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.

[FarWanderer]

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.

Sure.

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

From a purely object-reductionism standpoint, yes.

On the other hand, are neuronal correlates "necessary" in explaining actions and behaviors? I think they most certainly aren't the only way.

Where does this fit into religion?

Exactly where determinism does. Some religious views believe our actions are fated and unavoidable. Others do not.

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.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the "soul". You are either accountable for your actions or you're not, regardless.

[Excubis]

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.

Well although studies from Libet and perhaps Haynes did show that physical movement starting before majority of individuals knew it was occurring., but now there is the idea of a duality to conscious choice(free will). This means that some actions are not a choice and others are, it also hypo's that actions can be both as well dependent on stimuli and past experience to form habit.

If we look at the work of Stefan Bode, who has determined primarily that unconscious decisions can be decoded several moments before the subjects awareness of reaction. Now although these studies claim evidence of lack of free will to many this is not the case. To assume all physical movements are the same is a bias. I would suggest people read up on work of W.R. Klemm and his analysis of these studies before drawing a conclusion on free will.
W.R. Klemm analysis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942748/

I for one do not see these studies as evidence of no free will but only shows me perhaps a missing part of brain fucntion attributed to motor skills. Also reactionary physical movement in my opinion is not the best way to test conscious choice. I would ask does the subjects movement change after first movement example of test: If test subject is catching a ball of abnormal shape and size would subject not change technique each time to catch object more easily? Does this not mean subject is making a choice to change initial instinctual physical response so therefore is freely making a choice.

I myself see conscious choice(free will) in same regard although initially driven by instinct through experience we can over time change these actions. So my opinion is free will is the dualistic side of predetermism, without a base of behaviors(actions) to change free will(conscious choice) cannot be. I see it as a working value set, basic instinct is 0, I then can create different values from by choices 1,2,3 ect which enable me to do better(roughly) those actions/behaviors that cause hurt a person(self harm) are values of -1,-2,-3 since those choices take away from initial instinctual survival actions.

[pshun2404]

In my view the brain is like the tuner or hardware which receives and interprets/directs that quality you call consciousness (life being a vitalizing principle that acts upon certain structures of matter)

The never demonstrated unfounded preconceived belief that consciousness is the result of evolved matter dictates this conclusion. I am not limited to that view.

Now some could say “But Brain structure offers us a strong warning sign for psychopathy therefore the brain is the cause of consciousness.� To which I would say…

Yes, exactly! If the software or wiring in one section is damaged or shuts down it will obviously not work properly and thus interprets or directs the signal improperly.

The brain is merely the hardware. Correct or fix the hardware and it will do what the programmer and software originally intended.

Damage or disconnect a section of the hardware containing information, instruction, or memory relative to a particular function and that function becomes inoperable and may be permanently lost.
If it is a section controlling or directing a secondary function (say the movement of certain parts) they cease to work properly (possibly not at all).

This however does not automatically equal that the hardware IS the cause of the programmer or software it draws upon and relies on. Such a conclusion (that this means it is or must be the cause) is an invalid derivation.

[ventura23]

[Replying to post 13 by pshun2404]

Did it ever occur to you that an entity distorts thoughts?

[pshun2404]

[Replying to ventura23]

I can only suppose one can based on the fact that humans do it to each other all the time....

[arian]

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.

First, let's consider what we are talking about? Are we talking about little creator man who is very inquisitive, with unending questions, dreams, plans, who writes poetry, songs and music to the songs, able to dream and create art, .. who can debate endlessly because he was created in his Creator the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am" image?

OR

Are we talking about an animal of the ape family who evolved by highly energetic chemistry which is assumed to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and by-George, half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.
The current Sci-Fientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The beginning of life may, could and possibly have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells.

These animals have evolved by change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations as evident in dried up bones, and fossil rocks, and by observing these rock-fossils one can see where evolution in these organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits—particular characteristics of an organism.
In humans, for example, eye colour is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents. Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome (genetic material) is called its genotype. Eye color is another proof that this homo-animal-sapiens evolved over 4 billion years ago from a single celled bacteria.

The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behaviour of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
So, .. since the brain is part of the animals evolution, then the consciousness and actions of this animal is also the 'result' of evolution. And since I couldn't find in this 4 billion year old 'evolution story' as to how Consciousness evolved by its environment, it is difficult to establish any reasonable, or even mentionable conclusion as to how this brain that responds from 4 billion years of evolution could have responses so quickly in debates, or when talking?

I mean evolution explains eye color, and we know evolution takes millions, or at least thousands of years to notice any change but how this animals brain can reason and debate, or dream up a car, or airplane or a piece of music/art in matter of minutes is not mentioned!?

