To people that think brain is mind. This statement is comletely unfounded by any science whatsoever. There is nothing from looking at a physical brain that would lead one to believe that it produces consciounsess or mind. We only know about consciousness through direct experience - there is actually no physical evidence for it whatsoever.
atheistic dualism
- Thread starter Frank M.
- Start date
grover,
But you imply an alternative to the brain that really does have absolutely zero support.
So where does that leave us - a massively complex biological organ comprising ~200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections that result in thoughts, emotions, memory, etc, and where it is not a ginat leap to reasonably postulate that it is most likely the source of what we imprecisley conceive of as consciousness, versus -
Magic happens.
Hmm!!
Apart from of course the vast research into neural networks and the direct corelation between conscious activities and brain function.
But you imply an alternative to the brain that really does have absolutely zero support.
So where does that leave us - a massively complex biological organ comprising ~200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections that result in thoughts, emotions, memory, etc, and where it is not a ginat leap to reasonably postulate that it is most likely the source of what we imprecisley conceive of as consciousness, versus -
Magic happens.
Hmm!!
Humanistguy,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
And what would be the nature of humanity in this non-material state you believe exists?
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
Wouldn't solving the problem of involuntary death be an equally hopeful outlook for humanity? But do you have a basis for your belief? Why believe such a thing is possible?
And what would be the nature of humanity in this non-material state you believe exists?
Yes, there is a definite association between mind states and physical brain states. BUt what that association is is anything but clear. And acting as if it is a scientifcally proven fact is pretty dishonest. To me it sounds alot like the arguments for intelligent design. You might have reasons for believing what ou believe (maybe even good ones) but its not science.
I disagree. In my opinion consciousness is a self-evidently immaterial phenomenon. There is actually no physical evidence for it whatsoever. There is only self-evidence for it.
The problem with your claim is that you are saying that the brain gives rise to consciousness but can't say how the brain does it and can't explain why there is nothing from looking at the physical characteristics of a brain that could possibly lead one to believe that it produces subjective experience. So basically you are saying the brain makes mind but can't explain how it does - you are basically saying the brain just magically produces mind.
Hmm indeed.
grover,
Let me try again with perspective.
Every significant organ in the human body does something we need. Easily the most complex organ and the least understood is the brain. We also display consciousness but we don't know how that is generated.
The simplest and most obvious postulation is - brain > consciousness.
You bring up "immaterial". What the heck is that? We know "consciousnes" is real and so is the brain and both are in the right ballpark, so why the heck introduce a fantasy when we haven't by a long way ruled out what we can study?
And what do you mean by "looking at the brain and not seeing any physical evdidence"? Do you not understand the concept of neural networks?
Let me try again with perspective.
Every significant organ in the human body does something we need. Easily the most complex organ and the least understood is the brain. We also display consciousness but we don't know how that is generated.
The simplest and most obvious postulation is - brain > consciousness.
You bring up "immaterial". What the heck is that? We know "consciousnes" is real and so is the brain and both are in the right ballpark, so why the heck introduce a fantasy when we haven't by a long way ruled out what we can study?
And what do you mean by "looking at the brain and not seeing any physical evdidence"? Do you not understand the concept of neural networks?
I've got to add a little more. While we think we know what we mean by consciousness it would seem that most leading scientists in the area who are attempting to find its cause display great difficulty in agreeing on a definition. What hope then do we have?
As for something immaterial: Clearly we are physical beings and if we have an immaterial component then how does it interract with us if it does not have a material component? But if the immaterial has a material component then how would that interact with its immaterial component and so on??? Folowing thats eries we can see that the immaterial appears to be an impossible reality, or if it is real then it would be unable to react with a material reality.
As for something immaterial: Clearly we are physical beings and if we have an immaterial component then how does it interract with us if it does not have a material component? But if the immaterial has a material component then how would that interact with its immaterial component and so on??? Folowing thats eries we can see that the immaterial appears to be an impossible reality, or if it is real then it would be unable to react with a material reality.
The "cause," if you will, is the supernatural divine component, easily accomplished by an omnipotent being, completely undetectable in nature.
Energy, in the form of virtual particles ARE the medium, triggered in and by the supernatural to pop into nature, firing our neurons, and then as quick as they appear, disappear, undetected, leaving behind the remnants which we detect and interpret as visions and feelings.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
brains and neurons can't do anything without the SOUL... they can't see, they can't hear, they can't feel, they can't do anything...
the brain didn't create consciousness, consciousness created the brain and our bodies... consciousness is the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. why does a cactus have sharp needles? it's because the consciousness FEARED so it created them to protect itself!!!!!!!!!
the brain didn't create consciousness, consciousness created the brain and our bodies... consciousness is the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. why does a cactus have sharp needles? it's because the consciousness FEARED so it created them to protect itself!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Right.
That's not how science works.
Dualism states that there are two substances in the universe. One is material, the other is mind (which is conceived of as being immaterial). The reason why dualism as a philosophical concept exists is because mind really does appear to be a different order of phenomenon than matter because it appears not to have physical characteristics or be quanitifable/measurable in any way. There is actually no evidence for it except for self-evidence.
The problem is Cris that you are completely glossing over the difficulties of the mind-body problem and acting as if it has already been scientifically proven. "Ballpark" isn't science. In fact its that type of drawing conclusions from common sense notions why science is necessary in the first place. If science ever proves that mind really is just matter I will believe it. But, as it stands right now there is no evidence whatsoever and just a bunch of materialist dogma that acts like its a proven scientific fact when there is no actual science to support your position whatsoever.
Okay, then you tell me. What it is about neural networks that leads you to believe that they produce subjective experience? Just give a purely physical description.
Cris, what you just wrote is a great example of materialism of the gaps. What you are saying is that we have mysterious phenomenon x which science doesn't have an answer and since we dont have an answer that means the answer must be one of materiality. Its not different than God of the gaps - no explanation for mysterious phenomenon x therefore it must be God.
---------------------
You are free to believe that there will one day be a material explanation, thats called faith.
---------------------
Is it not possible that the unique philosophical and scientific difficulties consciousness presents are because it actually is another order of phenomenon than material?
Quite.
I consider myself theologically an atheist.
However, I do believe that some form of spirit exists, in each and every bit of matter and energy. I think that each particle of matter has an equal counterpart of dark matter, which affects that matter's interaction with the universe, and generates energy fields that can be manipulated by conscious thought, and may even compose an essential part of consciousness, in the from of bioelectric energy. I suppose a shorthand for this concept is a "spirit", but you can call it what you will. I like to call the collective whole of this dark matter Quintessence.
I think that this energy and matter is in a constant cycle of life-death-and-rebirth; after the matter is destroyed, its counterpart becomes one with the Quintessence until it forms again, becoming the counterpart to another bit of matter.
record of what?
The more we discover, the more we find out our supernatural first impressions were way off base.
Farmer thinks the weather demonstrates how angry or happy god is with him... and now we have meteorologists? You get my point? Supernaturalism is selfish... materialism is just the way it is.
My stance on metaphysics is, there may or may not be supernatural phenomena, but I believe that they can be explained by natural and material means and ideas. This is not to say that you cannot still have a spiritual experience regarding these phenomena.