Empirical Evidence and Arguments for God(s)

How is consciousness empirically evident? Everything is rooted in subjective experience.

You can watch certain regions of the brain light up with neural activity as you are having a creative thought but how do you know that it's consciousness itself and not just only your physical reaction to your consciousness? All you have determined is that there is a causal connection to consciousness from the brain.

The brain could enable consciousness to the physical world. But how would you explain the constancy of identity one has from youth til older ages?

How is memory conceived of biochemically along with identity?

How does a care for someone translate into a chemical property?

There is an explanatory gap from physical to the mental and the spiritual.

osgart said:

How is consciousness empirically evident? Everything is rooted in subjective experience.

You can watch certain regions of the brain light up with neural activity as you are having a creative thought but how do you know that it's consciousness itself and not just only your physical reaction to your consciousness? All you have determined is that there is a causal connection to consciousness from the brain.

The brain could enable consciousness to the physical world. But how would you explain the constancy of identity one has from youth til older ages?

How is memory conceived of biochemically along with identity?

How does a care for someone translate into a chemical property?

There is an explanatory gap from physical to the mental and the spiritual.

Click to expand...

The only empirical evidence on the mind supports that it is merely a chemical process. Now there may be more to it than that, but I do not know of any empirical evidence for it. Yes, there are things that we do not know. But not knowing something is not evidence for a non-physical aspect to the mind.

Subduction Zone said:

The only empirical evidence on the mind supports that it is merely a chemical process. Now there may be more to it than that, but I do not know of any empirical evidence for it. Yes, there are things that we do not know. But not knowing something is not evidence for a non-physical aspect to the mind.

Click to expand...

One of the sources recommended by the OP is a dissertation which claims to have empirical evidence for consciousness ( aka ' the mind' ? ) I am still reading it myself, but, if you have time, I would be interested to hear your feedback. According to the intro to the dissertation, the discussion of the empirical data is in chapter 6.

However, when the author says, empirical, I think they mean, observed. I don't think they meant repeatable.

Here's a link to the dissertation.

dybmh said:

hyperlink >>> philpapers.org - Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology 2019

Click to expand...

dybmh said:

One of the sources recommended by the OP is a dissertation which claims to have empirical evidence for consciousness ( aka ' the mind' ? ) I am still reading it myself, but, if you have time, I would be interested to hear your feedback. According to the intro to the dissertation, the discussion of the empirical data is in chapter 6.

However, when the author says, empirical, I think they mean, observed. I don't think they meant repeatable.

Here's a link to the dissertation.

Click to expand...

Wow! Quite the read. I downloaded it. I don't know if I will have time. But someone should be able to extract the claimed evidence and present it clearly.

PureX said:

So what?

Click to expand...

So I don't think it makes sense to talk about it as if it is something distinct in reality.

Everything is a "product of" everything else.

Click to expand...

I see the mind more as a property or function of a brain, not as a product thereof.

And is ultimately a product of the great mystery we call "God".

Click to expand...

If you say so. I think it's kind of pointless to slap a label loaded with a whole bunch of baggage on something that is actually "unknown". Just call it "unknown" instead, is what I say.

Again, this has no bearing on the fact that the tune is a conceptual (metaphysical) phenomena being generated in the human brain.

You seem to be adhering to the false idea that transcendence infers complete separation from it's source, and I see no logical reason that we should assume so, especially when to assume this to be so effectively negates the possibility of transcendence, absolutely. It would render the term abjectly meaningless.
The fact that you can consciously conceptualize your brain as an independent phenomenon, as you just have, stands as pretty good evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

I just don't like the term because I think it's loaded up with plenty of baggage that is entirely unwarranted and unsupported.

I tend to apply strict definitions and reasoning to prevent such baggage to sneak into a conversation which can then be held up to pretend as if I accept all the baggage if and when I assume the term.

TagliatelliMonster said:

I see the mind more as a property or function of a brain, not as a product thereof.

Click to expand...

... And that far exceeds the possibilities of the brain as a lump of energized matter. The brain is both pointless and useless apart from it's ability to generate consciousness. It's consciousness that creates and recognizes the vast array of new metaphysical possibilities.

TagliatelliMonster said:

I see the mind more as a property or function of a brain, not as a product thereof.

Click to expand...

The fact that you recognize the difference between "brain" and "mind" indicates that these are distinctly different phenomena being defined by distinctly different characteristics. Which you are then trying to deny because you don't like having to recognize the transcendent nature of consciousness (I assume because you are holding onto a bias toward philosophical materialism).

TagliatelliMonster said:

If you say so. I think it's kind of pointless to slap a label loaded with a whole bunch of baggage on something that is actually "unknown". Just call it "unknown" instead, is what I say.

Click to expand...

The term "God" carries all that baggage because it refers to the greatest and most meaningful of all the mysteries confronting humanity. I see no reason to deny the many possibilities lurking within that mystery, and that become available to us because of that mystery.

