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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

I already posted my sources which explains some of the evidence. If the articles were too boring then I'll also include an 8 minute video of some of the evidence being presented. Click on the YOUTUBE link below if video doesn't play from this site.

I respectfully request you present your argument in this thread, as opposed to us having to parse through a video on another site.

I ask such out of respect for your intellect, and to keep from arguing points in the referenced video you might not support.

I refer folks to Clownboat's Post 20.

[OpenYourEyes]

From Post 17:

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.

Then it shouldn't be too big a bother that you'd present this 'scientifically validated' data for analysis.

Have at 'er.

I already posted my sources which explains some of the evidence. If the articles were too boring then I'll also include an 8 minute video of some of the evidence being presented. Click on the YOUTUBE link below if video doesn't play from this site.

[youtube][/youtube]

What you don't do and need to, is to type out what you find convincing and to be evidence. Then post the links/videos to show where your info is coming from so we can verify what you say.

I started listening to the YouTube video, but you didn't explain why I should be listening to it.

What the video seems to be about is:
Neuroscientist Sara Lazar's amazing brain scans show meditation can actually change the size of key regions of our brain, improving our memory and making us more empathetic, compassionate, and resilient under stress.

What do you find this to be evidence for? If there is a part of the video that you think we need to listen to? Please provide a time stamp if so.

If you think I'm being ridiculous, then allow me to supply evidence for evolution. I wont say what that evidence is or where in the video it is, but here is a 45 minute video with evidence in it.

I did much of what you're suggesting that I do in post #17. I cited the section of the article to read and explained how the research supports mind-body dualism. I'll try to elaborate more in my next reply to Joey.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 17 by OpenYourEyes]

I believe that consciousness controls the brain at least for non-autonomous choices we make such as choosing to raise our hand. I am open to mind-body dualism.

However, I still believe that the brain is what produces consciousness. What exactly in mind-body dualism disproves this? To me, their argument goes like this:

Consciousness can control the brain, and therefore it is not produced by the brain.

Now, I'm willing to accept the first part, but their conclusion does not follow from this. Now, if this argument is a straw-man, then please do tell what their argument is for consciousness not being produced by the brain.

To me, even though consciousness can control the brain, the brain is still what produces the consciousness. The evidence I cite is that consciousness disapears when the brain is changed in some way, such as being put under anesthesia.

What disproves my belief that consciousness is produced by the brain?

[OpenYourEyes]

From Post 19:

I already posted my sources which explains some of the evidence. If the articles were too boring then I'll also include an 8 minute video of some of the evidence being presented. Click on the YOUTUBE link below if video doesn't play from this site.

I respectfully request you present your argument in this thread, as opposed to us having to parse through a video on another site.

I ask such out of respect for your intellect, and to keep from arguing points in the referenced video you might not support.

I refer folks to Clownboat's Post 20.

Okay. Basically, there are 4 prevalent viewpoints on the mind-body issue.

1. Brain = Mind (Materialism)
2. Brain -> Mind (Materialism or Dualism)
3. Brain ⇄ Mind (Dualism)
4. Mind -> Brain (Hinduism, panpsychism, etc.)

#1 Is the materialist viewpoint which basically claims that brain causes the mind and is therefore physical.

#2 Fits within both opposing worldviews. The mind is seen as an emergent property of the brain but materialist still view that property as being the brain or physical whereas some dualist view it being more than the brain/nonphysical but dependent.

#3 is the another type dualist viewpoint where the mind and brain are two distinct entities but are interdependent and exert a bidirectional causality on each other. The mind is not derived from the brain as in #2.

#4 is from Hinduism and similar philosophies where everything (including the brain) is a product or expression of the mind or Universal mind.

I won't go through and give arguments for and against each viewpoint, but I will once again explain my reasoning and evidence of why the mind is separate and not caused by the brain (#3 on my list). This would show the inadequacy of materialism and in the process confirm some aspects of Christianity, like the concept of the soul.

