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.

[benchwarmer]

Nonsense. Show me a link where someone was hooked up to something and his/her "thoughts" appeared fuzzy on a display.

Ok, obviously we have a disconnect here. I showed this in post 69.

http://gallantlab.org/
http://gallantlab.org/index.php/publica ... t-al-2011/

You've drifted off onto a completely different topic of showing past crimes committed which is not relevant.

You should be able to see EVERYTHING.

Well, that may be your wish, but that's not what is currently possible. That doesn't render what's currently possible invalid.

For the technique described in the links I gave, the person would have to be actively thinking about EVERYTHING. I don't know about you, but I can only think of one thing at a time and even that's too much for my poor noggin sometimes. My wife is the multi tasking, mental gymnastics type and I'm always 12 steps behind.

Well, I'm not an expert, but based on what I saw you would see either a large or small fuzzy apple like picture on the screen.

I call nonsense. Post whatever link you need to post to corroborate this.

Already done and done again above. You're welcome to contact the lab and researchers involved and verify it yourself if you still don't believe it. I'm just pointing you to the information.

I guess it's not clear what you are asking for. We've explained thoughts are energy transfer in the brain and the brain can be scanned to show activity including these thoughts you are having.

I don't know about what was "explained". I still have 3 fundamental questions that have yet to remain answered.

1. How can physical matter (brain) be used to explain the origin of mental constructs (consciousness)?

Well, when scientists started scanning peoples brains, they noticed that thinking of things lights up certain portions of the brain. Touching things lights up other parts. Seeing things lights up other parts. Etc. They are able to map which part of the brain is active during different activities. I've given you a link to a study that converts these scans into 'replicas' of what the person was thinking about. So obviously thoughts can be measured to some degree. If it can be measured, it must have some physical properties ascociated with it.

2. Who is the "person" from which the consciousness is occuring. The "I", the "Me". Who is the person that is doing the "thinking"?

I think you are straying into metaphysics now rather than just physics of measuring thoughts.

When you turn your computer on, who is the program that is waiting for your input. When you push that button on your iPhone and Siri asks what you want, who is that?

I'll be honest and state that metaphysics and philosophy are not my strong suits. I don't have any useful answers for you in those areas.

3. If mental states are physical, why can't anyone look inside my brain and tell me what I am thinking?

See above. They can to some degree. I'm not claiming they can clearly see exactly what you are thinking, but if you actually go read the research yourself you will see what they are able to do.

I maintain that neither one of those questions can be answered using the scientific method, and I am open to any evidence that proves otherwise.

I've given evidence of converting scans of these thoughts back into pictures that resemble the original thought.

That is the correlation...but that doesn't show the origin of mental capacity, does it?

All of this shows that brain activity is measurable

If you can't tell me how much the image of the apple that I am thinking of weighs, and its height/width, then we aren't taking about the same thing, are we?

Can you tell me how much the electricity running through your computer right now weighs? Is the electricity measurable?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, obviously we have a disconnect here. I showed this in post 69.

http://gallantlab.org/
http://gallantlab.org/index.php/publica ... t-al-2011/

Yeah, obviously, because those images in the reconstructed clip doesn't look like ANYTHING that is in the presented clip, especially the clip where the serviceman (or whatever) is wearing the dress uniform...the reconstruction clip shows a guy wearing what clearly looks like a short-sleeved shirt, while the serviceman is clearing wearing the dress jacket, long-sleeved.

The clip with the elephants; the reconstruction clip is not even REMOTELY similar to the presented clip.

It is all a bunch of b.s., bruh.

Well, that may be your wish, but that's not what is currently possible.

Well, then I will go where it is currently possible, with supernaturalism.

Already done and done again above. You're welcome to contact the lab and researchers involved and verify it yourself if you still don't believe it. I'm just pointing you to the information.

Do you honestly think that those reconstructed clips resemble what they were supposed to resemble? LOL.

Well, when scientists started scanning peoples brains, they noticed that thinking of things lights up certain portions of the brain. Touching things lights up other parts. Seeing things lights up other parts. Etc. They are able to map which part of the brain is active during different activities. I've given you a link to a study that converts these scans into 'replicas' of what the person was thinking about. So obviously thoughts can be measured to some degree. If it can be measured, it must have some physical properties asscociated with it.

Dude, I am talking about the mere IMAGE(s) of the thought. The thought of an apple is inside of my brain, clear as day. If my THOUGHTS where physical, the person that is looking inside of my brain should be able to tell me EXACTLY what I am thinking.

The chemicals are inside my brain is NOT the image of the apple. So where is this "image" coming from??

