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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

We will get there in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

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...

I said that thoughts/mental states aren't physical. Are you gonna sit there and deny that the mere thought of an apple isn't physical?

I thought this was common knowledge. Guess I thought wrong. Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width.

That will be a start. If you can do that, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

Straight into a logical paradox I bet...

Actually, no. The idea is that if it can't be explained naturally, then guess what is the only other game left in town? No paradox needed. Only the process of elimination with a sprinkle of law of excluded middle.

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.

Ok, so since you "know how science works" and I don't...please scientifically explain why Western Democracy is better than Eastern Monarchy. Or scientifically explain why it is wrong to rape and torture a child for fun.

Go ahead, use the scientific method to explain those things, please.

You are saying that intelligence is needed to create consciousness.

Pretty much.

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....

Foolishness. Intelligence is needed to create consciousness which BEGAN to exist, and God, on the Christian view, never BEGAN to exist.

Surely, you didn't think it would be that easy, did you?

[benchwarmer]

I thought this was common knowledge. Guess I thought wrong. Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width.

That will be a start. If you can do that, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

Um, prepare for shock and awe (I guess?)

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072950

Based on more than 8000 autopsies of male and female patients without brain diseases the normal brain weight of adult males and females in relation to sex, age, body-weight, and body-height as well as Body Mass Index were calculated. The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

Average brain width = 140 mm
Average brain length = 167 mm
Average brain height = 93 mm

[Kenisaw]

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.

We will get there in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

We already got there, in the first give pages, which is why I specifically mentioned that. I assume it is why OpenYourEyes dropped the conversation actually, because he couldn't provide any support for his claim that a conscious is separate from the physical structures of 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...

I said that thoughts/mental states aren't physical. Are you gonna sit there and deny that the mere thought of an apple isn't physical?[/quote]

Thoughts are the result of physical structures and chemical reactions (and probably some quantum mechanics stuff that we are still trying to understand). They exist in your brain ONLY. There is no data to suggest otherwise. If you know of some, please share...

I thought this was common knowledge. Guess I thought wrong. Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width.

No, common misconception. Thoughts don't have weight, because they are energy. You can see them light up a CAT scan. The physical structures in your brain allow for this energy to be used in such a way that thoughts are the result.

That will be a start. If you can do that, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

Don't be impressed, because I'm not saying anything that isn't already known to anyone who has ever bothered to research the topic with a semblance of depth. Like I told Eyes, and now I'm telling you, there is no empirical support for consciousness existing outside our brain. If you know of some, please share.

Straight into a logical paradox I bet...

Actually, no. The idea is that if it can't be explained naturally, then guess what is the only other game left in town? No paradox needed. Only the process of elimination with a sprinkle of law of excluded middle.

There's no reason to think it can't be explained naturally. And (to point out the OTHER logical problem with your statement that I hadn't bothered to mention), if it can't be explained naturally that doesn't prove it is supernatural. The inability of one option does not automatically make another one the winner. Nothing is acceptable unless it can be empirically verified. The utter lack of support for ALL supernatural claims makes that entire genre mere conjecture. You want that to be different, provide evidence for something...

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.

Ok, so since you "know how science works" and I don't...please scientifically explain why Western Democracy is better than Eastern Monarchy. Or scientifically explain why it is wrong to rape and torture a child for fun.

Go ahead, use the scientific method to explain those things, please.

Who says western democracy is better than eastern monarchy? Based on what parameters are you assuming one is better than the other? You can measure different statistical considerations, like personal happiness or GNP or literacy rate or whatever you want, and from there you can make a determination. That will never be purely scientific however, because such things are subjective in value. Happiness for example, being a human concept, is NOT empirical. We can assign it values, but ultimately there is no such thing as happiness objectively. "Happiness" is defined by whatever society or culture is doing the defining. And if you understood science, you would've already understood why that question you posed is not a scientific question.

Same with the child. Right and wrong are not scientific concepts. True the vast majority of us have a definite notion in our mind about that child, but that doesn't make our opinion purely scientific.

I hope I've explained the nuances of that to you clearly, if not let me know.

