• 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 is process?

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I often hear people claim that the subjective experience of conscious is a process of matter. Examples of such process are: (1) electronic circuits, and (2) computer programs.

I don't dispute that consciousness has a physical basis. But using the analogy of process implies, I think, that electronic circuits and computer programs are also conscious. In other words, every process is conscious.

Perhaps we should limit which processes are conscious. Perhaps only electron flows within neural networks are conscious? But if electrons moving equals consciousness, then all of matter is conscious because electrons are everywhere in the universe and they are all moving.

Also, electronic circuits and computer programs are always confined within the physical laws of nature, of the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics and such. There is no physical law of nature called "the subjective experience of consciousness".

I am not suggesting that there is no physical basis for consciousness; clearly there is. The brain lights up a brief moment before the person is consciously aware of it. And various kinds of damage to the brain affect consciousness.

I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I often hear people claim that the subjective experience of conscious is a process of matter. Examples of such process are: (1) electronic circuits, and (2) computer programs.

I don't dispute that consciousness has a physical basis. But using the analogy of process implies, I think, that electronic circuits and computer programs are also conscious. In other words, every process is conscious.

Perhaps we should limit which processes are conscious. Perhaps only electron flows within neural networks are conscious? But if electrons moving equals consciousness, then all of matter is conscious because electrons are everywhere in the universe and they are all moving.

Also, electronic circuits and computer programs are always confined within the physical laws of nature, of the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics and such. There is no physical law of nature called "the subjective experience of consciousness".

I am not suggesting that there is no physical basis for consciousness; clearly there is. The brain lights up a brief moment before the person is consciously aware of it. And various kinds of damage to the brain affect consciousness.

I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?
You beg the question. Who says dualism is "terrifying" to anybody? I have never in my life come across any such person.

But, leaving aside the tendentious way you have chosen to ask about this issue, one answer as to why some people, including myself, are sceptical about dualism as it relates to consciousness is Ockham's Razor. There seems to be no evidence that consciousness involves any extra, non-physical "stuff", bedside the physical systems that exhibit it. On the contrary, the experience we all have of computers tends to suggest the opposite. Computers on their own are just a load of semiconductor switches connected together. But when the operating system is loaded and running, the computer responds to external stimuli and processes information. Just as a brain does.

So the issue needs to be turned around: what evidence does a proponent of a dualist account of consciousness have, for the extra, non-physical "stuff" that is supposedly needed for consciousness to be present?
 

IsaiahX

Ape That Loves
But, leaving aside the tendentious way you have chosen to ask about this issue, one answer as to why some people, including myself, are sceptical about dualism as it relates to consciousness is Ockham's Razor. There seems to be no evidence that consciousness involves any extra, non-physical "stuff", bedside the physical systems that exhibit it. On the contrary, the experience we all have of computers tends to suggest the opposite. Computers on their own are just a load of semiconductor switches connected together. But when the operating system is loaded and running, the computer responds to external stimuli and processes information. Just as a brain does.

Yes, but that lump of wiring and semi-comducters lacks many important qualities of human consciousness, e.g. the ability to make decisions on its own free will without being pre-programmed. Whether that difference is purely physical or has a spiritual component, it is am important consideration.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yes, but that lump of wiring and semi-comducters lacks many important qualities of human consciousness, e.g. the ability to make decisions on its own free will without being pre-programmed. Whether that difference is purely physical or has a spiritual component, it is am important consideration.
But what we take to be "free will" may be no more than the operating of a very sophisticated decision-making algorithm in our brains. There is no test for identifying features of the behaviour of a system that establishes the presence of "free will". It is a moral concept, not a scientific one.

As for the notion that the human brain is not pre-programmed, that too is highly questionable. The adult brain almost certainly is pre-programmed by all the information it has been exposed to. What is interesting, perhaps, is the way the animal brain programs itself, from birth, starting only from a certain amount of hard-wired programming.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?
I'll speak to that question as a believer that consciousness is fundamental and non-material.

