1. 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!

Featured Consciousness

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Fool, May 13, 2022.

  1. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    Is consciousness a physical thing?
     
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    23,521
    Ratings:
    +29,228
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I see it as more likely that it is a physical process, not a thing.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,787
    Ratings:
    +3,206
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Depends on what you view as physical.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    are processes harder to identify, quantify?
     
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    23,521
    Ratings:
    +29,228
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    My point is that consciousness may not be a noun. It may be a verb.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,787
    Ratings:
    +3,206
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    It seems to be is the same for "I". If you look closer it appears as a process and not a noun.
     
    #6 mikkel_the_dane, May 13, 2022
    Last edited: May 14, 2022
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. Hermit Philosopher

    Hermit Philosopher Selflessly here for you

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    935
    Ratings:
    +814
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    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.
     
  9. viole

    viole Ontological Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    12,201
    Ratings:
    +6,762
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Since it seems to stop when running out of fuel, it probably is.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    but what if it is the fuel? why is there a need for psychiatry and psychology, if it isn't?
     
  11. viole

    viole Ontological Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    12,201
    Ratings:
    +6,762
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    The fuel? Eating. Food. Energy. The kind measured in calories. Or Joules. Try to be conscious without it.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
  12. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    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.
     
  13. viole

    viole Ontological Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    12,201
    Ratings:
    +6,762
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    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
     
  14. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,943
    Ratings:
    +10,995
    Religion:
    Scientism
    Consciousness is the experience of quantifying information.
     
  15. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    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
     
  16. viole

    viole Ontological Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    12,201
    Ratings:
    +6,762
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    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
     
    #16 viole, May 13, 2022
    Last edited: May 13, 2022
  17. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    11,787
    Ratings:
    +3,206
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Well, emergent we can agree on. But that leave reductive or not.
     
  18. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    13,466
    Ratings:
    +2,823
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. viole

    viole Ontological Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    12,201
    Ratings:
    +6,762
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    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
     
  20. viole

    viole Ontological Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    12,201
    Ratings:
    +6,762
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    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
     
    #20 viole, May 13, 2022
    Last edited: May 13, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...