Emergent Dualism

[AgnosticBoy]

I've read, listened to, and watched many debates on consciousness between Christians and atheist philosophers and so far I'm left with more questions than answers. Then I read a book by Dr. David Chalmers called The Conscious Mind and realized that his position accounts for a lot of the evidence and objections that seem to plague the materialist and non-materialist sides.

In short, emergent dualism is the position that consciousness/mind is an emergent nonphysical property of the brain. Under this view, the brain is primary in that the mind depends on the brain, but what starts out as a physical process gives rise to a nonphysical nonphysical effect (i.e. the mind and its attributes). Another add-on to this position is that the mind has causal powers which it exerts on the brain - commonly referred to as 'downward' or 'top-down' causation. This turns the deterministic worldview (which also includes materialism) on its head.

After reviewing the arguments for emergent dualism, I'm left to conclude that materialism is incomplete when it comes to explaining consciousness. Substance dualism simply goes too far.

Debate requests: Leave materialism or explain why anyone should remain a materialists after learning about consciousness.

Have you considered emergent dualism? What are your objections?

[Kenisaw]

Interactions between components in the universe (mass and energy in their various forms) is what experiences are.

I actually disagree with this. Unless you are attempting to suggest that the entire universe is always having a subjective experience of everything that happens.

If you throw a baseball into a wedding cake I don't think anyone believes that either the cake or the baseball have any subjective experiences of the event. Have forces and energy been exchanged? Sure, but that hardly qualifies as subjective experience that these objects actually had.

Moreover, if you are happy with this view of subjective experience then according to this view a laptop computer is already having a subjective experience.

Also wouldn't this view embrace "panpsychism" since it holds the view that everything in the universe is having an experience? Including baseballs and wedding cakes?

The interactions of forces and energy does not automatically imply that anything is having a subjective experience.

I would suggest the following:

Interactions between components in the universe (mass and energy in their various forms) is what can be experienced. But to say that these interactions themselves fully explain the phenomenon of subjective experience doesn't follow. What part of physics suggests that anything is having a subjective experience?

What phenomena of subjective experience precisely? Two people having a different experience at the same event are no different than two rocks having a different experience when thrown into the same pond at the same velocities and angles, because they don't have the exact same history and therefore do not have the exact same shape and content. Everything that has reacted with them previously influences how they can react in the present.

Sure, we are way more complicated and rocks, but that doesn't make our experience any less predicated on what we've experienced in the past and how those interactions affected the physical brain.

[Divine Insight]

What phenomena of subjective experience precisely? Two people having a different experience at the same event are no different than two rocks having a different experience when thrown into the same pond at the same velocities and angles, because they don't have the exact same history and therefore do not have the exact same shape and content. Everything that has reacted with them previously influences how they can react in the present.

Sure, we are way more complicated and rocks, but that doesn't make our experience any less predicated on what we've experienced in the past and how those interactions affected the physical brain.

Why are you talking about rocks having a subjective experience?

If we accept that rocks are having a subjective experience then there is no problem associated with human subjective experience.

Not only this, but we would then need to say that our digital computers are having a subjective experience as well.

[AgnosticBoy]

What phenomena of subjective experience precisely? Two people having a different experience at the same event are no different than two rocks having a different experience when thrown into the same pond at the same velocities and angles, because they don't have the exact same history and therefore do not have the exact same shape and content. Everything that has reacted with them previously influences how they can react in the present.

Sure, we are way more complicated and rocks, but that doesn't make our experience any less predicated on what we've experienced in the past and how those interactions affected the physical brain.

Okay, lets say that rocks and soda cans have "experiences". Are you actually equating this to human experience? Not even those born blind have visual experiences, not even visual dreams. So I fail to grasp how a rock with NO sensory organs nor stimuli can have any experience like sentient, organic, thinking and feeling beings.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 95 by AgnosticBoy]

Again, how do we perceive color 2D/3D images without sensory organs, light, physical objects, etc?

If it was physical, then why do we only perceive this subjectively rather than objectively? In other words, light is observable, sensory organs are observable, so why aren't mental images objectively observable?

