mind is the totality of my thoughts. All of them... conscious or not. What definition are you using?

We should get that cleared up or we will be just talking past each other.

There is a reason that surveys are used for internal behavior! Clearly this reflects a distinction between observed phenomena and UNobserved phenomena which you unreasonably explained away as being the same.

I don't know what you mean by "unobserved phenomena". If we can't observe something, how do we know it's even THERE?

Can you clarify?

And I'm NOT too sure what it is you are precisely objecting to ....
So, let me try to see if I can re-cap.. so that we can be on the same page:

1. We seem to agree that "No brain, no mind".
2. Science is teaching us how the brain works more and more.
3. I've defined "mind" as the totality of our thoughts, and thoughts are what the brain produces. I THINK that we might agree.. but I'm not sure.
4. You SEEM to be objecting to my definition because I am avoiding some issue. And that seems to be .... some X factor? .... Some UNKNOWN.. or as you put it, "unobserved stimuli" or "unobserved phenomena" ?

Let me know how much we agree on... and where you might disagree.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 26 by OpenYourEyes]

I don't see where you've made your point. The fact that the brain can rewire itself is not evidence of duality. Anytime something new is learned, the synapses used for that need to be created and grown stronger in order for the learning to be more permanent. The physical structure of the brain reacts to the repeated data input from our senses. It's a physical phenomena.

Neuroplasticity is a physical process, but my point is that it can occur because of subjective stimuli. Within that process, the brain is not just merely functioning, but it's also functioning as a product of the mind. Ironically, when the brain is able to effect the mind, many materialist consider that evidence that the mind is physical, but then when evidence is shown that the mind effects the brain, it's somehow waved off as nothing important and not evidence for dualism in some form.

Self-directed neuroplasticity is the stuff that B.F. Skinner (pioneer of behaviorism) would've jumped on since those in his camp dominated psychology for some time and ruled out the mind because it was unobserved.

The mind is just the sum working of the physical brain. It is the representation of the chemical and physical goings on in your head.

This sounds nice and reasonable, but can you provide any scientific verifiable evidence to justify your claim. In other words, has your claim been scientifically tested, demonstrated, replicated, and peer-reviewed/published? Even if you can't supply scientific evidence for your theory, but then can you provide evidence for ANY theory that explains how the brain creates consciousness?

Keep in mind also that there are a number of working theories that attempt to explain consciousness. Your theory is not too different from the 'Global Workspace Theory'.

Also, do you believe in near-death experiences? There are many reports of patients having experiences when they should be unconscious, like those patients who have had cardiac arrest. During cardiac arrest, the heart stops supplying blood to the body (brain included), and within seconds you lose consciousness. Within minutes you die if there is no medical intervention. Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE comes to mind. Recent skeptical objections have not focused much on these experiences being false, especially considering that some kids experience them, but rather they are illusions produced by a dying brain. Either way, even if NDEs are not real, they still show the ability of consciousness (or mental activity) to persist during times of physiological impairment that should render anyone unconscious.

It does sound reasonable, doesn't it...now I wonder why that is.

If you had read the Minsky article I mentioned, or researched how many papers he'd written, you would have your evidence. Or you could read his last book (he died earlier this year) entitled The Emotion Machine. The bibliography in there is extensive.

I don't pretend that this is a settled area of research. There are all kinds of hypothesis out there and lots of research being done in multiple fields (genetics, psychology, biology, etc). But there is one hard fact that you can't get around, and that is the total lack of empirical data supporting the claim that the mind exists separate from the brain. There is zero evidence that a mind can exist once the brain dies. There is zero evidence for out of body claims. There is zero evidence that the mind directs the brain to make new synaptic connections.

And on top of all that, there is zero evidence for the existence of god beings, so if anyone wants to attempt to make that connection, then they first need to prove these beings even exist, before showing that these beings have anything to do with the "mind". Until then it's just a rehashed god of the gaps claim...

NDEs are what happens when a brain is stressed, deprived of needed supplies (like oxygen) and starts to die. There's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[OpenYourEyes]

If consciousness was solely a function of the brain, then we wouldn't have the brain acting as a function of the mind. I'm not sure that you're fully acknowledging the implications of my point. When materialists claim that consciousness is a product of the brain, not only are they referring to it being physical, but also that brain effects how consciousness operates, even accounting for its existence.

