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]

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.

I'm truly sorry I can't supply whatever will convince you. You can take it up with the scientists that produced the "phony, made up ...". No need to shout and swear by the way. It doesn't help your argument. If that's what you are resorting to, I'm done.

[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 posted a series of questions which served as an elaboration to my point. I agree that there's a relationship between thought and brain activity, but I asked you about the nature or the type relationship between the two.

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?

The simple answer is that our thoughts are unobserved while your example contains observable matters. Secondly, there is that centuries old mind/body problem commonly referred to as the 'hard problem'. As it stands, there is no scientifically verified peer-reviewed and successfully replicated evidence that shows how the brain produces the mind (subjective experience).

You also imply that it's a big problem to theists that we've not explained how the interaction occurs. You would not be surprised if you factored in that science has limits, and one limit is that it deals with only natural/physical things.

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.

The interaction happens but we can not explain how it happens. Earlier in this thread, I posted a study that explained that the 'mind' can influence brain function. So putting these two points together we have unobserved phenomena influencing physical structures.

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?

I hope you can do more than to just explain how consciousness is an advantageous trait passed down to subsequent generations. If that's all you got then this does NOT explain how brain activity produces consciousness. I would like an explanation from the fields that study this matter, and I'd prefer an explanation that is backed by scientific peer-reviewed/replicated studies. I keep asking materialist for this evidence just to be told that "we'll have it in the near-future". Meanwhile there's evidence coming out that consciousness does not depend on the brain as first thought as evidenced by studies on self-directed neuroplasticity. I hope you can understand my refusal to put my faith in materialism.

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"

The holes in our knowledge is not just about minute details, it's on many fundamental points starting with not knowing how the brain produce consciousness. Seeing that consciousness is a part of every human, we use it every second, and without it we would not have science to begin with, I think that's a HUGE gap in our knowledge. Again, this is something that we all experience but yet can't explain how or why it's there.

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?

Can computers generate consciousness? Why inject the supernatural into this issue? Perhaps it's because religious claims, especially regarding consciousness, can potentially count as being part of reality, as well, and that we should not discount it a priori, especially when or if it's testable. Perhaps it's also because consciousness is unobserved and unexplained after hundreds of years worth of inquiry.

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?

You did not respond to nor refute my point about "electricity" not being the same as "coldness". I would not limit computer processing to just being electricity. Sure, electricity is involved but the functions are carried out by various hardware and software. Still, the point remains that electricity is not the "hardware" nor the "software". If you intended to apply this to the brain, then I asked you about the qualitative aspect of 'thought'.

How do you explain the qualitative aspects such as mental imagery. For example, using thought, I can visualize a beautiful girl, blonde or brunette, with a nice body, and it just so happens that she wants me. Notice this thought is filled with distinct qualities and I even attributed desires to this imagined woman. Surely, a description of 'thought' should involve MORE than just electrical movement between cells, and I provided a clear and vivid example of how thought is more than just electric current.

[Justin108]

You also imply that it's a big problem to theists that we've not explained how the interaction occurs. You would not be surprised if you factored in that science has limits, and one limit is that it deals with only natural/physical things.

There is no evidence for the unnatural and non-physical so to ascribe our thoughts to the unnatural is an unjustified assumption. Essentially your argument boils down to a god-of-the-gaps situation. "Science cannot explain literally everything about the brain. Therefore, we must have souls"

Seeing that consciousness is a part of every human, we use it every second, and without it we would not have science to begin with, I think that's a HUGE gap in our knowledge. Again, this is something that we all experience but yet can't explain how or why it's there.

Yes, and our inability to explain it does not conclude a soul.

It baffles me sometimes how people demand science knows everything. The fact that we know as much as we do about nature is astounding, yet people like you aren't satisfied. Yes, there is a huge gap in our knowledge. What's your point?

Can computers generate consciousness?

Depends on how you define consciousness

Why inject the supernatural into this issue? Perhaps it's because religious claims, especially regarding consciousness, can potentially count as being part of reality, as well, and that we should not discount it a priori

I'm not saying we should discount it a priori, I'm saying we should not assume it simply because we don't quite know how consciousness works. This is the god-of-the-gaps argument.

especially when or if it's testable.

Are you saying the existence of souls are testable?

I would not limit computer processing to just being electricity. Sure, electricity is involved but the functions are carried out by various hardware and software. Still, the point remains that electricity is not the "hardware" nor the "software". If you intended to apply this to the brain, then I asked you about the qualitative aspect of 'thought'.

Brain = hardware
Thought = software

How do you explain the qualitative aspects such as mental imagery.

The same way I would explain a movie on a hard-drive. It's data. It's information

Surely, a description of 'thought' should involve MORE than just electrical movement between cells, and I provided a clear and vivid example of how thought is more than just electric current.

Just as data processes on a computer is "more than just electrical movement".

How would you describe data on a hard-drive? However you describe it, you could likely apply the same description to thought

[Talishi]

[quote="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./quote]

I will play the Devil's advocate and argue for an afterlife:

1. Things are said to exist if they are verified. For example, neutrinos are verified (barely) by observation.

2. Things have the possibility of existing if they are verifiable in principle (the red dress Cleopatra may have worn on her 20th birthday could have been verified, in principle, by her or by those present at her birthday party).