Evidence
Sources:
1. Change the mind and you change the brain�: effects of cognitivebehavioral therapy on the neural correlates of spider phobia (from NeuroImage Journal)

In conclusion, the present �ndings suggest that a psychotherapeutic approach, such as CBT, has the potential to modify the dysfunctional neural circuitry associated with anxiety disorders. These �ndings support the conclusions of previous PET studies showing that psychotherapy can lead to adaptative regional brain metabolic changes in patients suffering from major depression (Brody et al., 2001; Martin et al., 2001) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Baxter et al., 1992; Schwartz et al., 1996). These �ndings further indicate that the changes made at the mind level, in a psychotherapeutic context, are able to functionally “rewire� the brain. In other words, “change the mind and you change the brain.�

2. Refer to the end of post #17, source #2 and 3.

My scientific evidence stems from neuroplasticity research, like the ones I posted above here. This research scientifically validates that the mind and behaviors can influence how the brain functions. If materialism were true, then we would only find the brain being the main cause of how we think and behave, and our behavior/thoughts would change in accordance to the brain (like brain damage, aging, etc) rather than the brain changing in reaction to the thought and behavior.

This shows that it's unreasonable to investigate how or why we have consciousness by reducing the brain to its constituent parts to find the cause. The brain is not the cause so there you will not find the beautiful lady in my mind!

Logical Conclusions
So if the brain is not the mind in that it was not caused by it, so what is it? From these facts, some reasonable deductions would be that it's a separate entity for starters. Secondly, it is unobservable but yet we know it exists through experience and through indirect observation of its effects on the brain. This is all shows the inadequacy of materialism thereby making mind-body dualism plausible. And mind-body dualism is compatible with some aspects of Christianity.

[Neatras]

If materialism were true, then we would only find the brain being the main cause of how we think and behave, and our behavior/thoughts would change in accordance to the brain (like brain damage, aging, etc) rather than the brain changing in reaction to the thought and behavior.

I don't see how that follows. That would be like arguing that because a steam engine produces power by burning coal components, that the coal can therefore not have any physical impact on the engine itself.

Rather, the materialist would willingly embrace that the mind can have an impact on the brain, because the mind is producing thoughts under physical conditions, and the impact of complex chemical interactions will have an impact on any substance. It just happens that the brain's plasticity renders it vulnerable to particular changes in psychological state that manifest in a physiological way.

At the expense of my argumentative prowess, I'll consider it relevant to refer to this video which addresses substance dualism with heightened precision. At least, the first two minutes address your argument.

[OpenYourEyes]

If materialism were true, then we would only find the brain being the main cause of how we think and behave, and our behavior/thoughts would change in accordance to the brain (like brain damage, aging, etc) rather than the brain changing in reaction to the thought and behavior.

I don't see how that follows. That would be like arguing that because a steam engine produces power by burning coal components, that the coal can therefore not have any physical impact on the engine itself.

As usual, analogies don't perfectly fit the scenario but the issue is the direction of causation. In your analogy, the coal and steam engine are two different entities, just as the mind and the body are different. I don't claim that the two can not interact, but rather that the direction of causation is bidirectional whereas in materialism it's only in one direction. There is scientific evidence that shows the former (bidirectional causation) as being valid.

Rather, the materialist would willingly embrace that the mind can have an impact on the brain, because the mind is producing thoughts under physical conditions, and the impact of complex chemical interactions will have an impact on any substance. It just happens that the brain's plasticity renders it vulnerable to particular changes in psychological state that manifest in a physiological way.

As a dualist, I can also agree that the mind is acting within the brain but for materialist, the brain is also supposed to be the controlling factor if we are to say that it causes the mind. When you reduce that cause to it's constituent parts, it is supposed to reveal consciousness. My use of neuroplasticity research is to show that the brain does not cause the mind in the way that materialists claim that it does. To the contrary, the mind being a separate entity is able to affect the brain so much so that the brain will rewire itself to reflect the neurophysiological function of the "desired" state of mind [1]. Your point completely leaves out the key part of just WHAT it is that is impacting the brain, and in the process you've provided no support for a material basis of the mind, to begin.

1. Change the mind and you change the brain�: effects of cognitivebehavioral therapy on the neural correlates of spider phobia (from NeuroImage Journal)

The brain activation pattern found in phobic subjects, after effective CBT, displayed some similarity with that noted in normal control subjects; that is, in controls, no frontal or hippocampal activity was detected during the viewing of the spider �lm excerpts

At the expense of my argumentative prowess, I'll consider it relevant to refer to this video which addresses substance dualism with heightened precision. At least, the first two minutes address your argument.