Much like a personal computer I am using to send this post, I can rewire the hardware by fiddling with the software. The programs I run is a function of the computer, and the computer acting as a function of the programs. There is nothing that require introducing some from of mystical duality with computers.

I can grant you that it should be possible for computers to rewire themselves. It may just be a matter of integrating malleable material with computer circuits.

You said that this doesn't require some mystical duality but nothing that you've said about computers explains the necessity for 'awareness' or even 'self-awareness'. Computers do not need awareness to function. We don't even need awareness to function, for example, we can perform complex behaviors without the conscious waking state, e.g. sleepwalking. So yes, this is very much still a mystery!

That is unless you see software/hardware is the duality. In which case, I have no problem with that view. Our brain-mind relationship is the same as that of a hardware/software relationship of a PC, a very mundane form of dualism.

No, computer software can be reduced to physical processes, or I should say, developed from known physical processes. Certain mental aspects are not reducible to physical properties. This is why I make the analogy that we can know all that the computer is "thinking", but yet scientists can not measure what we are thinking.

There is a long history of scientists accepting just that and conducting researching under that paradigm. So to show that the mind can effect how the brain operates undermines that long standing view since the brain does not fully control consciousness.

So for instance when someone brings up anesthesia as an argument, they are really just saying that the brain affects consciousness. But what they are leaving out, is that consciousness can also affect the brain. This is clearly a bidirectional causation and shows that the mind is more than the brain in that it is interdependent or correlated rather than being dependent.

Sounds to me like you are dressing up an unexciting point as a revelation. That was what prompted me to ask, is it so surprising? Hardware runs the software, the software controls the hardware.

Then there must be two different software running in the brain. The brain is the hardware, but it also contains physical software and programming via specialized cells, genes, etc. But then there is this other software running in the background and that's able to influence the system.

To stress the distinction even more, lets take neuroplasticity as an example. Neuroplasticity is not really that grand of an idea since the brain can reshape and rewire itself to adapt to injuries and other environmental stimuli, and this is done involuntary (without conscious effort). What's grand is that scientists have observed SELF-directed neuroplasticity in which the brain is rewiring and reshaping based on CONSCIOUS or mental stimuli (meditation, thoughts, etc). And unlike some skeptics here, I've actually put in the work to back up my claims with scientific evidence.

I can know all that the computer is "thinking", but interestingly scientists can not know what we are thinking in the same way. We don't even need awareness, let alone self-awareness, to operate just as computers don't but yet it's still there, and it would be self-refuting to deny it.

You are saying there is something fundamentally different between mind/brain vs programmes/computers. I think the gap is one of technology. ONe day, with enough understanding of our brains, we can know what you are "thinking" just like we could with computers. With enough understanding of our brains, we can build computers that are aware and self-aware.

Oh sure ; ). One day scientists might be able to time travel, go through Black Holes, etc, etc, etc, etc. The problem with this presumption is that it leads to there being not being any limit on what science can do as if scientists will "one day" become omnipotent and omniscient. The problem is that there are limits in principle, the laws of nature being one example. The second problem is that you assume that science will advance under it's current materialist paradigm. The current scientific method and paradigm can be adapted to fit new aspects of reality as we encounter them.

Perhaps one day scientists might discovers how consciousness works, but it does not follow that it will be under a materialist paradigm. We see in history that scientists have gone from consciousness being localized in one brain region, to not being as localized, and so perhaps we'll find that it's entirely non-localized and thus not even necessarily in the brain. There are already scientists hypothesizing on just that. One interesting and testable dualist type theory is Dr. Libet's Conscious mental field theory (read section 4).

[H.sapiens]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

The answer to your question would depend on how someone views consciousness. The reason that I claim that consciousness supports religion is because it is not a byproduct of the brain but rather the two causally influence each other. More importantly, this is also scientifically validated. This then leads to the obvious question of where does consciousness from if not the brain, and some would posit that it came from a similar but greater nonphysical source; call it God, call it universal/higher consciousness or Brahman, etc.