So, .. if the homo sapiens brain is the result of 4 billion years of Evolution, this animals responses in debating comes from the 4 billion years of accumulated instinct. This animals understanding between truth and lies has to come from instinct also, as did this Topic, .. not from some 'magical mind/spirit' living within the body that programs into the brain his desires, and interprets the brains neuron-signals as experiences.

It's either or, but to mix the two ideas only creates a mutated ideological primordial soup that only 'enough time and space' could make sense out of, since it is claimed that "if all we had was enough time and space", anything could happen!? And of course they could pull Spacetime out of even 'nothing'.
So in this sense 'nothing' = all possibilities at a ratio of 1:1, .. another words "It Happened because of the odds, .. it had to happen".

Another words, if your OP which came about by 4 billion years of accumulated spasm/instinct, then asking:

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.

.. is totally unintelligible.

It's like praying to a created idol of a god believing it was all-powerful, all knowing and eternal.

So can you please choose one relativistic view (Creator/created or BB-Evolution) and readdress you question again? Or present it separate in each POV?

Thanks agnosticatheist!

Take care.

[arian]

Consciousness and action is the proof of a Creator.

So to make people believe that man is an evolving animal, and ape whose brain creates this illusion of consciousness is the first line of defense against our Creator.

If consciousness was the result of the brains 4 billion year old evolution, there would be absolutely no way to reason like we humans do today. Responses would have to slowly evolve through time, which would be dependent on each persons environment, what they've been eating, genetics, etc.

Here is how two trees would be talking to each other by evolution:
Two trees sprout close by each other and they start growing. One takes off and grows real fast, spreads it branches and covers the sun from the other with its leaves to make sure it gets all the sun to survive. This says to the other tree: "I hate you, and I will kill you, or at least cripple you by stunning your growth by blocking the sun above your head!"

Now the same scenario, a bigger tree starts to lean away from the smaller tree and continues growing like that, .. it is saying: "I love you, I will bend over backwards to let you live and grow strong and healthy!"

Of course this is not how we humans communicate, not through evolution.

[FarWanderer]

[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.

[FarWanderer]

In my view the brain is like the tuner or hardware which receives and interprets/directs that quality you call consciousness (life being a vitalizing principle that acts upon certain structures of matter)

That's not how I see it. I see consciousness as physically represented by the body/brain.

The never demonstrated unfounded preconceived belief that consciousness is the result of evolved matter dictates this conclusion. I am not limited to that view.

I'm not either, but I also disagree that your conclusion is "dictated".

Now some could say “But Brain structure offers us a strong warning sign for psychopathy therefore the brain is the cause of consciousness.� To which I would say…

Yes, exactly! If the software or wiring in one section is damaged or shuts down it will obviously not work properly and thus interprets or directs the signal improperly.

The signal from what? The non-body "you" that exists nowhere yet simultaneously seems to float around in your body?

The brain is merely the hardware. Correct or fix the hardware and it will do what the programmer and software originally intended.

Damage or disconnect a section of the hardware containing information, instruction, or memory relative to a particular function and that function becomes inoperable and may be permanently lost.

Disconnect? To what was it connected in the first place? And by what are they connected?

If it is a section controlling or directing a secondary function (say the movement of certain parts) they cease to work properly (possibly not at all).

I don't think you'd find many who'd disagree with this.

This however does not automatically equal that the hardware IS the cause of the programmer or software it draws upon and relies on. Such a conclusion (that this means it is or must be the cause) is an invalid derivation.

I actually agree with this. However, Cartesian mind-body dualism is no solution.

Which is why I am something of a double-aspect theorist.

[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 agree, as do trees, bushes, plants, each after it's individual design.

But to say that gorillas (other apes in the family of apes) that still live within the vicinity of other humans, where both have evolved for the last (oh let's just say) 4 billion years, and share the same environment, food, meteor attacks, .. or whatever claims they have for the reasons to justify evolution, and one became so different as the human mind is from the apes, the only proper terminology to explain this is 'religious fanaticism'.

But that's not all, because humans have tried to educate the same 4 billion year evolved apes, with the same brain, made of the same substance, eating the same foods, under the same sun, the same night befalls them as us and they just can't seem to get it!? They can't reason with us. I mean you can train a pig to do more tricks (which are trained communication responses) then these ape cousins of yours. I mean if anything, the last movies on the "Planet of the Apes", like the chimp "Green-eyes" should be the least expected from your cousins.

Oh yea, how come we never observed any apes hiding deep in caves trembling from the dreaded darkness of night praying to some sun-god to save them?

I just can't see how anyone could stoop so low as to believe in all this Evolution BS? But then all we have to do is look at all the other religions out there, and suddenly the Evolution Religion doesn't sound so bad after all.