I think you are straying into metaphysics now rather than just physics of measuring thoughts.

Well, we go where ever the argument takes us. There is no measurement of the thoughts...there may be measurement of the chemicals, but the chemicals are NOT the thoughts.

You can't look inside my brain and see what I see..but yet you can see the electrons and neurons...well, that ISN'T what I see when I think of an apple, and that is EXACTLY the point.

What you see is the physical, and what I see is the mental. That is the distinction right there.

As far as the "I" is concerned, the point that I previously made is relevant, considering the fact that it is my view that our consciousness is the "inner" self that is unseen, yet, it is was our emotions correspond too.

When you turn your computer on, who is the program that is waiting for your input. When you push that button on your iPhone and Siri asks what you want, who is that?

I don't know computing programming work....but then again, a computer doesn't have feelings and emotions, does it? Nor does it have free will.

Actually, the concept of a computer helps prove MY point. If I asked you to explain the origins of your computer's CPU (central processing unit), but the answer that you give HAS to lie WITHIN the computer itself. No external entity can be used to explain the origins of the computer...would you be able to give me an answer?

No, you can't. However, if you WERE allowed to give an answer that is external to the computer and CPU, you will give an external answer in the form of intelligent design, that is, a MIND.

You, with your common sense, would not attempt to explain the origins of your CPU by naturalistic means with no intelligent design, would you?

Yet, that is what you attempt to do with the brain/consciousness, though? Why? Are you holding to the atheistic slogan "Any explanation, no matter absurd, is better than the "God" hypothesis"?

I'll be honest and state that metaphysics and philosophy are not my strong suits. I don't have any useful answers for you in those areas.

I admire you honesty, sir. Hey, check out this video..



J.P. Moreland is my second hero outside of WLC....actually, J.P Moreland and Dr. Craig are actually really good friends and brothers in Christ...however, J.P. Moreland likes to use the Argument from Consciousness in his list of arguments for the existence of God (unlike Craig).

Check out Dr. Moreland's series of videos on this argument...and you should also check out any of Robert Kuhn's Closer to Truth series, where he has some serious one-on-one discussions with some of the greatest minds in the world...Mr. Kuhn plays the devils advocate, allowing for some really thought provoking conversations.

You may be familiar with this stuff, but in case you are not, give it a go..

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl9StM ... lrskzjoYbQ

See above. They can to some degree. I'm not claiming they can clearly see exactly what you are thinking, but if you actually go read the research yourself you will see what they are able to do.

Based on the links that you've provided, I am still not convinced. You have to admit, those images are bad.

Can you tell me how much the electricity running through your computer right now weighs? Is the electricity measurable?

I don't know about weight, but electricity can be measured. In fact, isn't that what voltage is? Isn't that why we have things like circuit breakers?

[OpenYourEyes]

The fact that a thought doesn't weigh anything is no surprise because thought is not a substance, it's an activity in the brain. Thoughts are electrical processes. So asking "how much it weighs" makes about as much sense as asking how much electricity weights. Brain waves can still be detected, however, using an EEG (electroencephalogram). This proves that thoughts are in fact part of the physical world as objects in the physical world (electroencephalograms) can detect them.

Your point does not explain, or I should say prove, the relationship between electrical neural impulses and 'thought'. Are they causally related or just correlational? Even if casually related, then what is the direction of causation or is it bidirectional?

Also, there is no scientific verification for the claim that thought is just an electrical process. If you had the proof then you would've demonstrated how electrical impulses generate thought/consciousness. Philosophically-speaking, thoughts can also be mental states (i.e. subjective states) like beliefs, attitudes, feelings, intentions, and most impotantly, the content of a thought (a pretty woman, a tennis ball, music). etc. In other words, it can involve qualitative aspects and not just functional aspects. Your point completely leaves that out and therefore it is an inadequate explanation for consciousness. So again, not only does your view lack empirical verification, but it lacks an explanation that can account for all that consciousness is or involves.

No because the electricity in a socket does not follow the same synaptic pathways as the brain. Are you under the impression that all electrical activity is the same? A fridge and a radiator perform two vastly different functions but they both use electricity.

So when I say "the electrical activity of a fridge causes cool air" you would be an idiot in translating this as saying "I guess electrical outlets cause cool air too"

It would also be unreasonable to equate "cold" with "electricity" since one is simply a product of the other when it comes to refrigerators. If I consistently apply your logic about cold and electricity, then I also would not be equating neural impulses with 'thought'.

[Talishi]

Can you tell me how much the electricity running through your computer right now weighs? Is the electricity measurable?

It depends on how you define "now".... One second? One nanosecond?