As I mentioned earlier, there is mounting scientific evidence from neuroplasticity research that the mind influences the brain, and I'll post a link below for further reading. The reason these studies support mind/body dualism is because subjective or mental activity, like meditation, have been found to change brain structure. Now we know that brain structures, like neurons, are supposed to be responsible for virtually all of our body's function (cognition, emotion, behavior, etc) so to have these neurons change or to find new ones growing out of a reaction to SUBJECTIVE stimuli (focused awareness, thoughts, etc) puts a huge dent in 'materialism' and perhaps even 'biological determinism'. In other words, the 'mind' being nonphysical (thoughts, mental imagery, etc) in that it doesn't occupy space, has no mass, or matter (and a big hint as to why scientists have not been able to objectively/empirically verify it) can interact with and influence the brain.

Here's a short history to show where we came from and perhaps gives insight into where this can lead...

However, before 1998, it was widely accepted that neuronal connections in the adult brain were immutable; the neurons that populated a given brain area were thought to be fixed in accordance with whatever form and function the genetic code prescribed for that region (Begley, 2006). In addition, the conventional wisdom at the time--that no new neurons could be generated after injury or insult to the brain—was held with conviction on the part of leading neuroscientists.

However, upon discovery of the growth of new neural tissue, or neurogenesis, in the adult human hippocampus, a brain region responsible for memory (Eriksson et al., 1998), the dogma of the “hardwired brain� was formally repudiated.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933650/

Here are more sources:
1. Neuroplasticity, Psychosocial Genomics, and the Biopsychosocial Paradigm in the 21st Century (read the Neuroplasticity and Conclusion sections)
2. Psychotherapy Found to Produce Changes in Brain Functions Similar to Drugs
3. The study that #2 refers to is here

None of that evidences a "mind" just a brain is all that is required.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 43 by OpenYourEyes]

We agree computer software can be reduced to physical processes/properties. I think the mind can be reduced to physical processes/properties, you don't think it can be. We are at an impasse there, that much is clear.

But you are not addressing my point: you used the fact that our brain/mind relationship being two way, as support for your claim that the mind cannot be reduced. I am pointing out that computer/programme relationship is also two way, so that cannot an indicator as to whether it can be reduced to the physical or not.

The current scientific method and paradigm can be adapted to fit new aspects of reality as we encounter them.

Sure, but new scientific paradigm will never be non-material, because science itself is forever tied to materialism - it has to be testable. Even the "Conscious mental field theory" you brought up, is materialistic.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 43 by OpenYourEyes]
We agree computer software can be reduced to physical processes/properties. I think the mind can be reduced to physical processes/properties, you don't think it can be. We are at an impasse there, that much is clear.

Well we do have some agreement.
- Most here agree that a computer does not possess awareness, let alone, self-awareness.

- Most members here agree that certain aspects of the mind are unobserved and has not been reduced to physical properties. Also, that there is no scientifically verified explanation for how the brain produces the 'mind'.

- Most importantly, most here now agree that the mind, which involves our conscious effort/awareness, can make the brain adjust or become a product of our thoughts and behaviors.

The last point is contrary to popular materialist thought and a long held view in the scientific community.

On that note, I think I have a representative sample of viewpoints on this matter. I'm due for a vacation so I'm going to take a time out from this forum. I'll come back after I work more on my arguments and research.

But you are not addressing my point: you used the fact that our brain/mind relationship being two way, as support for your claim that the mind cannot be reduced. I am pointing out that computer/programme relationship is also two way, so that cannot an indicator as to whether it can be reduced to the physical or not.

Well by your own admission, there are some differences from what we know about the mind-brain relationship and the software/hardware relationship, like when it comes to awareness, subjective experience, etc. You simply claim that one day we'll bridge that gap and it'll all turn out in support of materialism. At best, that's a presumption and not scientifically verifiable evidence.

The current scientific method and paradigm can be adapted to fit new aspects of reality as we encounter them.

Sure, but new scientific paradigm will never be non-material, because science itself is forever tied to materialism - it has to be testable. Even the "Conscious mental field theory" you brought up, is materialistic.

Dr. Libet's theory of consciousness fits in with 'emergent dualism', in that the mind emerged from the brain but is now more than the brain.

[Kenisaw]

Oh sure ; ). One day scientists might be able to time travel, go through Black Holes, etc, etc, etc, etc. The problem with this presumption is that it leads to there being not being any limit on what science can do as if scientists will "one day" become omnipotent and omniscient. The problem is that there are limits in principle, the laws of nature being one example.