I think there are people that are deeply entrenched in materialist thought.

From Wikipedia:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

I think what develop from the age of enlightenment is an adherence to the idea that material science is to replace all things spiritual and magical with a no-nonsense superior physical explanation. And I believe that the universe has shown itself to be complex and beyond our current ability to grasp and anything paranormal or spiritual is still vehemently resisted by people still attached to the promises of materialism. A fundamental consciousness we can not get behind is disruptive to the materialist mindset.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I often hear people claim that the subjective experience of conscious is a process of matter. Examples of such process are: (1) electronic circuits, and (2) computer programs.

I don't dispute that consciousness has a physical basis. But using the analogy of process implies, I think, that electronic circuits and computer programs are also conscious. In other words, every process is conscious.

Perhaps we should limit which processes are conscious. Perhaps only electron flows within neural networks are conscious? But if electrons moving equals consciousness, then all of matter is conscious because electrons are everywhere in the universe and they are all moving.

Also, electronic circuits and computer programs are always confined within the physical laws of nature, of the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics and such. There is no physical law of nature called "the subjective experience of consciousness".

I am not suggesting that there is no physical basis for consciousness; clearly there is. The brain lights up a brief moment before the person is consciously aware of it. And various kinds of damage to the brain affect consciousness.

I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?
Its seems to me ironic that the OP accuses of cowardice the non duelists who clearly accept death and its consequence of loss.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I often hear people claim that the subjective experience of conscious is a process of matter. Examples of such process are: (1) electronic circuits, and (2) computer programs.

I don't dispute that consciousness has a physical basis. But using the analogy of process implies, I think, that electronic circuits and computer programs are also conscious. In other words, every process is conscious.

Perhaps we should limit which processes are conscious. Perhaps only electron flows within neural networks are conscious? But if electrons moving equals consciousness, then all of matter is conscious because electrons are everywhere in the universe and they are all moving.

Also, electronic circuits and computer programs are always confined within the physical laws of nature, of the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics and such. There is no physical law of nature called "the subjective experience of consciousness".

I am not suggesting that there is no physical basis for consciousness; clearly there is. The brain lights up a brief moment before the person is consciously aware of it. And various kinds of damage to the brain affect consciousness.

I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?

Consciousness requires some degree of environmental awareness. Maybe some more complex computer systems which act from environmental could be considered conscious. Most computer system possess no environmental awareness. So I think you would need to add this need for environmental awareness to your understanding of consciousness.

Self consciousness would be an entirely different matter. Most animals don't display any degree of self consciousness. I think we are a long ways off from creating any type of self conscious system.

Dualism I do not see as terrifying, just unnecessary as an explanation. Perhaps we can't create a conscious system as of yet but I believe this is just a matter of understanding. No need of entertaining supernatural explanations.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You beg the question. Who says dualism is "terrifying" to anybody? I have never in my life come across any such person.

But, leaving aside the tendentious way you have chosen to ask about this issue, one answer as to why some people, including myself, are sceptical about dualism as it relates to consciousness is Ockham's Razor. There seems to be no evidence that consciousness involves any extra, non-physical "stuff", bedside the physical systems that exhibit it. On the contrary, the experience we all have of computers tends to suggest the opposite. Computers on their own are just a load of semiconductor switches connected together. But when the operating system is loaded and running, the computer responds to external stimuli and processes information. Just as a brain does.

So the issue needs to be turned around: what evidence does a proponent of a dualist account of consciousness have, for the extra, non-physical "stuff" that is supposedly needed for consciousness to be present?
Fiction is a part of nature and nature lives to hide like a stickbug in the open.


400px-NeahkahnieVP1-1.jpg
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I often hear people claim that the subjective experience of conscious is a process of matter. Examples of such process are: (1) electronic circuits, and (2) computer programs.

I don't dispute that consciousness has a physical basis. But using the analogy of process implies, I think, that electronic circuits and computer programs are also conscious. In other words, every process is conscious.

