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.

[Divine Insight]

I don't necessarily make arguments that consciousness suggests the existence of a higher being, however I do argue the following. Especially in light of the argument you presents below:

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.

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.

In other words, even an electronic computer that "thinks" in terms of executing logical reasoning in the form of an electronic algorithm does not constitute "consciousness". What we basically mean by "consciousness" is actually the "awareness" of thinking.

Short Aside: Clearly we could define "consciousness" as electrical activity in a brain. However, to do so would just be a technical definition. It would also be questionable then whether a computer is "conscious" by this definition right?

However, if we define consciousness as being aware of the thoughts then this definition cannot even be objectively measured. How could we even determine whether a computer is aware of its thought processes?

But clearly we subjectively know what we mean by this. We know what we mean when we say that we are "aware" of something. So if we define "consciousness" as being "aware", then this causes problems by the definition you gave above.

Let me re-post it here just for clarity

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.

If consciousness is nothing more than electrical activity in the brain, then exactly what is it that is aware of this activity?

Is there anything in physics that suggests that electromagnetism should ever be able to become "aware" of what is going on?

No, there isn't. So from a purely physics point of view then electricity cannot explain awareness.

Some physicists have recognized this and have even suggested that perhaps there are more fundamental innate properties of energy (and forces like electromagnetism) that innately allow it to ultimate have an "experience".

Some have even argued that it must be the energy of the universe itself that is actually having this experience of awareness.

In this sense then, it does appear that it is the fundamental stuff of the universe that is ultimately having the experience of awareness.

Others argue that "awareness" is an emergent property of complex electromagnetic behavior. But this proposal is problematic. Because the question then becomes again, "Just what is it that is having this experience"? A fleeting complex pattern of behavior is having an experience?

That doesn't really sound convincing either, at least not to me.

So I kind of favor the idea that something deeply innate to the energy from which we are made is actually having these experiences of awareness. And that leads to a type of "theistic" worldview along the lines of Pantheism or Panentheism.

I don't argue for this as a hard "conclusion". But I do argue quite strongly for this as being at least plausible, and not unrealistic, nor unscientific to consider.

That's my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

[sayak83]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Let me put a proposal.

Conscious is a set of eletrochemical activity in the brain whose main function is to

1) interface with the electrical signals arising from different parts of the brain,

2) extract high level information patterns from these region specific activity

3) synthesize the extracted signals from various centers together

4) Feed the information back into the specialized centers so that each gets an input as to what is going on elsewhere and hence modulate their own activity accordingly.

Repeat.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Let me put a proposal.

Conscious is a set of eletrochemical activity in the brain whose main function is to

1) interface with the electrical signals arising from different parts of the brain,

2) extract high level information patterns from these region specific activity

3) synthesize the extracted signals from various centers together

4) Feed the information back into the specialized centers so that each gets an input as to what is going on elsewhere and hence modulate their own activity accordingly.

Repeat.

That's all fine and dandy. A computer can do that. Does this then mean that a computer is conscious?

Nothing in your algorithm suggests that anything should actually be having an "experience" or be "aware" that anything is going on. A robot can perform your algorithm.

Basically the question is this: What's the difference between a conscious human and a "zombie"? (i.e. something that emulates a human in every possible way including thinking and reasoning with the exception that "Nobody's Home" to actually experience this.)

In other words, exactly what is it that is "having the experience of being aware"?

The algorithm you have defined in no way implies, requires, or even hints, as to why there should be anything that is actually aware of having any experience.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by sayak83]

I would also like to add to your suggestion Sayak:

These are things that I have been thinking about for many years, since my youth. I've been interested in computer programming and creating A.I. since before computers even became popular.

So I've considered what you have suggested quite deeply. And in doing so I have concluded the following:

First, I suggest that the algorithm that you have proposed will NEVER become conscious or sentient if performed by a digital computer that simply manipulates binary bits in parallel in a step-wise fashion as digital computers work using a CPU.

I suggest that the only possible way that any "magic" could actually occur would require an analog computer, or what today is referred to as a "Neural Network". In this configuration the possibility that some sort of "magical" feedback loop could actually emerge may potentially be plausible.

But even then, trying to explain why a feedback loop could actually have an experience and become "aware" of what's going on still seems pretty darn far-fetched.

I'm more inclined to embrace the theories that the innate ability to become 'aware' is more likely to be an innate property of "energy". (whatever that is)

But I confess, that it's impossible to guess at this point in time.

