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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is consciousness a physical thing?
I see it as more likely that it is a physical process, not a thing.
are processes harder to identify, quantify?I see it as more likely that it is a physical process, not a thing.
are processes harder to identify, quantify?
My point is that consciousness may not be a noun. It may be a verb.
Is consciousness a physical thing?
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.My point is that consciousness may not be a noun. It may be a verb.
Since it seems to stop when running out of fuel, it probably is.Is consciousness a physical thing?
Since it seems to stop when running out of fuel, it probably is.
Ciao
- viole
The fuel? Eating. Food. Energy. The kind measured in calories. Or Joules. Try to be conscious without it.but what if it is the fuel? why is there a need for psychiatry and psychology, if it isn't?
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.The fuel? Eating. Food. Energy. The kind measured in calories. Or Joules. Try to be conscious without it.
Ciao
- viole
Look, it is very simple: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.
Is consciousness a physical thing?
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.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
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.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.
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 consciousnessYes, 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, 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.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
I am an irreducible reductionist.Well, emergent we can agree on. But that leave reductive or not.