You would be the only one making those presumptions. No one, and I literally mean no one, engaged in scientific research or a part of a scientific field thinks science is limitless or will ""one day" become omnipotent and omniscient". There are indeed limits to science, the biggest of which is that humans are the ones undertaking science. But science is by far the most accurate and dependable investigative method we have. It works. I see no reason to NOT use science...

The second problem is that you assume that science will advance under it's current materialist paradigm. The current scientific method and paradigm can be adapted to fit new aspects of reality as we encounter them

Sounds like something we already have - philosophy. You know, trying to prove things without evidence...

Perhaps one day scientists might discovers how consciousness works, but it does not follow that it will be under a materialist paradigm. We see in history that scientists have gone from consciousness being localized in one brain region, to not being as localized, and so perhaps we'll find that it's entirely non-localized and thus not even necessarily in the brain. There are already scientists hypothesizing on just that. One interesting and testable dualist type theory is Dr. Libet's Conscious mental field theory (read section 4).

I believe you have misunderstood Libet's work. As quoted from paragraph one of your link: "Libet proposed a theory of the conscious mental field (CMF)[24] to explain how the mental arises from the physical brain." Libet is not stating that the mental is not connected to the physical.

To repeat what has been preciously stated, there is zero evidence or empirical data showing that consciousness is separate from the physical structure of the brain. There is no evidence or empirical data that consciousness can exist after a brain dies. Hypothesis to that affect are currently being researched, but have not produced any verifiable information, so there is no rational reason to think the mystery of consciousness will be unlocked via something other than "a materialist paradigm"...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 46 by OpenYourEyes]

Well we do have some agreement.
- Most here agree that a computer does not possess awareness, let alone, self-awareness.

WHOA there, buckaroo!!

Hold ON a minute... MOST HERE AGREE?

How did you establish that fact?
Did you POLL everyone in here?

Imagining something isn't evidence for a claim.

I KNOW that this is a very small issue, but I have to keep repeating this to theists ALL THE TIME. It's as if they forget or don't really know.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

I'm still not convinced that consciousness is any more than the byproduct of electricity in the brain. Once the brain dies and has zero activity, consciousness dies with it.

First, I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by putting the cart before the horse. We need to first figure out how did consciousness get here in the first place...and the brain (physical matter) cannot be the origin from which mental states (immaterial) comes from.

So the origin of consciousness cannot be explained by anything physical...and I think you know where I am going with this.

At best, all we can do is demonstrate the mere CORRELATION between mental and physical states, but what we can't do is explain the absolute ORIGIN of consciousness by using the scientific method.

So in a nut shell, intelligent design is not only needed, but it is necessary.

[Kenisaw]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

I'm still not convinced that consciousness is any more than the byproduct of electricity in the brain. Once the brain dies and has zero activity, consciousness dies with it.

First, I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by putting the cart before the horse. We need to first figure out how did consciousness get here in the first place...and the brain (physical matter) cannot be the origin from which mental states (immaterial) comes from.

It can't? That's news to me. We've had five pages of rather detailed discussion about this topic, and then you come along and declare, without one shred of data of support, that the conscious cannot come from the brain. I guess you will have to excuse my skepticism when I say that I can't just take your word for it. You are going to have to do more than make some assertion that has no scientific basis in fact. Please, display your evidence...

So the origin of consciousness cannot be explained by anything physical...and I think you know where I am going with this.

Straight into a logical paradox I bet...

At best, all we can do is demonstrate the mere CORRELATION between mental and physical states, but what we can't do is explain the absolute ORIGIN of consciousness by using the scientific method.

The only people who ever say that science can never do something are the people that have no concept about how science works. You cannot possibly have any idea what science can and cannot do one day.

So in a nut shell, intelligent design is not only needed, but it is necessary.

It's logical paradox time! Well, I guess it IS five o'clock somewhere in the world...

Your conclusion makes no sense. You are saying that intelligence is needed to create consciousness. Intelligence, I assume you would agree, is an offshoot of consciousness (unless you want to say your god is not conscious). So if intelligence is required for consciousness to exist, where did your god critter's consciousness come from? Tada! Another cultist logical paradox....