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?

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

It does look to me as if he's just taking one link out of a long chain of events and marvelling at how it could happen all by itself.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #88]

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.

The Venus flytrap example is a perfect of cause to effect chemical reaction. The Venus fly trap does not ask itself "Is this a fly or is this not a fly?" It does not ask itself, "Will this kind of fly taste good?" A chemical reaction occurs because of something landing on it and it closes and tries to digest whatever it is that landed on it.

Because of your pantheistic faith, you are trying to propose that 100 billion neurons each averaging around 7,000 connections. And according to your pantheistic faith, 66 billion of the neurons and 46 trillion of the connections occurred over the last 6 million years causing human consciousness. I call this faith because the only way that you could possibly say that this occurred is by the anthropic principle. It occurred because it occurred.

Modern Science says the following about making new nero pathways. "It requires about 10,000 repetitions — translating to a minimum of three months of practice — to develop a new neural pathway and master a new pattern of behavior. This timeframe can fluctuate, as each brain is unique." Do I really need to do the math? 11 trillion years to form 46 trillion connections.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #92]

The Venus flytrap example is a perfect of cause to effect chemical reaction. The Venus fly trap does not ask itself "Is this a fly or is this not a fly?" It does not ask itself, "Will this kind of fly taste good?" A chemical reaction occurs because of something landing on it and it closes and tries to digest whatever it is that landed on it.

It was an example of a scenario where a system evolved that has functional capabilities far beyond the capabilities of the individual components comprising the system. That was the point. Brains are another example, abeit far more complex.

Because of your pantheistic faith, you are trying to propose that 100 billion neurons each averaging around 7,000 connections. And according to your pantheistic faith, 66 billion of the neurons and 46 trillion of the connections occurred over the last 6 million years causing human consciousness. I call this faith because the only way that you could possibly say that this occurred is by the anthropic principle. It occurred because it occurred.

Faith (of any kind) has nothing to do with it. Human consciousness comes from the same source as a worm's consciousness (ie. its brain). The great apes we evolved from were just as conscious as we are. You're mixing up intelligence and consciousness again, which are not the same thing. The rapid encephalization of humans is what led to our superior intelligence over the time period you're referring to (most of that in the last 1 million years only), but we are no more conscious than any ape.

Modern Science says the following about making new nero pathways. "It requires about 10,000 repetitions — translating to a minimum of three months of practice — to develop a new neural pathway and master a new pattern of behavior. This timeframe can fluctuate, as each brain is unique." Do I really need to do the math? 11 trillion years to form 46 trillion connections.

Reference for the quote? But it doesn't really matter because we are here, with our very capable brains, and we (and our brains) weren't here a few million years ago. Any math that claims it would take 11 trillion years to evolve a human brain is at odds with what we actually see, so is wrong by definition. It is as simple as that. Go work out some numbers for brain evolution that match the time frames we know it actually did occur over and you'd have the starting point for a debate on how it happened.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

It was an example of a scenario where a system evolved that has functional capabilities far beyond the capabilities of the individual components comprising the system. That was the point. Brains are another example, abeit far more complex.

This system does not have functional capabilities beyond the capabilities of the individual components. This is a simple cause-to-effect reaction. The plant would have to think about what it was eating for it to go beyond the individual components.

Faith (of any kind) has nothing to do with it. Human consciousness comes from the same source as a worm's consciousness (ie. its brain). The great apes we evolved from were just as conscious as we are. You're mixing up intelligence and consciousness again, which are not the same thing. The rapid encephalization of humans is what led to our superior intelligence over the time period you're referring to (most of that in the last 1 million years only), but we are no more conscious than any ape.

"In me thou see'st the twilight of such a day as after sunset fadeth in the west, Which by and by black night doth take away Death's second self, that seals up all in rest. Sonnet 73 Shakespeare

It is you that is mixing up the idea of intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence sees a sunset. Consciousness admires the sunset. Intelligence may see something that is dead and understands that it does not move. Consciousness can contemplate their own death and the legacy that they want to leave behind.

It takes 3 months to mechanically create a new pathway. It is not possible for those trillions of connections to be formed

But it doesn't really matter because we are here, with our very capable brains, and we (and our brains) weren't here a few million years ago. Any math that claims it would take 11 trillion years to evolve a human brain is at odds with what we actually see, so is wrong by definition. It is as simple as that. Go work out some numbers for brain evolution that match the time frames we know it actually did occur over and you'd have the starting point for a debate on how it happened.

When all else fails just you can always rely on the anthropic principle. We are here so no matter what it took for us to exist. It had to happen because we are here.

The universe is here because it is here.
Life is here because it is here.
Man is here because he is here
Man has consciousness because he has consciousness.

