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?

[Clownboat]

Conciousness is NOT physical.

It is rational thinking: if thoughts are physical they occupy space in our brain, and the brain would be eventually full of them ...
The skull does not grow to make room for the brain to grow and store more thoughts.

People with bigger heads are not smarter than others.

Does your computer take up more space when it is active compared to when it is turned off?

DrNoGods said it well: "Thoughts, like consciousness, are products of brain activity."

[Eloi]

If a computer's hard drive fills up, you can't keep recording anything after that. Even temporary memory need empty space for it to keep working. So, the information inside the computer is physical (measured in bytes) and takes up space and this is why the hard drive fills up.

There is a debate here about whether consciousness is something physical, and I have been trying to prove that it 's NOT.

We know that the brain can record a lot of information (similar to the computer) and, at least for me, I don't know if that information has a limit or not. Given that a process that encompasses so much information can be carried out in such a small space (the brain) and that the processes within it are so complex, I think that if this information were transferred to an external material support, it could take up a lot of physical space, but thoughts and all the information that we can introduce into our brain are practically unlimited and even the laws guiding those processes related_ similar to an operating system that takes also space in the hard drive_ , then even if the support is physical, consciousness cannot be. Actually, our brain operating system is so complex, that I don't understand how some people who are intelligent still assume that it appeared by itself.

My reasoning is purely personal, but I think it's logical, reasonable. If you want to discuss something with me, let it be something that has to do with my comments ... otherwise, go and discuss with your children...

[Clownboat]

If a computer's hard drive fills up, you can't keep recording anything after that. Even temporary memory need empty space for it to keep working. So, the information inside the computer is physical (measured in bytes) and takes up space and this is why the hard drive fills up.

There is a debate here about whether consciousness is something physical, and I have been trying to prove that it 's NOT.

We know that the brain can record a lot of information (similar to the computer) and, at least for me, I don't know if that information has a limit or not. Given that a process that encompasses so much information can be carried out in such a small space (the brain) and that the processes within it are so complex, I think that if this information were transferred to an external material support, it could take up a lot of physical space, but thoughts and all the information that we can introduce into our brain are practically unlimited and even the laws guiding those processes related_ similar to an operating system that takes also space in the hard drive_ , then even if the support is physical, consciousness cannot be. Actually, our brain operating system is so complex, that I don't understand how some people who are intelligent still assume that it appeared by itself.

My reasoning is purely personal, but I think it's logical, reasonable. If you want to discuss something with me, let it be something that has to do with my comments ... otherwise, go and discuss with your children...

What an odd way to admit that your claim about brains filling up was completely nonsensical.

To remind the readers: "if thoughts are physical they occupy space in our brain, and the brain would be eventually full of them ...
The skull does not grow to make room for the brain to grow and store more thoughts."

Then readers, we get this: "My reasoning is purely personal, but I think it's logical, reasonable."
Thoughts, if physical should fill up our brains is logical and reasonable?

Derp! Just as logical as claiming a computer takes up more space when it's active compared to when it's off. The poster chose to not address this as it shows just how silly their self claimed logical reasoning is.

[Eloi]

When I said "if thoughts are physical they occupy space in our brain, and the brain would be eventually full of them ...
The skull does not grow to make room for the brain to grow and store more thoughts." the conjunction used at the beginning and the verbal form used IMPLIES that it is "if that were considered real"... Obviously, since the second has never happened (that a brain can no longer resist more information) it is evident that the approach is rhetorical .

I admit that maybe I could have used a better way of saying it. In any case, the human brain receives so much continuous information that calculating how much physical space could be used to record it would be an ordeal. Imagine a computer that has a microphone and camera on continuously and never stop recording for more than 70 years.

It is obvious that consciousness cannot be physical.

[Clownboat]

When I said "if thoughts are physical they occupy space in our brain, and the brain would be eventually full of them ...
The skull does not grow to make room for the brain to grow and store more thoughts." the conjunction used at the beginning and the verbal form used IMPLIES that it is "if that were considered real"... Obviously, since the second has never happened (that a brain can no longer resist more information) it is evident that the approach is rhetorical .