An ammeter installed inline with the computer's power cord during operation will reveal the current draw in amps.

An amp is 6.241×10^18 electrons per second.

An electron has a mass of 9.1094 ×10^−31 kg

[benchwarmer]

It is all a bunch of b.s., bruh.

You are more than welcome to your opinion. You asked for evidence, I gave it. You didn't like it. Not much more I can do.

Dude, I am talking about the mere IMAGE(s) of the thought. The thought of an apple is inside of my brain, clear as day. If my THOUGHTS where physical, the person that is looking inside of my brain should be able to tell me EXACTLY what I am thinking.

Well, I'm sorry, they don't seem to be able to do it CLEARLY or EXACTLY yet. I never claimed they could.

The chemicals are inside my brain is NOT the image of the apple. So where is this "image" coming from??

The 'image' is coming from your memory of seeing an apple. At some point photons bounced off an apple, were collected by your eyes, and then a signal was sent to your brain which you interpret as 'apple'. Now when you think of 'apple' you see that 'image'. What 'image' do blind people have when thinking about an apple? I'm not blind, but likely they have a sensory memory that relies on touch, smell, and taste since they don't have the visual input. The point being that whatever was stored in the brain while experiencing an apple is brought to mind when thinking of one. This is all done with electrical impulses in the brain.

[Talishi]

The 'image' is coming from your memory of seeing an apple. At some point photons bounced off an apple, were collected by your eyes, and then a signal was sent to your brain which you interpret as 'apple'. Now when you think of 'apple' you see that 'image'. What 'image' do blind people have when thinking about an apple? I'm not blind, but likely they have a sensory memory that relies on touch, smell, and taste since they don't have the visual input. The point being that whatever was stored in the brain while experiencing an apple is brought to mind when thinking of one. This is all done with electrical impulses in the brain.

The brain is not a video recorder, but it is a movie making machine. There is enough bandwidth to store memories as data-compressed triggers, and the brain will try to reconstruct the image from these triggers. That is why three eyewitnesses in a courtroom will deliver often wildly varying accounts of the same incident. I noticed this when hiking trails I've done a decade before. It is as though I'm hiking them again, for the first time, except I know where they go, a strange experience if you think about it.

[OpenYourEyes]

The 'image' is coming from your memory of seeing an apple. At some point photons bounced off an apple, were collected by your eyes, and then a signal was sent to your brain which you interpret as 'apple'. Now when you think of 'apple' you see that 'image'.

We should be precise here. There are two types of images, one being the mental or internal imagery and the other is a computer generated image. The latter is the activity of the computer working to construct an image based on a pattern of brain activity. So the difference is between the memory constructing images which we view as internal or mental imagery and a computer constructing an image which we view on a monitor. At best, your study provides a representation of thought which means that thought itself is not observed, just as an fMRI provides a representational image of blood circulating in the brain while the blood itself is not observed.

To give some credit where credits due, I will say your point is convincing in that it shows that it's theoretical possible to get a rough image of what we're thinking. I'm also assuming here that the study is methodologically sound. Your study basically involves mapping out the patterned activity of the visual cortex in association with given stimuli (movie images, dynamic images at that). The question that still remains is if the activity of the visual cortex in relation to EXTERNAL stimuli (movie clips), which is what's used in your study, is the same process that our brain uses to produce INTERNAL or mental stimuli (ie without sight perception involved).

Here's an excerpt from your article here on this issue:

Neuroscientists generally assume that all mental processes have a concrete neurobiological basis. Under this assumption, as long as we have good measurements of brain activity and good computational models of the brain, it should be possible in principle to decode the visual content of mental processes like dreams, memory, and imagery. The computational encoding models in our study provide a functional account of brain activity evoked by natural movies. It is currently unknown whether processes like dreaming and imagination are realized in the brain in a way that is functionally similar to perception. If they are, then it should be possible to use the techniques developed in this paper to decode brain activity during dreaming or imagination.

To borrow from Talishi's view, I'd ask if can we observe the movie that's produced by our mind. It appears that we can only do so indirectly.

Also, what still needs to be explained is how the brain activity give rise to thought, awareness, self-awareness, etc. Is the direction of causation bidirectional?? ?

[Justin108]

Your point does not explain, or I should say prove, the relationship between electrical neural impulses and 'thought'.

If that's the case, then science does not prove the relationship between heating water and water boiling. If EEG scans do not prove the obvious relationship between thought and electrical activity in the brain, then why would the correlation between heating water and water boiling prove any relationship? You are extremely inconsistent in what you consider to be "proof" if you believe one but not the other.

Are they causally related or just correlational?