The Anthropic principle is nothing more than an admission of faith in the universe or pantheism. The Anthropic principle is actually less informative than the belief in creationism. It offers no explanation of why or how we are here.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #94]

This is a simple cause-to-effect reaction.

So are all brain functions ... just orders of magnitude more complicated. The brain is made of physical matter, and everything it produces is the result of the interactions of this physical matter. The level of complication or number of steps involved does not change that.

The plant would have to think about what it was eating for it to go beyond the individual components.

No ... there are several steps in the process (initial trichome contacted, then a second contact within a short time interval, signals to cause physical closing of the leaves, and if the prey struggles too much or puts too much pressure on the leaves more signals cause the trap to tighten further). The various signalling steps are analogous to similar processes humans use to perceive sound, for example, just not as complicated.

It is you that is mixing up the idea of intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence sees a sunset. Consciousness admires the sunset. Intelligence may see something that is dead and understands that it does not move. Consciousness can contemplate their own death and the legacy that they want to leave behind.

You just made my point. Consciousness is awareness of ones surroundings ... it is not the same as sentience or intelligence. Consciousness does not "admire" anything ... that requires intelligence. Contemplating one's own death and legacy is an example of intelligence, not consciousness. Seeing a sunset does not require intelligence ... anything with working eyes can see a sunset.

When all else fails just you can always rely on the anthropic principle. We are here so no matter what it took for us to exist. It had to happen because we are here.

Call it what you like ... we are in fact here even if we had no idea how it happened. But we do know how it happened once the first life forms appeared, and we have a decent timeline and many of the main events identified. We can say with high confidence that humans did not exist as recent as a few measly millions of years ago, and they do now. So whatever youj want to call it, any explanations have to be consistent with this time frame or they can be discarded.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

So are all brain functions ... just orders of magnitude more complicated. The brain is made of physical matter, and everything it produces is the result of the interactions of this physical matter. The level of complication or number of steps involved does not change that.

That is my point they cannot just be cause-and-effect chemical reactions. Because then there would be no such thing as consciousness. Only a series of complicated chemical reactions that imitate consciousness. New ideas logical ideas cannot be generated from cause-to-effect chemical reactions. Where would the new thought come from? Where does a new story come from? "What light from yonder window break, It is the east and Juliet is the sun arise fair sun and kill the envious moon which is sick and pale with grief." What cause made Shakespeare come up with this effect? What caused made the effect of Shakespeare's deep meanings in his plays? Van Gogh's "stary night" What was the cause that made that effect?

You just made my point. Consciousness is awareness of ones surroundings ... it is not the same as sentience or intelligence. Consciousness does not "admire" anything ... that requires intelligence. Contemplating one's own death and legacy is an example of intelligence, not consciousness. Seeing a sunset does not require intelligence ... anything with working eyes can see a sunset.

Call it whatever you want but an ape does not admire the sunset. An ape does not contemplate death. Man is the only species that can think about these things. Humans are totally different than apes or any animals in animal kingdoms. There is not any mechanism that can account for the increase in neuron connections and neurons.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #96]

That is my point they cannot just be cause-and-effect chemical reactions. Because then there would be no such thing as consciousness. Only a series of complicated chemical reactions that imitate consciousness.

How could you tell the difference between an "imitated" consciousness and actual consciousness? The brain system is not just chemical reactions. It is a complex system of networks all interacting with each other to produce consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. You can't reduce this complex system to just one category of component functions (eg. chemical reactions) and not consider the functional capabilities of the entire system working as a unit.

New ideas logical ideas cannot be generated from cause-to-effect chemical reactions.

Who ever said that was possible?

Where would the new thought come from? Where does a new story come from? "What light from yonder window break, It is the east and Juliet is the sun arise fair sun and kill the envious moon which is sick and pale with grief." What cause made Shakespeare come up with this effect? What caused made the effect of Shakespeare's deep meanings in his plays? Van Gogh's "stary night" What was the cause that made that effect?

Humans can think, and create storylines, art, complex machines, and all the other things enabled by a highly intelligent brain. Why is anything beyond this needed? Van Gogh was probably out one night after a few drinks looking up at the night sky and got inspired to paint a picture of it in his style of impressionism. The cause was his eyes looking at the night sky and giving him an idea, and the effect what that his brain carried out the steps of preparing a canvas, organizing paints and brushes, and controlling his hands and fingers to effect the process of painting. Nothing magical is needed.

Call it whatever you want but an ape does not admire the sunset. An ape does not contemplate death. Man is the only species that can think about these things. Humans are totally different than apes or any animals in animal kingdoms. There is not any mechanism that can account for the increase in neuron connections and neurons.

