We don't know if consciousness is physical, Period.

[AgnosticBoy]

On another thread, one member stated the following regarding consciousness:

Where you are begging the question is when you assume that the mind (i e. Something immaterial) is responsible for that, when the brain (network of neurons plugged to stimulus from the outside world + a bunch of accidents of evolution) can perfectly be pointed as the source of those behavior.

Before assuming something immaterial is responsible for a phenomenon, starts by proving something immaterial exist to begin with.

Not only am I skeptical of this claim, which is a common claim made by atheists, but I also get annoyed by the level of confidence that people have in the above claim. If the researchers that study consciousness acknowledge that it presents a 'hard problem', then why should I believe any claims that explain consciousness as being physical? In my view, there are good reasons to doubt that consciousness is material or physical. The way I look at it is that even if consciousness is physical, it is still unlike any other physical phenomenon in the Universe. The main reason for that is that the presence of subjectivity. As it stands, subjective experiences can only be observed by the subject. Also, they are not measurable nor observable from the third-person point-of-view. Don't all of those characteristics sound familiar to some thing else? Immaterial or non-physical (also being unobservable, not measurable, etc.)?

Please debate:
1. Is it arrogant to claim that consciousness is physical?
2. Are there good reasons to doubt that it is physical? Or do you agree with the point from the post I quoted at the beginning of this post?

[Gracchus]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #100]
Life is chemistry, and we are all cousins to cabbages and kings.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #100]
Life is chemistry, and we are all cousins to cabbages and kings.

I hear ya, even if the pretty thing says I have the brains of a gopher

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #100]
Life is chemistry, and we are all cousins to cabbages and kings.

I hear ya, even if the pretty thing says I have the brains of a gopher

That's alright. We're all cousins of gophers too.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #100]
Life is chemistry, and we are all cousins to cabbages and kings.

I hear ya, even if the pretty thing says I have the brains of a gopher

That's alright. We're all cousins of gophers too.

And uncles of monkeys

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #99]

Did you really mean to write this? It is the same analogy I've been trying to make. The thought process can look complicated, but it is really nothing more than the complicated interactions of the brain's physical components working as a system.

That might be true but I just said it better.

My point is that this theory cannot produce original thought. The crystalline structure of salt will always be cubic. The crystalline structure of calcite is trigonal. It does not change. These always form the same structure.

Again, it isn't just chemical reactions that define the brain's functioning. Electrical signals are part of the system, as are memory elements, networks of neurons, and all of the higher level functions that are enabled by many subsystems interacting with each other. You're painting a picture (pun intended) of a brain that is nothing but a soup of chemicals reacting purely according to the rules of chemistry and asking how that could produce something like a thought. That is not at all how the brain system works. If you could identify every molecule that is present in a brain and form a collection of them, and toss them into a pot in the right proportions, you'd never get anything resembling a thought.

They are just chemical reactions according to your theory. The electrical signals are produced by the chemical reactions. A cause-to-effect reaction would cause the same reactions to occur. There would be no higher function in your theory. Just more chemical reactions. The higher function would have to be some sort of algorithm that the brain uses to organize the input so in that case it would not be cause to effect.

You're back to intelligence, not consciousness. I wouldn't argue against the intelligence of a chimp being closer to a dog than to a human, but I think chimps have been shown to have higher cognitive ability than a dog. In any case, our DNA is a lot closer to a chimp than to a dog, and the huge evolutionary advantage for humans is a much more advanced and capable brain. This distinction is a matter of degree, not kind, and higher intelligence was clearly a huge benefit as it rapidly evolved along the Homo line.

No, I am not speaking of intelligence and consciousness I am speaking of primary consciousness and secondary consciousness.

• Primary consciousness can be defined as simple awareness that includes perception and emotion. As such, it is ascribed to most animals.

• By contrast, secondary consciousness depends on and includes such features as self-reflective awareness, abstract thinking, volition and metacognition.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_co ... acognition.

It is not that animals do not have the intelligence that humans have animals do not have the same level of consciousness that humans have.

[boatsnguitars]

The crystalline structure of salt will always be cubic. The crystalline structure of calcite is trigonal. It does not change. These always form the same structure.

It must suck that both reality and science proves you demonstrably wrong.





Just so everyone understands, his argument is that structures in nature are completely uniform, so if we arent divinely inspired, how can we have novel idea like combining a walkman with an iphone to make an ipod? It's shear lunacy!

Meanwhile, we see variations in nature. There is even a cylindrical salt molecule in that picture.
It literally, and pictorially, proves he has no clue what he's talking about.
He's an anti-science woo peddler.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #105]

They are just chemical reactions according to your theory. The electrical signals are produced by the chemical reactions. A cause-to-effect reaction would cause the same reactions to occur. There would be no higher function in your theory. Just more chemical reactions. The higher function would have to be some sort of algorithm that the brain uses to organize the input so in that case it would not be cause to effect.

I've never claimed the brain system is nothing but cause and effect. The point I've repeatedly made is that the brain as a highly integrated and complex system has far more capability in terms of function than the sum of its parts. The basic chemical reactions, electrical signals, neuron functions, etc. can all be reproducible and predictable, but when combined into an integrated system new functions are possible. This is your "algorithm" ... and it evolved over hundreds of millions of years driven by the need for centralized organization and control, and the need to manage more complex body systems.

Again, start with the brain of a simple worm, and follow that throughout the long evolutionary period from worms to modern animals (which includes humans). Basic neurons have been around for some 500 million years, but were initially components of much simpler systems:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pd ... 0489-4.pdf

"The first clear indication of nervous tissue was the appearance of well-formed eyes and faint outlines of nervous systems in fossils from ~525 million years ago. At a molecular level, many of the ‘neuron-specific molecules’ (voltage-gated channels, molecules that form Current Biology Magazine Current Biology 26, R937–R980, October 24, 2016 R951 synaptic structures) were already present in all major animal clades before the earliest fossils (Figure 1).

Even some bacteria have genes homologous to those making these molecules, which means that these genes were present in the common prokaryotic/eukaryotic ancestor, which could have been as long as 4 billion years ago."

It is the organization of neurons and all the other brain components that has built progressively more complex and capable brains over this time period ... using the same basic "building blocks." You're missing the crucial point that these brain systems have far more function than the simpler components that make them up (eg. chemical reactions).

It is not that animals do not have the intelligence that humans have animals do not have the same level of consciousness that humans have.

This is another intelligence argument. Defining verious levels of consciousness just moves some of the intelligence component into a particular definition for consciousness. Abstract thought is related to the rostral prefrontal cortex in human, and this evolved as brains evolved. Higher levels of intelligence is the key feature of the human brain, and this obviously evolved over time with changes in brain structure and size.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
My point is that this theory cannot produce original thought.
...

What's not "original thought" is Christian attempts to deny science simply because it doesn't do their imaginary friend proud.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

Atheists Justin Schrieber says that consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical. He talks about it in this debate on if God exists. Of course, Justin, being an atheists argues against God, yet he not only thinks consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical, neither can morals.

He is a moral realist. He is a panpsychist. He is a very smart dude that knows his philosopher pretty well.

[brunumb]

Atheists Justin Schrieber says that consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical. He talks about it in this debate on if God exists. Of course, Justin, being an atheists argues against God, yet he not only thinks consciousness cannot be reduced to the physical, neither can morals.

Atheists is plural. Atheist is singular. Not good for credibility when one can't even get that right.