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 Swami in post #120]
That is your (unsupported) claim. Or perhaps you scried it in your crystal ball?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Swami in post #120]

There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

There is also no nonscientific explanation for consciousness. Scientific explanations are getting progressively closer to explanations, and point to consciousness being an emergent property of a working brain. Nonscientific "explanations' don't actually explain consciousness ... they usually claim consciousness is some mysterious "thing" and leave it at that (ie. completely unexplained).

[Swami]

[Replying to Swami in post #120]
That is your (unsupported) claim. Or perhaps you scried it in your crystal ball?

Pick up any textbook on consciousness and it will tell you the same thing. There is absolutely no scientific theory of consciousness.

[Swami]

[Replying to Swami in post #120]

There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

There is also no nonscientific explanation for consciousness. Scientific explanations are getting progressively closer to explanations, and point to consciousness being an emergent property of a working brain. Nonscientific "explanations' don't actually explain consciousness ... they usually claim consciousness is some mysterious "thing" and leave it at that (ie. completely unexplained).

Not surprisingly, you have offered a culturally biased answer. The audience should know that you have repeatedly refused to learn and experience anything about Eastern thought and yet you have dismissed it.

What you and I see as science are two different things. Science is not a Western invention. Materialism is not important for science as it seems to be in the West.

Rama (Rama, Ballentine & Ajayas, 1976),a yoga master from India, states, ". . . psychology has made its appearance on the stage of Western science only in the last century" (p. xix), while", . . The systematized discipline of yoga has apparently been practiced ... over some thousands of years ... " during which". . . an unbroken chain of highly trained teachers and students have devoted themselves intensively to the rigorous practice of self-observation" (p, xxi).

https://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-18-86-01-051.pdf

Which has more value, the thousands of years of psychology or a century's worth?

[Swami]

The Hindu tradition emphasizes this using two classical schools of thought: (1) Sankhya and (2) Yoga. Each is an East Indian orthodox worldview, although the emphases on the self and reality vary.

It introduces a nontheistic creation sequence outlining world evolution starting with nonmaterial consciousness evolving to become everything material. While holding the differentiation between consciousness or spirit, and all else (i.e., undifferentiated matter-energy reality called Prakriti) in high regard, there is an intimate porosity rather than an antagonistic split between these progressive stages of transformation. Purusha or pure, unbounded universal consciousness is identified with ultimate reality.

Yoga, the practical school of Sankhya, has deep roots in the Vedas, Upanishads, and Vedanta. . It came to fruition as a clear-cut psychology of mind in the treatise, Yoga Sutras, by Patanjali c. AD 200. His text systematized preexisting traditions and formalized them. These sutras (i.e., discussions, discourses) serve as the standard reference for the Yoga theory of mind and practice (Bryant, 2009). Patanjali outlines a precise protocol. The foundation is self-observation. Meditative absorption as Samadhi achieves progressive refinement in the body leading to mental purification and =ultimately-self-realization and enlightenment.

Self-realization is the state of absorption with pure consciousness,

Learned Mindfulness, chapter 1

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Swami in post #124]

Not surprisingly, you have offered a culturally biased answer. The audience should know that you have repeatedly refused to learn and experience anything about Eastern thought and yet you have dismissed it.

I've repeatedly argued that science isn't an eastern or western topic and has no dependence on any particular part of the world, any religion, any language, or any differences in philosophy among people. It is the study of nature and all that entails via observations and measurements. It has no relationship with any particular "thought." The phrase "eastern thought" has no more meaning than "western thought", or "southern thought" when it comes to science.

What you and I see as science are two different things. Science is not a Western invention. Materialism is not important for science as it seems to be in the West.

I've never claimed science was a western invention ... just the opposite (see above). Scientists practice science the world over and work together to try and solve problems and answer questions. There is no such thing as "eastern science", or "western science." It is just science.

Which has more value, the thousands of years of psychology or a century's worth?

Whichever one is shown to be correct. For science, this is determined by what best explains observations. It doesn't matter how long it takes to arrive at a correct answer, or who does the work, or where they do it. Results are what counts, and when it comes to explaining consciousness the idea that it is some mysterious "thing" that science can never explain has no basis. If this is what "eastern thought" concludes, it isn't science but some cousin of philosophy.

The simple observation that consciousness appears to exist only in living animals with brains (are there any exceptions to this?), is a very strong indication that it is produced by a brain. The job of science is to try and show that this is the case and to elucidate the mechanism for it. A lot of progress has been made on this effort in the last few decades ... far more than has been made in showing that it isn't produced by normal brain function but is some magical thing or force or energy that is impossible to understand for some reason.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to Swami in post #123]
Perhaps you could recommend a "textbook on consciousness"? I have perused one or two on neuroscience, which seem to indicate that "consciousness" is a physical phenomenon arising from neural activity, including mechanisms such as reactivation, and positive and negative feedbacks. Interference with neural activity often leads to change in "consciousness", sometimes including unconsciousness, coma or death.
You might want to consider the fact that your ignorance of neuroscience does not mean that others are necessarily just as ignorant.

[William]

[Replying to Gracchus in post #127]

...seem to indicate that "consciousness" is a physical phenomenon arising from neural activity,...

Please explain "physical phenomena". Is it a way of saying "a physical thing [brain] creating a non-physical non-thing [mind]" or does it mean something else?

[Gracchus]

[Replying to William in post #128]
Physical phenomena are observable facts. "Mind" is an electrochemical reaction in the brain.
You seem to have trouble comprehending English. Is it, perhaps, not your primary language?
You suggested: "Pick up any textbook on consciousness and it will tell you the same thing."
Again: Please provide the title of "any textbook on consciousness ".
Also: You have admitted your ignorance of any scientific theory explaining consciousness. Why do you insist that everyone must share your ignorance?

[otseng]

You seem to have trouble comprehending English. Is it, perhaps, not your primary language?
Also: You have admitted your ignorance of any scientific theory explaining consciousness. Why do you insist that everyone must share your ignorance?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments about others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.