Please provide scientific and logical answers that address my questions fully.

It's okay to say, "I don't know".

The last sentence above seems to suggest that if "someone" doesn't know (someone being an individual, or science in general) that your point is made. That is a god-of-the-gaps type of argument with god replaced by whatever it is that you think creates a mental image. Just because science may not be able to explain something "fully" at an atomic or molecular level with all the signaling pathways understood, etc. doesn't at all mean that there isn't a scientific, materialistic explanation there waiting to be found.

Scientists have enough of a grasp on perception to know how it works. I've argued from these basic facts how it does not apply to our perception of mental images. The tactic of materialists is to deny/modify/ignore some of the key components/characteristics of mental images so that they can handle it better within their worldview. This is a complete cop-out. Not too long ago, many scientists denied that subjective experiences even existed... if it wasn't observable then it was useless to science.

You made the statement earlier:

You can not maintain that all that exists is composed of matter and yet want to claim that nonphysical things exists.

Why not? These are not mutually exclusive. Would you call a thought nonphysical? A memory? If I simply think that I'd like another drink of coffee a whole sequence of electrical signals and muscle contractions are set in motion to cause my arm to move towards the coffee cup, pick it up, move it to my mouth, and many more to execute the swallowing function. I don't have to "think" to have all of these functions happen ... but my brain is definitely what is controlling all of the electrical signals and muscle movements in a coordinated way to accomplish the results of my simple original thought. These actions by the brain are all controlled by matter, but the original thought is a nonphysical thing because of how we define the word "thought."

It seems like you are asking if they are nonphysical, which I assume is why you find it compatible with materialism. I highly doubt anyone who knows what materialism means would say that something nonphysical (that they know is nonphysical instead of being unsure) is compatible with materialism.

A mental image can simply be how the brain perceives a complicated series of interactions between memory and other brain areas to create the perception of the image. There is no need to describe it in terms of light, sensors, etc. within the brain analogous to how a real-time visible image is processed via the eye, retina, optic nerve and visual cortex, or to make any analogies to how a normal physical image is produced. I can't describe the process fully as far as all the detailed physical mechanisms involved, but it doesn't follow that mental images are not created by physical means. "I don't know" may well be replaced in the future by "here is exactly how it works", and at this point you can't exclude that such knowledge may exist eventually (ie. a purely physical explanation for mental images).

In all of the physical processes that you're describing, no where do I see any evidence as to how these processes lead to perception of nonphysical images. Divine Insight tried to deny that these were indeed images which hopefully by now he realizes makes no sense because mental images can be described as 2d or 3d, with color, images of people, objects, actions (lifting weights as I pointed out from one study, or dreams) etc. Now all you're doing is not appreciating the facts that scientists do know about perception, and you do this by suggesting that sensory organs, light, physical objects do not have to be present for there to be "physical" perception presuming that mental images are physical (in contrast to my view that we're 'subjectively' perceiving 'nonphysical' images). I suppose I appreciate scientists too much to insult their intelligence by trying to paint mental images as physical images.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 113 by AgnosticBoy]

The tactic of materialists is to deny/modify/ignore some of the key components/characteristics of mental images so that they can handle it better within their worldview. This is a complete cop-out.

It's not a cop-out at all. You are claiming something without any evidence (ie. that mental images are not produced purely from the interactions of physical structures within the brain), and I am arguing that they could very well be and we just can't write down the exact mechanism yet.

In no way have you proven your proposition, or disproved a potential materialistic explanation. Just because a mental image can be described as "nonphysical" does not mean that it is not produced purely by physical means within the brain that lead to our perception of the image.

The perception process itself seems to be what is in question, and if a complete mechanism were shown to exist whereby physical brain structures and their interactions resulted in such a perception, then there would be a purely materialistic explanation. You seem to be ruling this out without any hard facts behind your assertions, and I am arguing that it can't be ruled out based on any of the arguments you are putting forth, and so a materialistic explanation is still on the table.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 113 by AgnosticBoy]

The tactic of materialists is to deny/modify/ignore some of the key components/characteristics of mental images so that they can handle it better within their worldview. This is a complete cop-out.

