• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Consciousness

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
Is consciousness a physical thing?

Human consciousness (the only sort that humans experience) is an effect of physical processes in the (physical) human brain. But, consciousness itself (even the human sort) is not a physical “thing”; it’s a process-dynamical one and -much like a group-dynamic, for example- cannot be grasped (so to say) physically.


Humbly
Hermit
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
My point is that consciousness may not be a noun. It may be a verb.
i mostly understood that but from a scientific view and yourself being a scientist, are processes harder to identify vs objects? i would think so but I would rather have your view on the matter.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
but what if it is the fuel? why is there a need for psychiatry and psychology, if it isn't?
The fuel? Eating. Food. Energy. The kind measured in calories. Or Joules. Try to be conscious without it.

Ciao

- viole
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
The fuel? Eating. Food. Energy. The kind measured in calories. Or Joules. Try to be conscious without it.

Ciao

- viole
you're trying to skirt the idea that you have to have sort of knowledge, sense, idea, that you need those. even if you have those doesn't mean your consciousness doesn't directly affect your physical self. broken heart syndrome is triggered by thoughts; so in a way thoughts fuel actions. otherwise their just knee jerk reactions and not actions.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
you're trying to skirt the idea that you have to have sort of knowledge, sense, idea, that you need those. even if you have those doesn't mean your consciousness doesn't directly affect your physical self. broken heart syndrome is triggered by thoughts; so in a way thoughts fuel actions. otherwise their just knee jerk reactions and not actions.
Look, it is very simple:

1) You keep on feeding your brain with sugar and stuff, you keep consciousness
2) You stop, you lose it

Now, that should indicate that consciousness is to brains, what combustion and power generation is to fuel engines. They are not things. They are processes. Stop feeding them, and they stop.

No need to exalt them to the metaphysical, unless you have very good reasons for that. Reasons that, I am afraid, are nowhere to be seen. Apart from some human ego related considerations, of course.

Ciao

- viole
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Look, it is very simple:

1) You keep on feeding your brain with sugar and stuff, you keep consciousness
2) You stop, you lose it

Now, that should indicate that consciousness is to brains, what combustion and power generation is to fuel engines. They are not things. They are processes. Stop feeding them, and they stop.

No need to exalt them to the metaphysical, unless you have very good reasons for that. Reasons that, I am afraid, are nowhere to be seen. Apart from some human ego related considerations, of course.

Ciao

- viole
consciousness comes in many forms, structures, i understand that. But you have to know you need those things somehow, to sense it. if something is unconscious, it doesn't know that and will stop maintaining the brain.

that isn't rocket science. its just science, science literally means knowledge
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
consciousness comes in many forms, structures, i understand that. But you have to know you need those things somehow, to sense it. if something is unconscious, it doesn't know that and will stop maintaining the brain.

that isn't rocket science. its just science, science literally means knowledge
Yes, and "knowledge", as you call it, is quite unanimous in agreeing that consciousness is an emergent property of brains operation. There is zero evidence of a metaphysical origin thereof.

And it is not difficult to imagine an unconscious system that fills up when the fuel is low. I am not an expert in computer science, but I believe I could program such a system in a few days. Easily. All you need is some sensors (fuel level), and a little algorithm that acts on actuators (fill up). Ergo, your claim that unconscious systems do not know when to fill up does not obtain.

Now, if consciousness were not physical, then it would not depend on neurones and stuff. But then, I have to ask, what is the use of those 100 billions neurones between our ears together with the zillions of interconnections they have? We can do unconscious robots with vastly less complexity. So, why are we not simpler, if unconscious behaviour is all that is needed at the physical level?

At the end of the day, do you have any evidence of consciousness existing without a brain whose neurones are still functional? I don't. For you can have a case only when you can show one of those, or a good reason explaining how it could exist without those, or how our brains are not complex enough to produce that.

Which is?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yes, and "knowledge", as you call it, is quite unanimous in agreeing that consciousness is an emergent property of brains operation. There is zero evidence of a metaphysical origin thereof.

So, again, do you have any evidence of consciousness existing without a brain whose neurones are still functional? I don't. For you can have a case only when you can show one of those, or a good reason explaining how it could exist without those, or how our brains are not complex enough to produce that.

Which is?

Ciao

- viole

Well, emergent we can agree on. But that leave reductive or not.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Yes, and "knowledge", as you call it, is quite unanimous in agreeing that consciousness is an emergent property of brains operation. There is zero evidence of a metaphysical origin thereof.

So, again, do you have any evidence of consciousness existing without a brain whose neurones are still functional? I don't. For you can have a case only when you can show one of those, or a good reason explaining how it could exist without those, or how our brains are not complex enough to produce that.

Which is?

Ciao

- viole
unanimous is a bit of a reach. that is not a normal scientific statement because most scientist don't make absolute statements. given what science knows at this point, there is still the hard problem issue which science can't explain. so either the current methodology isn't capable of testing or replicating but can only observe consciously what is consciousness
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
unanimous is a bit of a reach. that is not a normal scientific statement because most scientist don't make absolute statements. given what science knows at this point, there is still the hard problem issue which science can't explain. so either the current methodology isn't capable of testing or replicating but can only observe consciously what is consciousness
Well, since science assumes naturalism, then it is a truism that it cannot ascribe consciousness to the metaphysical. And if they do, they are not scientists, by definition.

So, in order to make your case you have to look outside of science. And necessarily so. What do you propose?

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Well, emergent we can agree on. But that leave reductive or not.
I am an irreducible reductionist.

For me there is not such a thing that is bigger than the sum of its parts. If there were, it would not need some of its parts to exist.

The only difference I recognise is in abstraction levels.

For instance, while I reduce the Mona Lisa to the pixels in the picture, I do not think that the Mona Lisa is at the same abstraction level as the sum of the pixels on the picture. Mona Lisa, and the configuration of pixels in the picture, are two different things, even though one can be reduced to the other.

To use math, there is a one-to-one relationship between them, but they are not isomorphic.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:
Top