I watched the first couple of minutes but I am not convinced so far. He basically tried to argue that the real difference between the mind and body is just a difference of perspective (1st person vs. 3rd person perspectives). All he's doing is trying to reframe the mind-body issue and then drawing a conclusion based on his inadequate framing of the issue. I didn't see an explanation as to what is the mind, how is it caused, etc, etc.

[OpenYourEyes]

I believe that consciousness controls the brain at least for non-autonomous choices we make such as choosing to raise our hand. I am open to mind-body dualism.

However, I still believe that the brain is what produces consciousness. What exactly in mind-body dualism disproves this? To me, their argument goes like this:

Consciousness can control the brain, and therefore it is not produced by the brain.

Now, I'm willing to accept the first part, but their conclusion does not follow from this. Now, if this argument is a straw-man, then please do tell what their argument is for consciousness not being produced by the brain.

There are different types of dualism, and some forms allow for mind to be derived from the brain while still being more than just the brain. This is 'emergent dualism' and you'll find this position held by philosophers such as William Hasker, David Chalmers, John Searle, etc.

I don't have a set position other than accepting the following:
- the mind is nonphysical or irreducible
- interacts with the brain
- Neural functions are a product of the mind, in part

The existence of a non-physical aspect by itself defeats materialism.

To me, even though consciousness can control the brain, the brain is still what produces the consciousness. The evidence I cite is that consciousness disapears when the brain is changed in some way, such as being put under anesthesia.

I don't believe that anesthesia is completely understood to make a clear-cut claim of there not being any mental activity whatsoever.. I can agree that we're definitely not in a wakeful state but that doesn't mean that the mind is not active via dreams, etc. Drugs given during anesthesia, like Propofol, often produce amnesia so patients may dream but just not remember it. I remember reading studies where people under anesthesia remember dreaming.

Either way, anesthesia might present a problem to some forms of dualism, but not with emergent dualists.

What evidence is there that consciousness is produced by the brain to begin with?

There is no scientifically verifiable explanation for how consciousness is produced. I just know that it's more than the brain and that a strict materialist view would be inadequate in trying to explain it.

[Bust Nak]

...the brain is also supposed to be the controlling factor if we are to say that it causes the mind. When you reduce that cause to it's constituent parts, it is supposed to reveal consciousness. My use of neuroplasticity research is to show that the brain does not cause the mind in the way that materialists claim that it does.

Why do you think that? Is it so surprising that software hardware relation goes both way in a purely material brain? The same happens in electronic computers too, I don't think anyone would suggest some form of dualism for the every day PC.

[OpenYourEyes]

...the brain is also supposed to be the controlling factor if we are to say that it causes the mind. When you reduce that cause to it's constituent parts, it is supposed to reveal consciousness. My use of neuroplasticity research is to show that the brain does not cause the mind in the way that materialists claim that it does.

Why do you think that?

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. 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.

Is it so surprising that software hardware relation goes both way in a purely material brain? The same happens in electronic computers too, I don't think anyone would suggest some form of dualism for the every day PC.

Based on the long history of what materialists have led us to believe, I'd say yes, it is surprising. Our brains are not like the fixed hardware of microchips and wiring of a computer. Part of our software is reducible to electrical signals that monitors can pick up, but contrary to computer software, there's still that aspect that is irreducible, i.e. our awareness, our subjective experiences, etc. 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.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Consciousness as a byproduct of electricity?

First off, I feel a need to define consciousness as not merely a process of thought, but rather the experience of having those thoughts.

And I feel the need to define consciousness as not merely a process of thought, but rather the experience of having those thoughts. And that having "the experience of having those thoughts" is also process of thought.

We are self-aware creatures. We have "consciousness" of our "consciousness". This kind of recursivity gets complicated, but I think you just missed a step.

We think, but we also think about our thinking. And we think about who is doing the thinking about the thinking.

I think about who is doing my thinking, therefore, I think that I am thinking.
( I would LOVE a Latin translation for that ! )