It's not a cop-out at all. You are claiming something without any evidence (ie. that mental images are not produced purely from the interactions of physical structures within the brain), and I am arguing that they could very well be and we just can't write down the exact mechanism yet.

In no way have you proven your proposition, or disproved a potential materialistic explanation. Just because a mental image can be described as "nonphysical" does not mean that it is not produced purely by physical means within the brain that lead to our perception of the image.

The perception process itself seems to be what is in question, and if a complete mechanism were shown to exist whereby physical brain structures and their interactions resulted in such a perception, then there would be a purely materialistic explanation. You seem to be ruling this out without any hard facts behind your assertions, and I am arguing that it can't be ruled out based on any of the arguments you are putting forth, and so a materialistic explanation is still on the table.

Emergent dualism claims that materialistic processes are necessary but not sufficient in explaining certain mental properties, like consciousness. Post 8 best describes my view.

I'll list a few reasons why I disagree with your view that we'll soon discover a "purely physical" explanation for consciousness:

- We already have knowledge of what's involved with physical perception. Based on the factors involved, it's unlikely that we'll "progress" with these same set of facts to explain nonphysical perception (i.e. perception of 'mental images'). We'd have to go back on one of these factors for physical perception which again is unlikely.

- It's unlikely that we'll find purely physical causes when nonphysical causes (mental causation) are involved in the process. I posted a study earlier that showed that imagining lifting weights (mental imagery in action) has physical effects on the body.

- Also, the trend is going against reductionism. The trend in science has moved from consciousness being caused by any particular part of the brain (because it can't be accounted for at basic levels?!!) to being a result of "global" brain activity.

Hope that helps! I will be taking a break from this discussion but of course I'll continue to read responses.

[Divine Insight]

@ AgnosticBoy,

I would like to explain why I reject your conclusions as being either misguided or without evidence.

Keep in mind that this is not a "materialist" arguing with a "non-materialists". I'm not taking a position on what the final outcome might be. I'm merely pointing out why the arguments you are giving are not convincing in terms of the conclusions you believe they require.

I'll list a few reasons why I disagree with your view that we'll soon discover a "purely physical" explanation for consciousness:

- We already have knowledge of what's involved with physical perception. Based on the factors involved, it's unlikely that we'll "progress" with these same set of facts to explain nonphysical perception (i.e. perception of 'mental images'). We'd have to go back on one of these factors for physical perception which again is unlikely.

To begin with I reject your entire approach to this phenomenon. You appear to think that we should be able to objectively see a "physical perception" going on within the brain that is analogous with the way the body sensors physical perceive the external world. Why should that be the case?

In fact, in order for that to be the case, you would need to have a "second brain" or entity within the brain that is "viewing" this imagined images. You seem to be assuming that this is the way it should work. In other words, you seem to be assuming that the whole process of sensory perception need to be repeated within the brain so that some "tiny man in the brain" (or an imagined non-physical spirit) could "see" the image that the brain is producing.

I see absolutely no reason to think that this is what's going on. I feel that a far better explanation is that the activity within the brain that occurs when we imagine to "see" an image is the experience of seeing an image. No actual image is even required within the brain during that process.

So I reject your argument above because you appear to be assuming a sequence of events that I see not reason to assume in the first place. In other words, I see your proposal as an entirely misguided idea associated with describing how you appear to think the brain "should" work. So it's not a compelling argument at all.

- It's unlikely that we'll find purely physical causes when nonphysical causes (mental causation) are involved in the process. I posted a study earlier that showed that imagining lifting weights (mental imagery in action) has physical effects on the body.

Again, I see this as nothing more than a totally misguided argument on your part. To begin with you are already assuming that "nonphysical causes" are involved when you haven't established this to be the case. Mental causation requires electrical activity within the brain. Therefore your insistence that it be referred to as "nonphysical" causes is unsupported.

Your argument is already based on prior conclusions that you have made that have not been confirmed to be valid conclusions. So obviously, if you are convinced that your prior conclusions and assumptions are correct, of course you are going to draw logical conclusions from those prior conclusions. And that sounds very logical. In fact, it is logical reasoning. The only problem is that this is logical reasoning that is based on prior conclusions that haven't been established to be factual.

