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]

You may want to invest in a tin foil hat too (I'd loan you mine, but it is firmly strapped on right now). See the following link:

http://gallantlab.org/

There is an updated video based on a previously published paper:

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

They are able to reconstruct images which are eerily close to what you are seeing via brain activity. Pretty cool and scary at the same time.

Ok, so are we able to hook a suspect's brain up to a device or machine to tell whether or not the person committed a crime? No, we can't.

Therefore, your links are irrelevant, sir. LOL.

[Justin108]

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.

Okkkk. So you just agreed with me that the "thought" itself ISN'T of itself made up of material/physical substance....which was basically my point.

Would you consider electricity a physical substance? Or a spiritual one?

So are electrical outlets and sockets. I guess they are thinking, too?

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"

Electricity can be measured, can't it?

Yes. And so can brainwaves

It proves there is a correlation, that's it. It doesn't prove/demonstrate where the "thoughts" came from in the first place.

As long as a person is thinking, his brain waves can be detected. One that person is brain dead, and therefore thoughtless, their brainwaves can no longer be detected.

If you consider this as "nothing more than correlation" then you would have to apply this same reasoning to boiling water. "There is a correlation between applying excessive heat to water and water boiling, but that doesn't prove that excessive heat causes water to boil". Do you believe excessive heat causes water to boil? Or is this nothing but an arbitrary correlation?

You can shape and mold as much brain material as you'd like to form the perfect brain, but where would you get the "thoughts" from? That is a different question, isn't it?

If someone were actually capable of making a brain and "starting it up", they should be able to generate thoughts.

Second, again, there is also the question of the individual who is the person or the "I" that is actually doing the thinking.

That's a whole other philosophical issue. Science doesn't care about questions like this. Scientifically, a brain is a system rather than an individual.

Hmmm. Again, this can't be answered on naturalism.

That's because concepts like this is not part of what naturalism aims to explain. This is like criticizing maths because it fails to explain what William Blake tried to convey in Tiger Tiger

[benchwarmer]

You may want to invest in a tin foil hat too (I'd loan you mine, but it is firmly strapped on right now). See the following link:

http://gallantlab.org/

There is an updated video based on a previously published paper:

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

They are able to reconstruct images which are eerily close to what you are seeing via brain activity. Pretty cool and scary at the same time.

Ok, so are we able to hook a suspect's brain up to a device or machine to tell whether or not the person committed a crime? No, we can't.

Not yet, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Besides, the links I gave have nothing to do with determining past events. The research was all about gathering brain scan data and reconstructing the images that were being thought about during the scans. If you hooked up the suspect, you would probably get pictures of the people hooking up the suspect and their subsequent dirty looks.

Therefore, your links are irrelevant, sir. LOL.

They are irrelevant to your point yes, but not mine which is that thoughts can be physically measured to some degree by scanning brain activity.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, so are we able to hook a suspect's brain up to a device or machine to tell whether or not the person committed a crime? No, we can't.

Not yet we can't. You will accept that our mind is material, if neuroscientists can build an accurate lie detector by scanning a person's brain?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Would you consider electricity a physical substance? Or a spiritual one?

Judging by the first sentence of the wiki article on electricity, which states:

Electricity is the set of physical phenomena associated with the presence and flow of electric charge.

So I am gonna have to go with physical, Regis.

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"

The electrical outlet that the fridge is plugged in to have a lot to do with that cool air, doesn't it?

So would I be an idiot for translating it that way, or would you be an idiot for thinking that what you said in ANY way undermined my original point?

Yes. And so can brainwaves

Can it be measured in a way to tell the thinker what he/she is thinking. Nope.

As long as a person is thinking, his brain waves can be detected. One that person is brain dead, and therefore thoughtless, their brainwaves can no longer be detected.

Irrelevance.

If you consider this as "nothing more than correlation" then you would have to apply this same reasoning to boiling water. "There is a correlation between applying excessive heat to water and water boiling, but that doesn't prove that excessive heat causes water to boil". Do you believe excessive heat causes water to boil? Or is this nothing but an arbitrary correlation?

Ok, so..