But still, it seems to me that even a feedback loop becoming "aware" seems pretty strange because there is nothing in physics to explain why that should be the case.

It's certainly far too unclear at this point in time to suggest that this is some sort of obvious solution to the problem. It's not obvious why this should work at all.

[sayak83]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I deny that a zombie is possible. Its like saying that there could exist a zombie diamond with the same composition and crystal structure of actual diamond but without the luster and the hardness of a real diamond. Of course one can imagine a zombie diamond, does not make it true.

I belive that a sufficiently sophisticated computer (made of neural nets..but more will be required than that) that has such a system as I outlined will have consciousness. But this is hypothetical. First one needs to find the detailed electro-chemical patterns that constitutes conscious experience and how they function in the brain before trying to replicate it in a computer architecture.

[sayak83]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

With respect, our ability to understand how complex systems of matter energy is likely to behave just from the laws of physics is kind of minimal. As of now QM only gives us the ability to directly simulate only the simplest of molecules from first principles, and do clever approximations of more complex molecules (and in limited cases biological macro-molecules) by "cheating"...since we know beforehand how the solution should be like by looking at the molecules themselves. Apart from saying general things about complex systems (like they should obey conservation laws etc.) our ability to "expect" what group features they can or cannot exhibit based on physics is minimal. So my motto is "Anything at all not ruled out by conservation laws" is possible.

[benchwarmer]

I don't necessarily make arguments that consciousness suggests the existence of a higher being, however I do argue the following. Especially in light of the argument you presents below:

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.

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.

In other words, even an electronic computer that "thinks" in terms of executing logical reasoning in the form of an electronic algorithm does not constitute "consciousness". What we basically mean by "consciousness" is actually the "awareness" of thinking.

Short Aside: Clearly we could define "consciousness" as electrical activity in a brain. However, to do so would just be a technical definition. It would also be questionable then whether a computer is "conscious" by this definition right?

However, if we define consciousness as being aware of the thoughts then this definition cannot even be objectively measured. How could we even determine whether a computer is aware of its thought processes?

But clearly we subjectively know what we mean by this. We know what we mean when we say that we are "aware" of something. So if we define "consciousness" as being "aware", then this causes problems by the definition you gave above.

Hi DI, I find this topic fascinating. You say that we know what we mean by "aware", but I'm not really sure that I do. Maybe I'm just slow

From dictionary.com I get the following which I don't think is helpful to me here:

adjective
1.
having knowledge; conscious; cognizant:
aware of danger.
2.
informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated:

So the definition of "aware" includes "conscious" and things start to get circular.

I would argue that we can make computer programs that are "aware" depending on how you define the word. For example, they can have access to large data bases of knowledge, access to sensors that are far more sensitive than human senses, ability to communicate with other programs, etc. In short, we can make a computer very "aware" of many things.

The tricky bit is how is the computer's awareness different from ours? I don't have an answer. Intuitively I think there must be something, but I can't put a finger on it so to speak.

[jgh7]

First I'll say I agree that awareness is a huge part of consciousness.

Others argue that "awareness" is an emergent property of complex electromagnetic behavior. But this proposal is problematic. Because the question then becomes again, "Just what is it that is having this experience"? A fleeting complex pattern of behavior is having an experience?

I would only change one word in this. Instead of property, I would use the word product. Awareness is a product of complex electromagnetic behavior in the brain. The awareness is having the experience, not the electromagnetic behavior itself. All the the electromagnetic behavior does is produce the awareness.

So I kind of favor the idea that something deeply innate to the energy from which we are made is actually having these experiences of awareness. And that leads to a type of "theistic" worldview along the lines of Pantheism or Panentheism.

I think this contradicts with the previous quote you made. Energy as I understand is inanimate just as electromagnetic behavior is inanimate. Unless you're referring to an alternate non-scientific definition of energy?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I personally don't believe we have an immortal soul inside of us and no I don't believe that "consciousneess" is proof we do. The question "does consciousness support theism." in other words: "Can the fact that humans (I presume you are speaking about humans) are conscious (as opposed to unconscious?) prove there is a God?" a bit garbled.

That we have a mind/brains, capable of great intelligence, is in my opinion proof we were designed and not a result of random (uncreated "magically" appearing) material exploding and then lying around for billions of years; that would stretch credulity just as the suggestion that the control center of a busy airport came about from an explosion of concrete and metal. In short I think that the support is not in our "consciousness" which is just a byproduct of our functioning brains but in the brain itself.


JW