I admit that maybe I could have used a better way of saying it. In any case, the human brain receives so much continuous information that calculating how much physical space could be used to record it would be an ordeal. Imagine a computer that has a microphone and camera on continuously and never stop recording for more than 70 years.

It is obvious that consciousness cannot be physical.

The only thing that is obvious is that you are falsely equating memories (see your recording analogy above) with consciousness. Why are you doing this? It's as if you are trying to be unclear, or unintelligible and I fear you will try to drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Again, we are discussing consciousness here and you are talking about memories filling up a brain and somehow then arrived at a conclusion that consciousness cannot be physical.

Let's be honest, your lucky this site is moderated.

[brunumb]

In any case, the human brain receives so much continuous information that calculating how much physical space could be used to record it would be an ordeal.

Except that the brain does not record everything. Most of the information it receives is kept in short term memory and is then discarded. Try remembering everything you have seen and done in your lifetime and you won't find all that much, and a lot of what you do recall will not be in much detail.

[Swami]

Science will all of its technology has failed to even discover consciousness in its pure form.

To date, there is no scientific theory of consciousness.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

1. Is it arrogant to claim that consciousness is physical?

Do you mean consciousness itself, or the source of consciousness? If consciousness is a manifestation of brain activity, then it can be a nonphysical thing like a thought, or a mental image, or an emotion, etc. I don't know of anyone who claims consciousness is, itself, a physical thing that is made of some sort of matter or energy, but I expect some would make that claim. I wouldn't call it arrogant to believe the consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain, as that is what seems to be the most obvious explanation to me. If a living thing with a brain dies, or has its brain damaged sufficiently, consciousness vanishes (assuming a definition of consciousness as awareness in general). Are there examples of any living thing posessing consciousness that does not have a working brain?

[emphasis applied]
Referring to the passage I emphasized, this squarely frames the key question. It is easy to see the process of thinking as a reflection of physical processes, but DrNoGods asks the next and crucial question, 'Is the thought itself 'physical?'

The phenomenon of memory may answer this question. We remember our 'conclusions,' even when we have forgotten the data upon which we rested those conclusions. A conclusion is an example of a thought. Since we remember our conclusions, our assessments of data we have examined, the conclusion (thought) must somehow leave a track in the brain. For a 'track' to be left (one that can be retrieved and reexamined) there must be a physical record left behind; therefore, thoughts must have a physical basis.

Using the metaphor of the movie screen as a mere reflector of thoughts, we can see that thoughts must be more than a mere reflection or nonexistent 'thing.' That we can recall our thoughts shows that some record is made, a record of the thought. Thus, thoughts appear to have a physical basis. A mere movie screen does not record the image. A thought is more like the film itself, which projects the image onto the screen.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #148]

Since we remember our conclusions, our assessments of data we have examined, the conclusion (thought) must somehow leave a track in the brain.

Yes ... I don't there is any debate about this, although the specifics of how memory works at the molecular level may not be worked out. Dreams are another example of the brain piecing together various memory elements and neurons firing, etc. to form story lines and all kinds of crazy perceptions that people experience in dreams. But like a thought, or consciousness, the dream itself is not a real, tangible thing that could be weighed, measured physically, etc. These are all examples of emergent properties of the physical elements of the brain working as a complicated system. Things like emotions, love, etc. are similar ... they are the manifestations of physical processes, but themselves (by definition) are not physical "things" that occupy space or can be physically manipulated. Of course, the physical elements have to be present to produce these emergent phenomena (eg. memory for thoughts, or recall of past experiences).

[Swami]

No one likes it when the shoe is on the other foot. Like Joey, I pressure the materialist for evidence. We only have a promissary note so far that consciousness will be explained by science. Every credible scientist will tell you that there is no scientific theory of consciousness. Those that go in arrogant eventually come back humbled.