You are saying that intelligence is needed to create consciousness.

Pretty much.

Logical paradox, as explained in the post that you responded to when you wrote this one.

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....

Foolishness. Intelligence is needed to create consciousness which BEGAN to exist, and God, on the Christian view, never BEGAN to exist.

Surely, you didn't think it would be that easy, did you?

Sure I did, because that is ALWAYS the exception that cultists throw out, which creates a separate logical paradox. If a being always existed, it can never reach the moment in it's existence where it can create consciousness. It would take an infinite amount of it's existence before it got around to creating something. As we all know, there is no middle of infinity, so such a being cannot possibly create something.

Resolve the paradox...

[Talishi]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way.

The delusion of an afterlife is rooted in the quandry of attempting to conceptualize the state of unending non-consciousness using consciousness as the conceptual tool.

[Divine Insight]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way.

The delusion of an afterlife is rooted in the quandry of attempting to conceptualize the state of unending non-consciousness using consciousness as the conceptual tool.

What is it that is using this "tool"?

[Talishi]

What is it that is using this "tool"?

Bingo. Recursion R Us.

[For_The_Kingdom]

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072950

Based on more than 8000 autopsies of male and female patients without brain diseases the normal brain weight of adult males and females in relation to sex, age, body-weight, and body-height as well as Body Mass Index were calculated. The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

Average brain width = 140 mm
Average brain length = 167 mm
Average brain height = 93 mm

Who said anything about the brain? I said..

"Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width."

Keyword: Thought.

So, I remain unshocked, and unimpressed. LOL

[benchwarmer]

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072950

Based on more than 8000 autopsies of male and female patients without brain diseases the normal brain weight of adult males and females in relation to sex, age, body-weight, and body-height as well as Body Mass Index were calculated. The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

Average brain width = 140 mm
Average brain length = 167 mm
Average brain height = 93 mm

Who said anything about the brain? I said..

"Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width."

Keyword: Thought.

So, I remain unshocked, and unimpressed. LOL

Ya, that was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point was that thoughts reside in the brain and are a result of the 'contents' of this brain (i.e. the chemicals and energy transfer among the parts of the brain).

During a brain scan you can see what areas of the brain are involved while thinking about something. So you could theoretically measure the part of the brain involved in thinking about an apple. If you could figure out how much energy was expended having that thought, you could even determine its relativistic mass (E = mc2).

I doubt this will shock or impress you either

Let's tackle this from a different angle. You seem to be claiming that thoughts are separate from the physical mind correct? If so, how do your thoughts control your body? i.e. if you want to pick up an apple, how does that thought translate into physical action? For bonus points, if thought is really disconnected from the physical brain and there is a mechanism for your thoughts to control your body, why can't that same mechanism be used to control someone else's body? Why can't you make someone else pick up an apple with just a thought? Or maybe you can and I should put my tin foil hat back on

[For_The_Kingdom]

We already got there, in the first give pages, which is why I specifically mentioned that. I assume it is why OpenYourEyes dropped the conversation actually, because he couldn't provide any support for his claim that a conscious is separate from the physical structures of the brain.

But the real party doesn't start until I make my grand entrance...because "the pro's don't audition, the boss just walk'em in".

Thoughts are the result of physical structures and chemical reactions (and probably some quantum mechanics stuff that we are still trying to understand). They exist in your brain ONLY. There is no data to suggest otherwise. If you know of some, please share...

But these "chemical reactions and physical structures" aren't the actual thoughts, are they? They are not the same thing. When I think of an apple, you can't point to any single chemical or group of chemicals in my brain and say "that is the apple right there". Can you do that? No, you can't.

Therefore, what is true of the thought isn't true of the CHEMICAL(s), thus, making them NOT the same thing according to the law of identity.

No, common misconception. Thoughts don't have weight, because they are energy.

So because something has weight, it can't have energy? Ok, so to test this theory, drop an anvil on top of a single egg, and tell me the results.

You can see them light up a CAT scan.

You can see what? The thoughts, or the chemicals? LOL.