Is heating water and water boiling causally related or just correlational? Is the correlation between oxygen deprivation and death causally related or just correlational? Why are you being this skeptical about the correlation between electrical activity and thought, while not being equally skeptical about other correlational relationships?

Even if casually related, then what is the direction of causation or is it bidirectional?

Are you implying that something non-physical can influence something physical? In what other instance has something like this ever happened? The fact that your bidirectional hypothesis relies on an unexplainable interaction between the physical and the entirely non-physical makes it a weak hypothesis

If you had the proof then you would've demonstrated how electrical impulses generate thought/consciousness.

This is the evolution debate all over again. What kind of proof would satisfy you?

Philosophically-speaking, thoughts can also be mental states (i.e. subjective states) like beliefs, attitudes, feelings, intentions, and most impotantly, the content of a thought (a pretty woman, a tennis ball, music). etc. In other words, it can involve qualitative aspects and not just functional aspects. Your point completely leaves that out and therefore it is an inadequate explanation for consciousness.

"Science cannot explain literally every iota of the concept of thought, therefore it must be the result of magic"

PC's process complex content all the time. Do I need to explain how that content is generated? If something mechanical can generate this kind of content, why can't something purely biological? Why do you feel the need to inject some kind of supernatural essence?

It would also be unreasonable to equate "cold" with "electricity" since one is simply a product of the other when it comes to refrigerators. If I consistently apply your logic about cold and electricity, then I also would not be equating neural impulses with 'thought'.

Now apply your logic to a movie. What would you equate computer processing with? Electricity? Or a more abstract concept like data handling?

[For_The_Kingdom]

You are more than welcome to your opinion. You asked for evidence, I gave it. You didn't like it. Not much more I can do.

There is something more you can do, and that is; GIVE ME EVIDENCE FOR WHAT I ASKED FOR....NOT SOME PHONY, MADE-UP BULLSHIT.

Well, I'm sorry, they don't seem to be able to do it CLEARLY or EXACTLY yet.

Took the words right off of my fingertips.

The 'image' is coming from your memory of seeing an apple.

Really? Where does the memory come from?

At some point photons bounced off an apple, were collected by your eyes, and then a signal was sent to your brain which you interpret as 'apple'. Now when you think of 'apple' you see that 'image'.

We are talking about the ORIGIN of the thought, sir. You went from the failure to explain the origin of the apple (thought), to "now when you THINK of "apple", you see that image".

Thus, you haven't explained much of anything.

[OpenYourEyes]

Your point does not explain, or I should say prove, the relationship between electrical neural impulses and 'thought'.

If that's the case, then science does not prove the relationship between heating water and water boiling. If EEG scans do not prove the obvious relationship between thought and electrical activity in the brain, then why would the correlation between heating water and water boiling prove any relationship? You are extremely inconsistent in what you consider to be "proof" if you believe one but not the other.

I elaborated on what I meant with questions. I agree that there's a relationship between thought and brain activity, but what I'm asking you is about the nature or type of relationship.

Are they causally related or just correlational?

Is heating water and water boiling causally related or just correlational? Is the correlation between oxygen deprivation and death causally related or just correlational? Why are you being this skeptical about the correlation between electrical activity and thought, while not being equally skeptical about other correlational relationships?

Even if casually related, then what is the direction of causation or is it bidirectional?

Are you implying that something non-physical can influence something physical? In what other instance has something like this ever happened? The fact that your bidirectional hypothesis relies on an unexplainable interaction between the physical and the entirely non-physical makes it a weak hypothesis

If you had the proof then you would've demonstrated how electrical impulses generate thought/consciousness.

This is the evolution debate all over again. What kind of proof would satisfy you?

Philosophically-speaking, thoughts can also be mental states (i.e. subjective states) like beliefs, attitudes, feelings, intentions, and most impotantly, the content of a thought (a pretty woman, a tennis ball, music). etc. In other words, it can involve qualitative aspects and not just functional aspects. Your point completely leaves that out and therefore it is an inadequate explanation for consciousness.

"Science cannot explain literally every iota of the concept of thought, therefore it must be the result of magic"

PC's process complex content all the time. Do I need to explain how that content is generated? If something mechanical can generate this kind of content, why can't something purely biological? Why do you feel the need to inject some kind of supernatural essence?

It would also be unreasonable to equate "cold" with "electricity" since one is simply a product of the other when it comes to refrigerators. If I consistently apply your logic about cold and electricity, then I also would not be equating neural impulses with 'thought'.

Now apply your logic to a movie. What would you equate computer processing with? Electricity? Or a more abstract concept like data handling?[/quote]