So I reject this argument for the simple reason that you are basing it on a premise that hasn't been shown to be true.

- Also, the trend is going against reductionism. The trend in science has moved from consciousness being caused by any particular part of the brain (because it can't be accounted for at basic levels?!!) to being a result of "global" brain activity.

This doesn't invalidate reductionism. Even a digital computer's CPU (Central Processing Unit) cannot be reduced to just one part of the CPU. The entire CPU must exist as a complex entity in order to function properly. But this doesn't remove the fact that it can still be explained in terms of the physical constitutions from which is it made.

So your argument that if a "global" brain activity is required to produce a subjective experience this somehow goes against reductionism, is simply wrong. So this argument is outright wrong. This is based on bad reasoning entirely. It doesn't follow that properties that emerge from a complex design cannot be explained via a reduction to the components from which they are made.

There is a difference between a computer CPU and a human brain. There is no reason to believe that a CPU is having a subjective experience. Therefore everything the CPU does can indeed be explained via properties of its constituent parts.

The fact that humans are having a subjective experience poses a problem for reductionism because there is nothing in physics to explain why anything, no matter how complex it might become, could have a subjective experience of anything.

However, this could change in the future. It is feasible that the phenomenon of subjective experience can emerge directly from physical activity. We simply aren't yet in a position to be able to say whether this will someday be possible to explain or not.

So you are attempting to remove things from the table that have not yet been removed. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments.

We simply don't know whether the phenomenon of human subjective experience will be explained at some future time or not. It's simply too early to know.

You're arguments that we already have sufficient evidence to show that no explanation is possible, are invalid arguments. Period.

I don't need to be arguing "for" materialism to see that your arguments are flawed.

You argument is that materialism has been removed from the table. But it hasn't and your arguments are flawed. Your arguments are all based on your acceptance that mental activity is "non-physical". You seem to be treating that as though it's a well-established premise upon which you can build further logical reasoning. The problem is that it's not a well-established premise. So you are building logical reasoning based upon a premise that has not itself been well-established. In fact, to the contrary, we never see "mental activity" without "electrical activity" within the brain. Therefore the evidence is actually overwhelming the mental activity cannot even exist without electrical activity. Thus indicating that mental activity is an entirely physical process. Precisely the opposite of what you are proposing as your foundational premise.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 115 by AgnosticBoy]

The trend in science has moved from consciousness being caused by any particular part of the brain (because it can't be accounted for at basic levels?!!) to being a result of "global" brain activity.

Yes ... things like observation of the "P3 wave" support the idea that conscious awareness of something can "light up" many brain areas simultaneously, but I don't see how this invalidates a materialistic explanation. It could simply be that such a global response represents a complicated interaction of multiple brain areas which require coordinated operation as a group to create the particular perception, yet is still an entirely physical mechanism.

The imagination of weight lifting, and other similar processes, that have been shown to produce physical results might also be explained in a materialistic way. We can directly control, via thought, electrical signals involved in nerve signal transmissions. We can also influence hormone generation in many different ways by thoughts (eg. the complicated hormonal generation processes that are set into action via emotional thoughts related to love, fear, anger, etc.). So it isn't surprising that physical effects can result from simply thinking if that sets in motion certain underlying physical effects involving nerves, hormones, etc.

I can't offer up any technical and scientific specifics because my science background is not in the relevant areas, but my point is that we should consider the jury to still be out on materialistic explanations for the examples you have provided (as I had already mentioned in an earlier post ... so I concur with DI on this point).

[William]

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]

What is your alternative hypothesis other than to say that consciousness explains consciousness?

What else explains anything? Non consciousness?

I know that you have also proposed an 'EE' or 'Earth Entity' that you apparently believe is conscious. But there is the evidence for the existence of this hypothetical entity?

What is evidence of your existence as a conscious being? Your form. Without your form how would you be able to provide evidence that you exist?

This is the crux of the thread subject. There are two distinct properties working in relation to each other. One is physical and the other is non physical.