How do you know an ape doesn't admire the sunset, or anything else? They have emotions, can play, laugh, get sad or mad, cry, show empathy, socialize, communicate, etc.

https://releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/i ... nd-emotion

For all we know they admire sunsets, or trees, etc. Humans are different from other animals only in degree. We are bipedal (as are some other animals), we have opposing thumbs, and we have a highly evolved brain which is the primary difference that accounts for all of the things you are claiming are "special" in humans. This is intelligence, not consciousness, and we can follow the encephalization process that led to our intelligence through the fossil record from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens, in terms of braincase volume, brain structure, and evidence left behind in terms of tools, structures, and other artifacts. Intelligence increased along the way, and somewhere around 300,000 years ago Homo sapiens appeared.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #97]

How could you tell the difference between an "imitated" consciousness and actual consciousness? The brain system is not just chemical reactions. It is a complex system of networks all interacting with each other to produce consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc. You can't reduce this complex system to just one category of component functions (eg. chemical reactions) and not consider the functional capabilities of the entire system working as a unit.

They are still chemical reactions. The products of chemical reactions can be predicted. New thought cannot be produced with predictable and redundant chemical reactions. A crystalline structure can look complicated but it is really nothing more than redundant chemical reactions and bonds.

Humans can think, and create storylines, art, complex machines, and all the other things enabled by a highly intelligent brain. Why is anything beyond this needed? Van Gogh was probably out one night after a few drinks looking up at the night sky and got inspired to paint a picture of it in his style of impressionism. The cause was his eyes looking at the night sky and giving him an idea, and the effect what that his brain carried out the steps of preparing a canvas, organizing paints and brushes, and controlling his hands and fingers to effect the process of painting. Nothing magical is needed.

In your interpretation of consciousness, how could redundant chemical reactions produce that picture? Whether he was drunk or not? I also lean toward the highly intoxicated side as the source for that painting.

How do you know an ape doesn't admire the sunset, or anything else? They have emotions, can play, laugh, get sad or mad, cry, show empathy, socialize, communicate, etc.

https://releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/i ... nd-emotion

For all we know they admire sunsets, or trees, etc. Humans are different from other animals only in degree. We are bipedal (as are some other animals), we have opposing thumbs, and we have a highly evolved brain which is the primary difference that accounts for all of the things you are claiming are "special" in humans. This is intelligence, not consciousness, and we can follow the encephalization process that led to our intelligence through the fossil record from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens, in terms of braincase volume, brain structure, and evidence left behind in terms of tools, structures, and other artifacts. Intelligence increased along the way, and somewhere around 300,000 years ago Homo sapiens appeared.

Dogs do the same thing as chimpanzees. It is just that chimps have fingers and toes and look more human they believe that it is more human-like. But chimps are far more like dogs than like men. In fact, my dog is much more useful than any chimpanzee. She knows all sorts of commands and communicates when she has to go to the bathroom, or when she wants to play. Brain size has nothing to do with that sort of stuff. Although she will sit and watch the sunset with me. But I think it is just because I am petting her. That is the limit to animal behavior. Evolution has the same problem with a dog or chimps evolving from a worm. The it would take to form all of the new neural path ways makes evolution impossible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #98]

They are still chemical reactions. The products of chemical reactions can be predicted. New thought cannot be produced with predictable and redundant chemical reactions. A crystalline structure can look complicated but it is really nothing more than redundant chemical reactions and bonds.

Did you really mean to write this? It is the same analogy I've been trying to make. The thought process can look complicated, but it is really nothing more than the complicated interactions of the brain's physical components working as a system.

In your interpretation of consciousness, how could redundant chemical reactions produce that picture?

Again, it isn't just chemical reactions that define the brain's functioning. Electrical signals are part of the system, as are memory elements, networks of neurons, and all of the higher level functions that are enabled by many subsystems interacting with each other. You're painting a picture (pun intended) of a brain that is nothing but a soup of chemicals reacting purely according to the rules of chemistry and asking how that could produce something like a thought. That is not at all how the brain system works. If you could identify every molecule that is present in a brain and form a collection of them, and toss them into a pot in the right proportions, you'd never get anything resembling a thought.

But chimps are far more like dogs than like men.

You're back to intelligence, not consciousness. I wouldn't argue against the intelligence of a chimp being closer to a dog than to a human, but I think chimps have been shown to have higher cognitive ability than a dog. In any case, our DNA is a lot closer to a chimp than to a dog, and the huge evolutionary advantage for humans is a much more advanced and capable brain. This distinction is a matter of degree, not kind, and higher intelligence was clearly a huge benefit as it rapidly evolved along the Homo line.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...The plant would have to think about what it was eating for it to go beyond the individual components.
...

Nothing in the biological sciences suggests plants have the ability to think. The conclusion then is there's an electrochemical response that creates physical movement devoid of thought.

From the responses of so many theists to evolutionary questions, we can reasonably and logically conclude they are plants.