Perhaps we should limit which processes are conscious. Perhaps only electron flows within neural networks are conscious? But if electrons moving equals consciousness, then all of matter is conscious because electrons are everywhere in the universe and they are all moving.

Also, electronic circuits and computer programs are always confined within the physical laws of nature, of the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics and such. There is no physical law of nature called "the subjective experience of consciousness".

I am not suggesting that there is no physical basis for consciousness; clearly there is. The brain lights up a brief moment before the person is consciously aware of it. And various kinds of damage to the brain affect consciousness.

I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?

"I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?"

Fiction is interesting. Does it exist?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Even a simulation has a reality of its own. There's no such thing as a fake simulation.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I'll speak to that question as a believer that consciousness is fundamental and non-material.

I think there are people that are deeply entrenched in materialist thought.

From Wikipedia:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

I think what develop from the age of enlightenment is an adherence to the idea that material science is to replace all things spiritual and magical with a no-nonsense superior physical explanation. And I believe that the universe has shown itself to be complex and beyond our current ability to grasp and anything paranormal or spiritual is still vehemently resisted by people still attached to the promises of materialism. A fundamental consciousness we can not get behind is disruptive to the materialist mindset.

Anything detectable, measurable therefore verifiable science can deal with. Anything detectable, measurable, verifiable is either physical or a property of something physical IMO. So it's hard for me to see anything discoverable in the universe that physicality and science wouldn't be able to go.

What prevents science from evaluating the supernatural is the absence on anything detectable (physically detectable), measurable and verifiable.

You can postulate anything not detectable/measurable to be anything you want. There is simply nothing to stop you. It need not have anything to do with reality or truth.

Whatever postulates you come up with, I could likely come up with a half dozen or so opposing ones.

So I'm not against you coming up with whatever supernatural explanation you care to believe in. Feel free. I just don't see much benefit in doing so beyond personal entertainment.

Just from personal experience, belief, pre-validation, is more often wrong than right. Being right is more a matter of luck then actual knowledge of the mysterious working of the universe.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Anything detectable, measurable therefore verifiable science can deal with. Anything detectable, measurable, verifiable is either physical or a property of something physical IMO. So it's hard for me to see anything discoverable in the universe that physicality and science wouldn't be able to go.

What prevents science from evaluating the supernatural is the absence on anything detectable (physically detectable), measurable and verifiable.

You can postulate anything not detectable/measurable to be anything you want. There is simply nothing to stop you. It need not have anything to do with reality or truth.

Whatever postulates you come up with, I could likely come up with a half dozen or so opposing ones.

So I'm not against you coming up with whatever supernatural explanation you care to believe in. Feel free. I just don't see much benefit in doing so beyond personal entertainment.

Just from personal experience, belief, pre-validation, is more often wrong than right. Being right is more a matter of luck then actual knowledge of the mysterious working of the universe.
First getting back to the OP subject, I believe consciousness to be fundamental and not materially created.

The rest of your post seems to be discussing the paranormal and science. The vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe is not directly detectable by science at this time (so-called 'dark matter'). At this point in time my belief in the paranormal comes from observation. And my opinion is that in time science will be able to verify these things.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
First getting back to the OP subject, I believe consciousness to be fundamental and not materially created.

The rest of your post seems to be discussing the paranormal and science. The vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe is not directly detectable by science at this time (so-called 'dark matter'). At this point in time my belief in the paranormal comes from observation. And my opinion is that in time science will be able to verify these things.

Ok, in this last part we are in agreement.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, but that lump of wiring and semi-comducters lacks many important qualities of human consciousness, e.g. the ability to make decisions on its own free will without being pre-programmed. Whether that difference is purely physical or has a spiritual component, it is am important consideration.

You are right. Computers didn't evolve to interact with their environments. They were manufactured to process data. Only later did we make them to interact with their environments.

The effect is that computers do not have the feedback mechanisms that pre-program humans via genetics and development. But thinking that humans are not pre-programmed is a serious mistake, I think.