Materialism defines these as being the same thing in different guises, which is the only explanation which materialism can give because the other explanation ultimately is "GOD", and materialists cannot accept that which is non evident in that it doesn't have some kind of physical form.

This is the difference in interpretation of the physical in relation to the non physical.

You can stick with your 'truthful position' of being agnostic (saying you don't know either way) as long as you say that 'we might one day be able to prove GOD exists' or 'we might be able to prove one day GOD does not exist' yet your arguments are always bias towards support for the materialist position and in that you should just come out of the closet and admit that you do not think GOD exists because every argument you make is saying as much anyway.

I interpret the evidence differently - from the perspective that consciousness is the reason for the material universe.
The EE is the consciousness of the planet and thus can be seen within that.

The evidence for the existence of the EE is within the fact of life on the planet and consciousness within those life forms, the fact that there is purpose and design related to that - but of course - this can be interpreted either way. You choose the materialist way rather than the 'I don't know either way' agnostic position. You do this based upon the idea that until something is proven to physically exist (like GOD) then it can be argued that it does not exist.

Not that I'm aware of to date. But the technology to build one certainly exists. The only reason one hasn't been constructed yet is because analog technologies have taken a back seat to digital technologies and have been basically ignored. However, that is about to change as more and more scientists realize the power of analog computing.

Well until one is built, we won't know if one can rewire itself and do so consciously.
Also - it may also be a case of duplicating the way the human brain operates, including its ability to process massive amounts of data while using very little energy. (20 W)

Consciousness is more than just subjective experience.

Consciousness is also that which can define itself, its experience, and identify other aspects of itself in other forms.
Consciousness is that which is able to work things out, creatively manipulate matter to its own end for its own experience think outside the constraints of the physical universe (imagination) and bring that into the physical universe in order to 'make it so'.

Consciousness cannot have a purely objective experience. Physical things are objective. Consciousness is a non physical fundamental principle within a physical reality.

Even the medical definition of consciousness can ultimately be reduced to subjective experience. Everything else is just a description of what's being experienced and those things can all be reduced to secular materialism.

Everything except consciousness can be reduced to secular materialism because the focus is on the material objects. Consciousness cannot have an objective experience.

Replace the term consciousness with the term God and how is this any different from what religious people keep saying?

What do they 'keep saying'?

They can't explain anything so they invoke the concept of a "God" to explain what they can't explain.

What is the 'anything' they cannot explain? How does that equate to my own understanding of GOD as I share it?

All you are doing here is when asked to explain consciousness, you're simply saying that consciousness is its own explanation.

Sorry but that doesn't "explain" anything.

What is there to 'explain'? It is what it is and I am that I am.



A: The idea is that Consciousness has always existed and is why objects exist. That is a better explanation than the more magical explanation that the material universe began from (?) and then proceeded to mindlessly create consciousness from that process, accidentally.

B: Even given the theory that the universe has always existed in one form or another, and that consciousness DID come about by an accident of some sort, during one of those universe incarnations, one is able to suppose that Consciousness has been around for the ride ever since and has learned to master itself in relation to the universe and manipulate the universe to its own ends, even influencing the way the next incarnation and formation proceeds.

Occam's razor determines that A: is the more likely.

And so they should be until such time that evidence can be produced to valid them.

Unless of course the evidence is in the form of the universe and consciousness participating within the universe and has always been starring us in the face.

But as we both know, you have no idea what 'that evidence' would be and this is why you articulate support for materialism without GOD. You can do that to your dying day and be no closer to anything other than you embracement of materialism.
I suspect that your dying day will give you closure on that mystery while perhaps even exposing you to even more. You shall have to wait and see.

As it currently stands all this amounts to is an argument not unlike "The God of the Gaps". If you can't explain something you just make up something can call that an "explanation".

If you can point out where I fail to be all inclusive, I will grant you this assertion. Otherwise, my explanation is as good to go.

Thank kind of thinking should be taboo.

Frontal lobotomies all 'round then? Shall we unfurl the Swastika?