When you apply excessive heat to water, the water begins to boil.

Cool. That, is science. We can see it, experiment with it, and even make predictions relating to it.

Now, fill in the blank..

When you _____ to the brain, the brain will begin to think. Go ahead, fill in the blank. We are talking about the ORIGIN of consciousness from preexisting matter (the brain).

Can you fill in the blank? No, you can't. No one can.

If someone were actually capable of making a brain and "starting it up", they should be able to generate thoughts.

That is a mere assertion, considering the fact the question is ultimately HOW do you do it? You can't just go to an ice chest, pull a thought out of it, carry it over to a brain, and drop it on top of the brain, and PRESTO, the brain is now thinking of the thought.

No sir.

That's a whole other philosophical issue. Science doesn't care about questions like this. Scientifically, a brain is a system rather than an individual.

So basically, "I can't answer your question, so moving right along, shall we?"

Got it.

That's because concepts like this is not part of what naturalism aims to explain. This is like criticizing maths because it fails to explain what William Blake tried to convey in Tiger Tiger

So basically, "Naturalism can't answer the tough questions like the ones that you are posing. But when religious folks try to answer such questions using methods beyond science, we will accuse them of being unscientific".

Foolishness.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not yet, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Sounds like you hold to a future hope in the same way believers hold to a future hope.

Besides, the links I gave have nothing to do with determining past events. The research was all about gathering brain scan data and reconstructing the images that were being thought about during the scans. If you hooked up the suspect, you would probably get pictures of the people hooking up the suspect and their subsequent dirty looks.

Then, as I said, irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to your point yes, but not mine which is that thoughts can be physically measured to some degree by scanning brain activity.

Ok, so if I think of a giant apple, will the measurement of the "thought" of this giant apple be a bigger measurement than the thought of a tiny apple?

Cmon now people...no one is giving me what I am asking for, yet everyone is offering these solutions. LOL.

[Justin108]

So would I be an idiot for translating it that way, or would you be an idiot for thinking that what you said in ANY way undermined my original point?

Your point being that thoughts are not physical, except that I've demonstrated that they are

Can it be measured in a way to tell the thinker what he/she is thinking. Nope.

What's your point? Because technology is not infinite in its capabilities that somehow thought stops being physical?

When you _____ to the brain, the brain will begin to think.

So because we do not have complete control over the brain, we cannot observe the brain...? Science has observed the nature of the sun and concluded that it's powered by nuclear fusion. This has been observed despite us having zero control over the sun. So applying your question...
"when you _____ to the sun, the sun generate energy.

We cannot fill that blank because we can't do a damn thing to the sun. That doesn't matter, however, because empirical observations can be made regardless.

You can't just go to an ice chest, pull a thought out of it, carry it over to a brain, and drop it on top of the brain, and PRESTO, the brain is now thinking of the thought.

Yes, because as explained already, a thought is not a "thing", it's a process

So basically, "I can't answer your question, so moving right along, shall we?"

Got it.

Yes, let's just ignore the part where I give a valid explanation for why science cannot answer this question. If you feel you scored some points this way, then by all means... pat yourself on the back.

If science somehow "fails" because it cannot answer this question then I guess math also fails for being unable to explain poetry and art.

So basically, "Naturalism can't answer the tough questions like the ones that you are posing. But when religious folks try to answer such questions using methods beyond science, we will accuse them of being unscientific".

Who exactly are you quoting here? I certainly never said any of this

[benchwarmer]

Not yet, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Sounds like you hold to a future hope in the same way believers hold to a future hope.

No, I'm merely pointing out that it is not currently technologically possible to do. It may be one day. Whether I hope for it to happen or not is irrelevant.

Besides, the links I gave have nothing to do with determining past events. The research was all about gathering brain scan data and reconstructing the images that were being thought about during the scans. If you hooked up the suspect, you would probably get pictures of the people hooking up the suspect and their subsequent dirty looks.

Then, as I said, irrelevant.

But it's not irrelevant to your apple question. If you are hooked up and thinking of an apple, you would see a fuzzy picture of an apple. You've drifted off onto a completely different topic of showing past crimes committed which is not relevant.