TagliatelliMonster said:

I just don't like the term because I think it's loaded up with plenty of baggage that is entirely unwarranted and unsupported.

Click to expand...

What you call "baggage" I call possibility. But then I am not biased against there being any manner of existence beyond the material.

TagliatelliMonster said:

I tend to apply strict definitions and reasoning to prevent such baggage to sneak into a conversation which can then be held up to pretend as if I accept all the baggage if and when I assume the term.

Click to expand...

Your "reasoning" appears to be a pretty determined denial mechanism in favor of a materialist bias, to me.

Base12 said:

Click to expand...

Arbitrarily matching biblical terms to scientific ones does not mean that they are encoded in the Bible.

sealchan said:

A good philosopher, like Daniel Dennett, will have one or more of those PhD's in a scientific discipline.

Click to expand...

Haha I'm sorry, but you can't be a good philosopher while holding an unevidenced and unsound position.

1137 said:

Haha I'm sorry, but you can't be a good philosopher while holding an unevidenced and unsound position.

Click to expand...

So you must be one of those Vulcans who think that only deductive logic based on experience is enough to live a meaningful life?

Do you think that imagination is merely a side effect of intelligence?

sealchan said:

Do you think that imagination is merely a side effect of intelligence?

Click to expand...

I think in this particular case, intelligence is merely a side effect of a hyperactive imagination. He's very quick to accuse others of holding an unsound position, but fails to explain his in a sound manner.

But yeah my opinion of this thread: A guy talking about empirical evidence for his world view, but doesn't understand what empiricism means - the thread.

Darkstorn said:

I think in this particular case, intelligence is merely a side effect of a hyperactive imagination. He's very quick to accuse others of holding an unsound position, but fails to explain his in a sound manner.

But yeah my opinion of this thread: A guy talking about empirical evidence for his world view, but doesn't understand what empiricism means - the thread.

Click to expand...

From what I could tell; the sources provided in the OP did contain empirical ( aka observable ) evidence of something. The only weakness I could find is applying the data to support the claim that a god/god(s) exist. That part is a stretch, IMHO.

I think most folks were looking for scientific evidence which is both observable and repeatable. Empirical evidence does not need to be repeatable.

sealchan said:

So you must be one of those Vulcans who think that only deductive logic based on experience is enough to live a meaningful life?

Do you think that imagination is merely a side effect of intelligence?

Click to expand...

No definitely not. Logic, experience, science, trustworthy second hand accounts...

I guess I'm curious why not being a Materialist makes life so much less meaningful? I'd think it'd be the opposite.

1137 said:

No definitely not. Logic, experience, science, trustworthy second hand accounts...

I guess I'm curious why not being a Materialist makes life so much less meaningful? I'd think it'd be the opposite.

Click to expand...

Having a different meaning than yours does not mean "meaningless" .

PureX said:

... And that far exceeds the possibilities of the brain as a lump of energized matter. The brain is both pointless and useless apart from it's ability to generate consciousness. It's consciousness that creates and recognizes the vast array of new metaphysical possibilities.
The fact that you recognize the difference between "brain" and "mind" indicates that these are distinctly different phenomena being defined by distinctly different characteristics. Which you are then trying to deny because you don't like having to recognize the transcendent nature of consciousness (I assume because you are holding onto a bias toward philosophical materialism).
The term "God" carries all that baggage because it refers to the greatest and most meaningful of all the mysteries confronting humanity. I see no reason to deny the many possibilities lurking within that mystery, and that become available to us because of that mystery.
What you call "baggage" I call possibility. But then I am not biased against there being any manner of existence beyond the material.
Your "reasoning" appears to be a pretty determined denial mechanism in favor of a materialist bias, to me.

Click to expand...

I feel the need to point out that saying the consciousness transcends the brain is not per se contrary to the materialistic position.

1137 said:

No definitely not. Logic, experience, science, trustworthy second hand accounts...

I guess I'm curious why not being a Materialist makes life so much less meaningful? I'd think it'd be the opposite.

Click to expand...

I think that we must coordinate with the material but our human cognition gives us the ability to imagine apart from the material so that we can restructure and reconfigure the material to obey a "higher" order or organization.

I think that you would not argue against creativity and innovation, but I think that you might not acknowledge that this requires the belief in the impossible or the "unactualized" (currently impossible) in order for the will to create something new to have its basis.

Many people believe in fantasies and then use that to deny reality. But there is a middle ground where practicality must be balanced with what humanity wants and needs that is not practical currently.

Literalism is, perhaps, the way to categorize beliefs that try to supplant what a materialist might acknowledge as valid. But I would argue for art and myth and literature as necessary expressions of the human psyche that allow us, again, to reconfigure the material into a "higher order" than what the material grants by default.