I agree with the secularists on that point. If we're going to make a claim we need to have some valid reason to make it, not simply because we are allergic to the thought of a secular existence.

You misrepresent me there. If you can provide evidence to support your claim, that would go a long way to make you look like you know what you are talking about in regards to me and my motives.

Just because you don't approve of secularism doesn't make it wrong.

Secularism is foolishness and does not take into account actuality. As I recently explained in another post;

It is my observation that organised religion is a political device. If one is unable or unwilling to see that, then one cannot appreciate the problem in its entirety and one will be just as likely to support the politics whilst disparaging the religiosity. Either way one is supporting the thing which predominantly shapes society and if one truly thinks change has to come, one is best to understand the whole nature of that beast, rather than the particular aspects of the beast one has a problem with....

...Roman rule over society did not disappear. You may want one without the other, but you will still end up with the same.

What is discussed, made into law and practiced, is politics. Either the politicians will have to change or they will need to be replaced with others who will reject all attempts at controlling society through such methods.

Good Luck with that. Personally I think the only way to make things better is to dump the Roman ways of disparity and create a System of Parity. Apparently I am outnumbered in relation to that. Most folk - theist and atheists - all sleep in the same bed on that one.

The rest of your post wanders into an area I have no interest in replying to.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 102 by Divine Insight]

What is your alternative hypothesis other than to say that consciousness explains consciousness?

What else explains anything? Non consciousness?

Many things have been explained without the need to invoke consciousness. In fact, many things in science are fully explained without any need for consciousness at all.

Obviously humans need to be conscious to understand these explanations, but that doesn't change the fact that the explanations themselves do not require consciousness as part of the explanation itself.

What is evidence of your existence as a conscious being? Your form. Without your form how would you be able to provide evidence that you exist?

Without my form I wouldn't exist. That's materialism for ya.

This is the crux of the thread subject. There are two distinct properties working in relation to each other. One is physical and the other is non physical.

I have yet to see any evidence for anything non physical. I'll grant that my own subjective experience has not yet been explained in terms of physics. But just because this hasn't yet happened doesn't mean that it can't be explained in terms of physics.

So your claim that there are non physical properties at work is a claim for which there is no evidence.

Materialism defines these as being the same thing in different guises, which is the only explanation which materialism can give because the other explanation ultimately is "GOD", and materialists cannot accept that which is non evident in that it doesn't have some kind of physical form.

I disagree with your speculation here. To begin with "GOD" is not an explanation for anything. If you want to use "GOD" as an explanation for something you must first explain how "GOD" works.

It makes no sense to claim that you can explain things by invoking a quoted term in all caps that itself has not yet been explained.

"GOD" is not an explanation for anything.

You can stick with your 'truthful position' of being agnostic (saying you don't know either way) as long as you say that 'we might one day be able to prove GOD exists' or 'we might be able to prove one day GOD does not exist' yet your arguments are always bias towards support for the materialist position and in that you should just come out of the closet and admit that you do not think GOD exists because every argument you make is saying as much anyway.

If you want to prove that some GOD exists you first need to define it in a way that we can test for it. Otherwise it's useless to continue to use all caps for a 3-letter term that has no meaningful definition.

And by the way, being agnostic on the question of the ultimate true nature of reality does not prevent me being able to see that the materialist position is currently the most powerful position ever taken by humans. It's proven itself throughout the ages.

What has the non-materialist position produced? Absolutely nothing. Just as it's name implies. Apparently all it has produced thus far is an extremely ill-defined and unexplained 3-letter word that it claims as it's explanation for everything.

Sorry, but nothing could be less impressive.

I interpret the evidence differently - from the perspective that consciousness is the reason for the material universe.
The EE is the consciousness of the planet and thus can be seen within that.

The evidence for the existence of the EE is within the fact of life on the planet and consciousness within those life forms, the fact that there is purpose and design related to that - but of course - this can be interpreted either way. You choose the materialist way rather than the 'I don't know either way' agnostic position. You do this based upon the idea that until something is proven to physically exist (like GOD) then it can be argued that it does not exist.

I haven't seen any credible evidence for any so-called EE.

