Consciousness, Mind and Matter

[DrNoGods]

This posting is partly to continue a discussion in another section related to mind, matter, consciousness, etc. and how these are explained in via science vs. philosophy or religion, and partly to include debate on the validity of the "Argument from Consciousness."

There has been much discussion here about sentience and consciousness, and their origin in humans, as well as whether certain ideas from religion and philosophy can refute the evolutionary science viewpoint that brains have become progressively more complex in structure and function over long periods of time, eventually reaching a level in humans where sentience and symbolic thought are possible, and that these are nothing more than the result of normal physiological functions of the human brain. No supernatural beings required "mind" is simply a manifestation of normal brain function in humans involving complex interactions of sensory inputs, neural networks, and memory mechanisms (themselves ultimately based on electrical and chemical interactions at the molecular level, ie. purely "matter" based).

What arguments from the theistic or philosophic sides of the fence can be offered to disprove this scientific position, or seriously challenge it? The "theory of coconsciousness also rejects the evolutionary science viewpoint and assigns a theistic basis for consciousness, but how can that particular argument be defended given what we know in in the 21st century about brain evolution and function?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 29 by Kevin Cross]

How does a bunch of chemicals "perceive" themselves and make decisions?

Because they form a system (brain) that is organized to carry out complicated functions which are far beyond the capabilities of simply a collection of chemicals. It is analogous to a car. A random assembly of metal, rubber, glass, wires, etc. would have no useful function if just thrown together in a pile. But if organized in a specific way with engine, transmission, wheels and the rest it can function as a very useful source of transportation. So it is not "a bunch of chemicals" perceiving themselves and making decisions ... it is a complicated system that can carry out those functions and that is made up of chemicals.

If God made humans "in His image" (Ge 1:27) are you arguing God is just of chemicals and energy?

I don't believe that any gods exist now, or ever have existed, or that humans were made by a god and "in His image" (humans evolved from a great ape ancestor ... this is no longer conjecture but a proven scientific fact). So I can't comment on what the god of the bible may be made of as it is a purely imaginary being. But as far as the human brain and its functions, including consciousness, there is no need to invoke gods to explain how it works, or in general how brains evolved from very simple versions in worms to very complicated versions in modern humans.

[Neatras]

or in general how brains evolved from very simple versions in worms to very complicated versions in modern humans.

Pedantic correction, but "evolved from very simple versions in worms to very complicated versions in modern humans" carries with it some nasty connotations. We didn't evolve from worms (modern or ancient). So others don't misconstrue it, DrNoGods is more accurate in describing the range of possible brain states that have evolved. Modern worms evolved brains that are suitable for their biological niche; we have brains evolved for ours. The difference in computing power is a demonstration of the wide range of diverse values that can be used to construct a working brain, and is very neatly explained by evolutionary theory.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 32 by Neatras]

Pedantic correction, but "evolved from very simple versions in worms to very complicated versions in modern humans" carries with it some nasty connotations. We didn't evolve from worms (modern or ancient).

Not sure how that wording could possibly be misconstrued or interpreted as suggesting that humans evolved from worms. I simply commented that brains evolved from simple versions in worms to far more complicated versions in humans, which is correct. Whether the first concentration of neurons sufficient to be called a "brain" was actually in a worm I don't know, but there is nothing in that statement that carries "nasty connotations" or suggests that humans evolved from worms. Possibly so if I'd left out the word "brains."

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by DrNoGods]

The question becomes if you are arguing that human consciousness is the result of neural firing, then that would reduce existence down to the chemical process? How does a bunch of chemicals "perceive" themselves and make decisions? If God made humans "in His image" (Ge 1:27) are you arguing God is just of chemicals and energy? If so, such an argument would make life meaningless. Consciousness ultimately, in my opinion, based on Ge 1:27, has to ultimately lead back to God, who knows the beginning from the end (Rev. 1:8, 22:13). God, if the Bible is correct is beyond all chemicals, matter, and energy.

Chemicals (molecules) perceive things all the time. Every atom of matter in the universe is affected by gravity. Drop a rock on another rock, and the molecules in both those formations "feel" the forces at work. Electrons feel the pull of the oppositely charged protons. Everything in the universe is reacting to stuff. The molecules in our brains are no different.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 30 by Neatras]

Thanks Neatus for the reply and I apologize for the delay.

I want to address some terminology you used and then I wish to refute some other aspects of your argument overall. Part of your post goes as follows with the problems bolded:

We see a brain, and in that brain are neurons flying about. Something happens to the organism, and the neurons move in a particular pattern so the organism will respond in an analog way. But we don't know why it used that particular pattern. It could've done any number of things, and some were ostensibly better suited for the organism's survival. So why did it do that thing? Because the conscious mind being 'simulated' by the brain had a motivation or goal that caused the underlying structure, the brain, to react as if the consciousness were present.