The physical structures in your brain allow for this energy to be used in such a way that thoughts are the result.

Allow for what energy, sir? You haven't identified the energy. When I think of an apple, the chemicals in my brain aren't taking the form of an apple, thereby allowing me to think of an apple. So where is this "image" of the apple coming from?

Not only have you NOT identified the energy, but you haven't even identified the "I". Who is the "I"?

When you are sad, is your brain sad? No. Is the chemicals sad? No. Yet, you are sad. Who is the "you" that is "sad"?

These questions cannot be answered on naturalism, sir

Don't be impressed, because I'm not saying anything that isn't already known to anyone who has ever bothered to research the topic with a semblance of depth. Like I told Eyes, and now I'm telling you, there is no empirical support for consciousness existing outside our brain. If you know of some, please share.

No need for the empirical qualifier...the point is, is there support (in general) for mind/body dualism...and the answer is, YES.

There's no reason to think it can't be explained naturally.

Well, once you explain it naturally, only then will there be "no reason to think it can't be explained naturally".

And (to point out the OTHER logical problem with your statement that I hadn't bothered to mention), if it can't be explained naturally that doesn't prove it is supernatural. The inability of one option does not automatically make another one the winner. Nothing is acceptable unless it can be empirically verified. The utter lack of support for ALL supernatural claims makes that entire genre mere conjecture. You want that to be different, provide evidence for something...

Well, I am going where the evidence points. I think the idea of mind/body naturalism is illogical, and there certainly isn't any scientific evidence supporting it. Therefore, I am well within my rights to believe the option that the explanatory power needed to produce the effect.

Now, I've asked you a series of questions above, and if you are unable to answer the questions, then I am going where I can get my questions answered.

Who says western democracy is better than eastern monarchy?
Based on what parameters are you assuming one is better than the other? You can measure different statistical considerations, like personal happiness or GNP or literacy rate or whatever you want, and from there you can make a determination. That will never be purely scientific however, because such things are subjective in value. Happiness for example, being a human concept, is NOT empirical. We can assign it values, but ultimately there is no such thing as happiness objectively. "Happiness" is defined by whatever society or culture is doing the defining. And if you understood science, you would've already understood why that question you posed is not a scientific question.

Then you are admitting the scientific method cannot be used to explain everything, which was my point.

Same with the child. Right and wrong are not scientific concepts. True the vast majority of us have a definite notion in our mind about that child, but that doesn't make our opinion purely scientific.

I hope I've explained the nuances of that to you clearly, if not let me know.

I actually agree with you.

Sure I did, because that is ALWAYS the exception that cultists throw out, which creates a separate logical paradox. If a being always existed, it can never reach the moment in it's existence where it can create consciousness. It would take an infinite amount of it's existence before it got around to creating something. As we all know, there is no middle of infinity, so such a being cannot possibly create something.

Resolve the paradox...

The only way to resolve this paradox is if we imagine a scenario that God was sitting/standing (whatever) completely still for all eternity...then, suddenly, he began to create..and it was only at this moment of "change" (from non-movement to movement) that time began.

So, that is a scenario where there were no moments leading to creation, and also a past boundary to time itself.

I am glad that you realize that the problem of infinity applies to God as well, so there is no special pleading on the theists part. However, it is the atheists who maintain that the universe (natural reality) never began to exist and that the energy which occupies our universe has been transforming from one form to another...from ETERNITY PAST. That is implying an infinite amount of changes in an infinite amount of time, which is demonstrably absurd.

There is no possible world at which that oculd be the case.

So in essence, there is absolutely NO WAY out of the paradox on such a naturalistic worldview..and since you recognize this to be a problem, you should be more vocal to your unbelieving friends and tell them "hey, guys, we have problems here".

[Bust Nak]

Who said anything about the brain? I said..

"Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width."

Keyword: Thought.

So, I remain unshocked, and unimpressed. LOL

Average weight of a brain thinking about an apple is around 1300g, the average weight of a brain not thinking about an apple is around 1300g. The average weight of a thought of an apple is 0g. Apply the same to size to get 0x0x0m. Science!