3. Things do not exist if they are not verifiable, even in principle (a ball that is simultaneous all red and all blue does not exist because it is a self-contradiction and not verifiable, even in principle).

4. Consciousness before death exists, because it is being verified now (you are conscious, for example, of the elements of this proof).

5. Consciousness is a private phenomenon which is only verifiable by the person who has it. This is why it can only be inferred that animals, who cannot speak, have awareness.

6. Consciousness after death may exist, because it could be verified, in principle, by the subject himself, post mortem, if and only if consciousness after death exists.

7. The case that “no consciousness after death exists� does not exist, because it is not verifiable, even in principle, since verification requires the consciousness of the deceased.

8. If the case that “no consciousness after death exists� does not exist (7), and if its negation, that “consciousness after death exists� is not strictly ruled out (6), then consciousness after death must exist, by the rule “if not non-A then A.�

[OpenYourEyes]

You also imply that it's a big problem to theists that we've not explained how the interaction occurs. You would not be surprised if you factored in that science has limits, and one limit is that it deals with only natural/physical things.

There is no evidence for the unnatural and non-physical so to ascribe our thoughts to the unnatural is an unjustified assumption. Essentially your argument boils down to a god-of-the-gaps situation. "Science cannot explain literally everything about the brain. Therefore, we must have souls"

It is also unjustified to fill in the gaps with naturalistic explanations unless there is scientific evidence to justify those explanations. Secondly, we should not be surprised that there is no 'scientific' evidence (there are other evidence from billions of experiences) since science is only tailored to look for natural/physical phenomena and explain it accordingly. Would you complain that your Google search results never showed images when your search settings filter out images?

Seeing that consciousness is a part of every human, we use it every second, and without it we would not have science to begin with, I think that's a HUGE gap in our knowledge. Again, this is something that we all experience but yet can't explain how or why it's there.

Yes, and our inability to explain it does not conclude a soul.

My point is not just based on not having a scientific explanation for consciousness, but it's also based on the fact that it is unobserved. At best, we can measure it indirectly by seeing how 'thought' correlates with brain activity, but it doesn't seem that we'll ever get to the source directly no matter if we can translate it into waveforms, color spectrums, or even pictures. Although some scientists have raised objections to the statistical significance of even these neural correlate studies. If these studies are recording genuine correlations and at a significant rate, then I'd expect them to be able to perform better than our typical lie detector tests (the measured physiological reactions do not always correlate with intentions, e.g. lie detectors can be fooled), that is, up to foolproof standards.

It baffles me sometimes how people demand science knows everything. The fact that we know as much as we do about nature is astounding, yet people like you aren't satisfied. Yes, there is a huge gap in our knowledge. What's your point?

I don't expect scientists to know everything but I do expect atheists to have proof for their claims if they intend on using science. If you want to claim that your views are based on logic and evidence as opposed to faith, then I will certainly hold you to that standard.

Can computers generate consciousness?

Depends on how you define consciousness

I can't give a full definition of consciousness but I can describe some of its features. It involves awareness, self-awareness, thought, feelings, imagery, etc.

Why inject the supernatural into this issue? Perhaps it's because religious claims, especially regarding consciousness, can potentially count as being part of reality, as well, and that we should not discount it a priori

I'm not saying we should discount it a priori, I'm saying we should not assume it simply because we don't quite know how consciousness works. This is the god-of-the-gaps argument.

Naturalism-of-the-gaps, although more testable, utilizes the same faulty reasoning when used to draw conclusions on unproven matters. If you want to inject naturalism or a particular explanation, then you must do the work and demonstrate it, replicate it, and have the evidence reviewed by other experts in the field. When I ask naturalist/materialist for proof that the brain produces consciousness I always hear that "we'll have it some day soon". I don't share that faith or at best I'd rather remain neutral if I was relying only on science for the answer.

especially when or if it's testable.

Are you saying the existence of souls are testable?

The term 'soul' is a loaded concept. I'd rather say that the mind that you and I experience is testable. Scientists can observe it indirectly.

I would not limit computer processing to just being electricity. Sure, electricity is involved but the functions are carried out by various hardware and software. Still, the point remains that electricity is not the "hardware" nor the "software". If you intended to apply this to the brain, then I asked you about the qualitative aspect of 'thought'.

Brain = hardware
Thought = software

Thought = unobserved software.

How do you explain the qualitative aspects such as mental imagery.

The same way I would explain a movie on a hard-drive. It's data. It's information

We can directly observe the data and imagery produced. We've built it from scratch. When it comes to the mind, we have not explained, built, nor observed our mental imagery.

Surely, a description of 'thought' should involve MORE than just electrical movement between cells, and I provided a clear and vivid example of how thought is more than just electric current.

Just as data processes on a computer is "more than just electrical movement".

How would you describe data on a hard-drive? However you describe it, you could likely apply the same description to thought

Data on a hard drive does not produce internal or subjective imagery since the computer imagery only takes place when it's transmitted to a monitor. All your points are mostly analogies, and as such, none of them show an identical relationship to the mind.

[Elijah John]

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.

Moderator Warning


This offense was just noticed by our moderating team. Therefore, it won't any further action at this time except for a warning. But heed the warning and refrain from profanity on our boards if you want to avoid suspension or banishment.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.