First, neurons don't "fly about" and second, neurons don't "move"

Instead, neurons "fire" or "transmit"

I have not heard the word "analog" used much in neuroscience but I see your point if you mean "relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2017). Keep in mind though neuronal charge is measured in negative millivoltage, not "full voltage"

The term "effect" needs comment. This is defined as "a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2017).

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to Neatras]

Thanks Neatus for the reply and I apologize for the delay.

I want to address some terminology you used and then I wish to refute some other aspects of your argument overall. Part of your post goes as follows with the problems bolded:

We see a brain, and in that brain are neuronsflying about Something happens to the organism, and the neurons move in a particular pattern so the organism will respond in an analog way. But we don't know why it used that particular pattern. It could've done any number of things, and some were ostensibly better suited for the organism's survival. So why did it do that thing? Because the conscious mind being 'simulated' by the brain had a motivation or goal that caused the underlying structure, the brain, to react as if the consciousness were present.

First, neurons don't "fly about" and second, neurons don't "move"
Instead, neurons "fire" or "transmit"

I have not heard the word "analog" used much in neuroscience but I see your point if you mean "relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position or voltage" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2017). Keep in mind though neuronal charge is measured in negative millivoltage, not "full voltage"
The term "effect" needs comment. This is defined as "a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2017). If you are saying effects are causes or actions are those that can be either studied, then you are excluded vast amounts of covert cognitive activity that are not yet understood. Not even some of the best cognitive scientists in the world understand everything there is to know about human consciousness:

I am a scientist who seeks rational explanations of ineffable consciousness and of how and why it arises in the brain. But I also realize that our universe is a strange place; there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in philosophy. So I try to be humble when it comes to one of the most mystifying aspects of this universe"that I wake up each day and find myself conscious, capable of seeing, touching, loving, feeling and remembering. I am not a zombie! Many different traditions besides the modern scientific one have provided answers, and we should not reject them out of hand but listen to them (Koch, 2008).

So, the nature of consciousness, never mind its origin, is an enigma to science and may always remain this way. The scientific method was not meant to answer every question. There are other questions are better answered by philosophy or religion. Another point is as science evolves, so does our reality.

There was a time when people thought the Earth was flat. Now, because of telescopes, satellites, and shuttle missions, we know the Earth is round. Science changes our perspective over time as new discoveries are made. That
means there is more to be discovered than we know currently-it does not mean that it does not exist now or has existed or occurred in the past.

Supernatural explanations of god stuffing souls into brains/bodies has no explanatory power, except in an attempt to shut down further investigation. "Goddidit," so we should stop studying. Except the answers we're getting regarding the mind are so much more interesting than any religious assertion, so we're going to keep learning

Now look. This comment is really uncalled for. I went to a Christian school some years ago studying psychology. Our curriculum did carry a neuroscience section (now it is a official minor within the psychology department). It is directed by my former advisor who is an experimental psychologist and neuroscientist from the University of Colorado, which has one of the best neuroscience programs in the country. The courses are rigorous and mainstream at Gordon College, where I went. To figure out Gods creation and His purpose for our lives, we have to study and debate.

Just because we believe God created everything including the brain chemistry and consciousness, does not mean we stop studying. We want to know How God created the brain and brain function and how we can use our knowledge and our talents for His glory. It does not reduce explanatory power for Christian belief adds to the scientific enterprise by providing a different perspective in discussions and debates. It provides an extra motive and excitement to get at the truth. For example, we could take accounts from the bible like Moses and the Bible and the burning bush (Ex 3:1).

Studying that event, one could ask What was in Moses consciousness and what was happening to the brain. Most would say Moses was having a hallucination and a bush was not actually burning. If the right question were asked, the students could do an experiment based on Moses experience. Apart from direct biblical involvement, Christians who are engaged in scientific research on clinical work are interested in the same questions that anyone else is: how do you cure Alzheimer disease, How do you provide medical care to the third would or what happens to protein synthesis in the brain when a seizure occurs. You may disagree with that belief, but do not describe Christians as somehow less scientific or scholarly than non-believers because it is not true. I linked to the Gordon neuroscience program below.

My last point is that science itself is a philosophy based on the idea if one studies particular phenomena under certain conditions, one can learn something about its nature. The problem is people are subjective beings, not objective. Scientific inquiry is influenced by society, language and culture. The way that people talk about problems often effect the nature of the phenomenon to be studied (Burr, 2003). Most scientific facts change over time as new discoveries are made. Science is only a vehicle to study consciousness, it does not produce it. Molecules and atoms are the substances that can be revealed on the micro level and cells, tissue and function on the macro level by science. If we assume the micro level creates biology and psychology, what created the micro substances. Science has no answer.

Ergo: God

1 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2017). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analog
2 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2017). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect
3 Koch, C. (2008). How unconscious mechanisms affect thought. Scientific American Mind. 19(5) 18- 19. October/November
4 Gordon College Neuroscience Program. http://www.gordon.edu/neuroscience
5 Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructioninsm (2nd ed). NYNY: Routledge.