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?

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #76]
The course contains both observations and explanations of those observations. The fact that you refuse to investigate what the accepted science says, is suggestive of something other than rational thought.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]
"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?"
1. It is not arrogant to make the claim, but it is arrogant to claim that no one knows just because you do not know.
2. There is don't seem to be any good reasons to believe that consciousness is anything other than a reaction of the organism to past and present stimuli.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #79]

The odds of something happening, that has happened, is 1. Evolution doesn't care about your incredulity.

Evolution cannot care about anything. The math says that it is simply an incorrect idea. Even evolutionary scientists know about that

And every statistician knows that the odds of something happening, that has happened, is 1.

Steve disagrees.

Of course, we can fuss about the mechanisms, but evolution is a thing.

Steve may believe whatever he wants to believe. He cannot mathematically prove that it does.

The point being that where you offer a couple scientists who disregard evolution, there's an abundance of scientists named Steve who hold evolution in high regard.

It is simply someone's dream...

Says the guy who thinks there's a magic man in the sky creating animals.

...and now even scientists that support evolution are saying that there is no evidence to support large-scale evolution between kingdoms, phyla, and orders.

Go ask Steve, and see what he has to allow.

There's always gonna be a subset of a given population who disagree with facts.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Gracchus in post #81]

The course contains both observations and explanations of those observations.

You might want to believe it does but it doesn't. How are you saying that the brain processes information by
Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNW) or Integrated information theory (IIT) the processing procedure of both of these had to be already in the brain so where are you saying that algorithm came from?

The fact that you refuse to investigate what the accepted science says, is suggestive of something other than rational thought.

Dude if you do not want to have a conversation then don't. But just state your opinion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #73]

What mechanism of evolution does that apply to? Are you suggesting that we have to get the entire DNA sequence in one go?

I thought evolution did not describe anything before the formation of life. So why are you mentioning evolution?

DNA is written in base four but let's use your base two example. We will start a bacteria which has about 6E6 base pairs. So let's say we have 6E6 pennies and all of the pennies are numbered from 1 to 6 million. (My example is much cheaper than yours) What would be the odds of me guessing the correct sequence of all 6 million pennies? That would be somewhere around 1 in 10E2,000,000 chance. Just so you do not get lost in the large numbers. So that means you would have to throw those 6 million pennies every second for 10E1999988 years. You are correct nature does not mind large numbers. But those large numbers make evolution impossible. In base 4 the probability would be more like 10E4000000. So in actuality, we would be looking at 10E4,000,000 years. This is why I say evolution is nothing more than pantheism. And that is for a simple one-celled organism. An organism like a human with 3.5E9 base pairs has a probability of around 1 in 10E2,000,000,000. The pantheism needed in evolution is very predominant in the theory.

You referred to evolution. Your pennies example involves all the necessary base pairs coming together at the same time. So, once again, are you suggesting that we have to get the entire DNA sequence in one go?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #84]

You might want to believe it does but it doesn't. How are you saying that the brain processes information by Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNW) or Integrated information theory (IIT) the processing procedure of both of these had to be already in the brain so where are you saying that algorithm came from?

You didn't describe GNW. Here is a good article that isn't behind a paywall:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7320300520

There is no need for an existing algorithm. Consciousness can simply be the result of the brain functioning to essentially write "programs" in real-time to create all the responses, experiences, memories, etc. that we have. The very complicated interactions of all the brain components are analogous to teams of programmers creating code on the fly to address whatever problem is presented. Nothing has to be preprogrammed in this analogy ... the components and functions are in place to create the "code" as it is needed. GNWT, as the above paper shows, is just another step in the continued effort to understand the physical basis of consciousness.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #86]

There is no need for an existing algorithm. Consciousness can simply be the result of the brain functioning to essentially write "programs" in real-time to create all the responses, experiences, memories, etc. that we have. The very complicated interactions of all the brain components are analogous to teams of programmers creating code on the fly to address whatever problem is presented. Nothing has to be preprogrammed in this analogy ... the components and functions are in place to create the "code" as it is needed. GNWT, as the above paper shows, is just another step in the continued effort to understand the physical basis of consciousness.

1st. There has to be a program to create other programs. There has to be something that organizes the team to make logical sense of all the sensory input. And then there has to be a processing center to process all of that information and decide what it thinks of it.
2nd. All that can be measured is where brain activity is happening. How are you saying that chemical processes produce new thoughts or new inventions? Chemical processes are predictable the same reaction happens every time.
3rd. So I am assuming that if you believe that these "very complicated interactions" all found a way to connect themselves randomly. An estimated trillion connections by trial and error. Really. More pantheism. Your belief in the universe to do miraculous things shows the great faith that you have in the universe.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #87]

1st. There has to be a program to create other programs. There has to be something that organizes the team to make logical sense of all the sensory input. And then there has to be a processing center to process all of that information and decide what it thinks of it.

There is no need for a "program to create other programs." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how it all works. The "something that organizes the team to make logical sense of all the sensory input" is the brain system. This organ has far more capability than the sum of its parts (neurons, memory elements, chemical and electrical signals, etc.), and it is the integrated functioning of this system that is the "something." A venus flytrap can "catch" flies not because anyone is creating an algorithm for it, but because it evolved tiny hairlike structures (sensory trichomes) that respond if touched (thigmonasty). If there are multiple touches within a few seconds the trap closes and its dinner time. An orders-of-magnitude simpler process than a brain, but an example of something that appears to have intelligence behind it but is purely mechanical/chemical processes operating together to create a useful bological function.

2nd. All that can be measured is where brain activity is happening. How are you saying that chemical processes produce new thoughts or new inventions? Chemical processes are predictable the same reaction happens every time.

Again, the brian is an integrated system of networks and components that, working together, has far more capability than individual chemical reactions or the formation of a single memory. You seem to be arguing that a collection of interacting components cannot have more function than the individual components do. Chemical reactions and electrical signals may create transfer across a single synapse, but the collection of millions and billions of nerve endings and synapses organized into a functional system (a brain) is not limited to only the function of carrying signals across a synapse.

3rd. So I am assuming that if you believe that these "very complicated interactions" all found a way to connect themselves randomly. An estimated trillion connections by trial and error. Really. More pantheism. Your belief in the universe to do miraculous things shows the great faith that you have in the universe.

No ... they didn't "connect themselves randomly." The process of evolution isn't random, even if individual mutations may be. Yet again, you're ignoring the main process and focusing on the individual parts or steps and (apparently) assuming that no advanced functionality can arise by assembly of these individual parts into a system. Human brains didn't just randomly appear from nothing ... they evolved starting from pre-brain, much simpler systems like nerve nets and ganglia. Centralization of these systems created the first brains (in worms) and they evolved from there. Natural selection and other forcing functions drive what evolutionary changes stay in populations and which do not, and over time brains advanced in structure and functional capability. You're ignoring all the small steps along the way.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #0]

[Replying to brunumb in post #85]

You referred to evolution. Your pennies example involves all the necessary base pairs coming together at the same time. So, once again, are you suggesting that we have to get the entire DNA sequence in one go?

How are you saying the calculation should be changed?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #0]

[Replying to brunumb in post #85]

You referred to evolution. Your pennies example involves all the necessary base pairs coming together at the same time. So, once again, are you suggesting that we have to get the entire DNA sequence in one go?

How are you saying the calculation should be changed?

How about you answer the question you have been asked.