Also, I don't demand physical evidence. I'm open to ANY evidence you believe you can produce. I haven't even seen any good abstract non-tangible arguments for the existence of any "EE" or "GOD".

The argument for design has been debunked and proven to be a flawed argument.

Religious scriptures, tales, and mythologies have also been proven to be flawed and contain many self-contradictions and falsehoods concerning what we know about the actual world we live in.

I'm open to hearing arguments for anything. But keep in mind that I've already heard the vast bulk of spiritual arguments and they have all been exposed to contain major flaws. So they aren't compelling arguments.

I don't see why you should be blaming me for the failure of the non-materialists to come up with a compelling argument.

Not that I'm aware of to date. But the technology to build one certainly exists. The only reason one hasn't been constructed yet is because analog technologies have taken a back seat to digital technologies and have been basically ignored. However, that is about to change as more and more scientists realize the power of analog computing.

Well until one is built, we won't know if one can rewire itself and do so consciously.
Also - it may also be a case of duplicating the way the human brain operates, including its ability to process massive amounts of data while using very little energy. (20 W)

We already have digital circuits that can rewire themselves. So we know it's possible to build analog circuits that an also rewire themselves. So there is no question that the technology is already possible and even available to us.

And yes, analog computers already require far less energy than digital computers. So the idea that an extremely powerful analog computer could run on only 20 W is well within the realm of practicality.

Consciousness is also that which can define itself, its experience, and identify other aspects of itself in other forms.
Consciousness is that which is able to work things out, creatively manipulate matter to its own end for its own experience think outside the constraints of the physical universe (imagination) and bring that into the physical universe in order to 'make it so'

I would suggest here that you are attempting to define consciousness to be more than it needs to be in an effort to support your argument that it's more than it actually is.

We don't need to be able to work things out or creatively manipulate matter in order to be conscious. To the contrary we can be in a state of total delirium and have no rational thoughts at all, and still be having a conscious experience.

In fact, this actually demonstrates that many things you attribute to consciousness aren't even required for consciousness to exist.

I've already considered all these thing that you have apparently not yet thought about clearly. I recognize that consciousness boils down to subjective experience. Period. Once we have that, everything else can be explained via materialism. Including logical reasoning, creativity, etc.

Materialists already have 90% of what you seem to think entail consciousness explained. All that's left is to explain how it is that we can subjectively experience these things. That's it. Period.

If the materialists can explain how it is that we can have a subjective experience, then they are done. All the rest is easily explained via materialism.

Replace the term consciousness with the term God and how is this any different from what religious people keep saying?

What do they 'keep saying'?

Just as you keep saying. Everything can be reduced to "GOD".

The materialists are saying "Everything can be reduced to physics".

The major difference here is that the term "GOD" is ill-defined and therefore cannot serve as an explanation for anything.

Obviously the term "physics" is well-defined, well-tested, and explains things very well.

So the materialists clearly have the stronger position than the non materialists.

They can't explain anything so they invoke the concept of a "God" to explain what they can't explain.


What is the 'anything' they cannot explain? How does that equate to my own understanding of GOD as I share it?

Your "understanding" of GOD does not appear to be very much.

Don't forget, the original question we're addressing here is not whether a GOD might exist, but rather how can consciousness be explained.

Can you explain how "GOD" is conscious?

If not, then why should anyone accept your "GOD" as an explanation for consciousness?

All you've done is pass the buck from one concept you can't explain (i.e. Consciousness) onto another concept that you can't explain (i.e. your "GOD"), and you call that an "explanation".

Sorry, but that's no explanation at all.

All you've managed to do is replace one mystery with an even deeper and more unknown mystery.

You've just backed yourself into an even deeper unknown mystery for which you have no explanation.

What is there to 'explain'? It is what it is and I am that I am.

So why the extra step with this idea of a "GOD" then?

Why not just say, "What is there to explain? Consciousness just is. There's nothing more that needs to be said."

Why invent an unnecessary "GOD" to explain consciousness if your REAL AGENDA is to claim that you have no explanation?

The rest of your post wanders into an area I have no interest in replying to.

Thank "GOD"!