Then we get to the more difficult question of what it means to 'make a decision on its own free will'. Are you absolutely sure humans do that? Are you certain we are not pre-programmed by experiences and genetics to 'decide' the ways that we do? Now, certainly each person has *different* pre-programming--we all have different genetics and very different experiences. But I don't see it as given that we are not a function of that pre-programming.

Another aspect is that computers, while programmed, often do quite unexpected things. This is doubly true for those which interact with their environments. The information coming in through sensors is very far from being pre-specified and that means that outcomes can be very unpredictable. How, precisely, do we distinguish this from 'free will'?

I'd suggest a thought experiment. Suppose you take a conscious human. Imagine replacing, one-by-one, the neurons in this person by circuitry that does exactly the same thing: stimulates the surrounding neurons under the same conditions, etc. Eventually, all the neurons would be replaced and we would have a silicon structure inside the skull. Would the end result still be conscious?

My view is that there is every reason to think it would be.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?

It is not terrifying at all. I would be thrilled to feel my soul floating in the air after my death, lol.

It is just a hypothesys whose only purpose is to fill a gap in our knowledge. A sort of soul of the gaps. In this respect, it is not different from postulating Thor as the source of lightnings when we knnew nothing about electromagnetism.

I mean, those hundred of billions of neurons (not to count the interconnections) just to operate a machine under the command of something immaterial, would be a huge waste of resources, otherwise.

Ciao

- viole
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I often hear people claim that the subjective experience of conscious is a process of matter. Examples of such process are: (1) electronic circuits, and (2) computer programs.

I don't dispute that consciousness has a physical basis. But using the analogy of process implies, I think, that electronic circuits and computer programs are also conscious. In other words, every process is conscious.

Perhaps we should limit which processes are conscious. Perhaps only electron flows within neural networks are conscious? But if electrons moving equals consciousness, then all of matter is conscious because electrons are everywhere in the universe and they are all moving.

Also, electronic circuits and computer programs are always confined within the physical laws of nature, of the electrostatic force and quantum mechanics and such. There is no physical law of nature called "the subjective experience of consciousness".

I am not suggesting that there is no physical basis for consciousness; clearly there is. The brain lights up a brief moment before the person is consciously aware of it. And various kinds of damage to the brain affect consciousness.

I find it brash and arrogant to assert, without evidence, that consciousness is material/physical. Why is dualism such a terrifying idea to some people?

Consciousness in any animal is a very complex continuous interaction of multiple sites in the brain with constant feedback. Essential parts include the reticular activating system in the brain stem including the pons, midbrain, posterior hypothalamus and extending into the cerebral cortex. These exert the control on the thalamus and forebrain. The intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus is also involved with connections to the amygdala, thalamus, claustrum and basal ganglia of the cortex. The anterior prefrontal and cingulate gyrus regions are involved in self-representation and react with the posterior cortex.

The thalamic reticular nucleus then controls the signals transmitted to the cerebral cortex and feedback signals to the brainstem which is particularly important to attention and concentration. Multiple neurotransmitters are involved shows how many different relays (different neuronal projections) are involved with the maintenance of consciousness.

The cerebral cortical activity is continuously and intimately connected with these subcortical structures and there is evidence of a 40-Hz rhythm produced by the thalamocortical circuts that is also important. This rhythm is also in connections to the hippocampus and the neocortex. The rhythms support parallel activity between different brain regions thus not a one way flow of information. Thus a consciousness developed through evolution is a complex continuous neuronal network between multiple structures including those involved with sensory input interacting with thalamic and the reticular activating system with a rhythm pattern helping to maintain the communication in both directions.

If lesions develop in these areas or interrupt the rhythm there appears to be no conscious process that can be identified. Thus the incredible network of simple independent neuron activities creates the amazing phenomenon of consciousness. Thus the accumulative effect of simple physical processes creates very complex and amazing effects.

There is a good review article in Jama Neurological Review July 2004Neuronal Mechanisms of Conscious Awareness Pavel Ortinski, BA; Kimford J. Meador, MD and includes a nice diagram of the interconnections.
 
Top