They are irrelevant to your point yes, but not mine which is that thoughts can be physically measured to some degree by scanning brain activity.

Ok, so if I think of a giant apple, will the measurement of the "thought" of this giant apple be a bigger measurement than the thought of a tiny apple?

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. Are you asking if you expend more energy thinking of big apples versus small apples? I have no clue. However, if thinking of big apples were to make you hungry versus thinking of small apples and simply feeling sad, then you would probably spend a bit more energy thinking of big apples due to the signals you would be sending to your stomach. In the end, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Do these thoughts weigh anything? No. Do they have relativistic mass? Yes, since they are energy.

Cmon now people...no one is giving me what I am asking for, yet everyone is offering these solutions. LOL.

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've given evidence of converting scans of these thoughts back into pictures that resemble the original thought. All of this shows that brain activity is measurable and not some invisible, non measurable entity. If you want to go with your theory, you will have to explain how our thoughts interface with our body. You have provided no hypothesis on that other than "I don't know". Which is a valid thing to say, but hardly convincing when we have a perfectly natural explanation.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Your point being that thoughts are not physical, except that I've demonstrated that they are.

No you didn't. You've demonstrated that the electrons are physical, which I never denied, in fact, I granted this.

But the electrons aren't the thoughts, and the thoughts aren't the electrons...they are NOT the same thing. If they were, then you should be able to look at and/or inside my brain and tell me what I am thinking. So as you are looking at the chemicals, you should also be looking at the THOUGHTS.

So when I am thinking of an apple, you should be able to look at the chemicals and say "there is the apple". But you can't. They are not the same.

What's your point? Because technology is not infinite in its capabilities that somehow thought stops being physical?

No, the thoughts never stops being physical. They were never physical in the first place.

So because we do not have complete control over the brain, we cannot observe the brain...?

Who said anything about control? Straw man.

Science has observed the nature of the sun and concluded that it's powered by nuclear fusion.
This has been observed despite us having zero control over the sun. So applying your question...
"when you _____ to the sun, the sun generate energy.

We cannot fill that blank because we can't do a damn thing to the sun. That doesn't matter, however, because empirical observations can be made regardless.

Ok, so we can use the scientific method to conclude the nature of the sun and how it generates energy, correct? Fine. So use the scientific method to give an explanation as to how consciousness originated from non-consciousness material.

Plain and simple. Either you can do it, or you can't. And the bottom line is, you can't.

Yes, because as explained already, a thought is not a "thing", it's a process

A thought is an abstract "thing", sir...regardless of whether or not thinking is a process.

Yes, let's just ignore the part where I give a valid explanation for why science cannot answer this question.

So basically, you feel as if you gave a valid explanation as to why science cannot answer a question regarding a phenomenon that you believe NATURALLY occurs.

So there are some things in nature that science cannot explain? Thanks for telling me that.

If science somehow "fails" because it cannot answer this question then I guess math also fails for being unable to explain poetry and art.

Look, I don't care what method you use to explain it, the fact of the matter is, you can't explain it REGARDLESS of the methodology you use. There is nothing for you to appeal to, sir.

And we have a mindless and BLIND process (nature) that is able to do something that intelligent human beings can't do...and that is create a human being AND consciousness from stratch, basically.

It aint happening.

Who exactly are you quoting here? I certainly never said any of this

You didn't say it, but you implied it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No, I'm merely pointing out that it is not currently technologically possible to do. It may be one day.

Right, and I am saying that may be one day Jesus will return. That's all.

Whether I hope for it to happen or not is irrelevant.

True, but the mere suggestion is all I needed to make the statement that I made.

But it's not irrelevant to your apple question. If you are hooked up and thinking of an apple, you would see a fuzzy picture of an apple.

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

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, 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.

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)?

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

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

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?

If you want to go with your theory, you will have to explain how our thoughts interface with our body. You have provided no hypothesis on that other than "I don't know". Which is a valid thing to say, but hardly convincing when we have a perfectly natural explanation.

Answer any 3 of the above questions with a natural explanation.