0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So does consciousness exist on a different plane than physical matter? What is it about this plane that allows consciousness to come into existence? How does a conscious mind which exists in this plane locate and link itself to a brain made out of physical matter?
My best guess is that consciousness is not a consequence of any single concept such as complexity, geometry or particular materials, but rather an interplay between different factors acting together to create just the right process. I would probably liken it to life itself: there is no one factor (reproduction, growth, ingestion, excretion, metabolism, etc.) that makes something alive, but instead all of these things working together make something alive. When looking at dead matter like charcoal, air or water, it really is hard to fathom how the same atoms which make up those materials are capable of being arranged in such a way as to make something as novel as life. Nonetheless, we know that not only are living things made of atoms just as dead matter is, but that life can turn non-life into new life by ingesting and assimilating it into new tissue.
Dave :How can physics and chemistry alone or the physical material nature for that matter "generate " life , consciousness , the mental or the mind then ? Absurd .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 16/11/2013 20:26:13Dave :How can physics and chemistry alone or the physical material nature for that matter "generate " life , consciousness , the mental or the mind then ? Absurd .Life: easy - it's just complex chemistry.
Consciousness: hard. We need to find the interface, and until we can identify where it is and see what's being exchanged through it, there's nothing useful can be said on the matter.
The mind: machine side is easy, only consciousness aspects are hard.
We can't even know for sure if any being other than ourself is conscious. Everyone else could be a philosophical zombie.
You say that a machine cannot be conscious, but that is far from obvious (as you imply). As I've said before, we cannot directly test for or observe consciousness. If we were to build an artificial intelligence that behaved in a manner identical to a human being, then it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that it has a form of conscious awareness.
All of the basic tests, logical, philosophical or otherwise, which we use to conclude that other human beings are conscious would therefore be passed by this advanced AI. If it passes the tests, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is conscious. If not, then why not? Because it doesn't have a human brain? Your next step would then be to prove that it is impossible to build a machine that can mimic human behavior. That's gonna be a hard thing to disprove.
Once their brain "restarts", they should be able to testify of their continued conscious awareness during the knock-out period. However, many people do not have any such memories of when they are unconscious. Why is this?
I guess you are supporting some kind of view of animism then? What does a rock experience? It doesn't have any senses. If it does have senses, how do they work?
As far as consciousness seeming magical or special, one must keep in mind that life seemed miraculous and unexplainable many moons ago.
Once biology and technology advanced enough, we were able to figure out what makes it tick. It is certainly possible that with sufficiently advanced neuroscience and physics, we could one day uncover the root cause of consciousness as well.
To DonQuichotte:Yes, I did miss your statement about the "at" symbol, sorry.
I'm speaking in regards to the fact that you stated that it is a paradox to both believe in things that are immaterial and a consciousness that arises from the physical. If human consciousness were the only possible immaterial thing, then you would be right. However, it isn't. There are a multitude of immaterial things that could exist, including the likes of ghosts, psychic energy, Heaven, etc. My belief is that immaterial beings (angels and demons) have a consciousness that originates from the immaterial (as the "stuff" that composes them is immaterial) and that material beings (humans and animals) have a consciousness that originates from the material world.
You keep saying "obviously" and "obvious" a lot. The word "obvious" implies that something is self-evident or easily observable. When it comes to something like consciousness, there is very little we know for certain about it. We cannot observe anyone's consciousness except our own. We can't even know for sure if any being other than ourself is conscious. Everyone else could be a philosophical zombie. We only accept that other people are conscious because Occam's Razor suggests that, since other people behave like us, then they are probably conscious like us too.
You say that a machine cannot be conscious, but that is far from obvious (as you imply). As I've said before, we cannot directly test for or observe consciousness. If we were to build an artificial intelligence that behaved in a manner identical to a human being, then it would not be at all unreasonable to assume that it has a form of conscious awareness. All of the basic tests, logical, philosophical or otherwise, which we use to conclude that other human beings are conscious would therefore be passed by this advanced AI. If it passes the tests, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is conscious. If not, then why not? Because it doesn't have a human brain? Your next step would then be to prove that it is impossible to build a machine that can mimic human behavior. That's gonna be a hard thing to disprove.
There is a way to test some aspects of your claims. You say that consciousness and memories are both immaterial. When people are knocked out (either through physical trauma or chemical sedatives) the body and brain should be more or less inert and unresponsive. We know that this much is true. The next question then becomes "What happens to the immaterial mind at this time?" The mind itself, being immaterial, should be unaffected and should continue to remain consciously aware, capable of thinking and forming new memories. The only thing that has changed is that the brain itself is unresponsive. To a person who is knocked out, they should keep on thinking even though they can't move their body or use their senses. It would be akin to those sensory deprivation chambers that people use to relax.
Once their brain "restarts", they should be able to testify of their continued conscious awareness during the knock-out period. However, many people do not have any such memories of when they are unconscious. Why is this? It's not because they simply forgot that they were conscious, because you say that memories are immaterial and should be capable of forming just fine during the unconscious period. I myself have been put under (having my wisdom teeth pulled) and I did not dream or have any other conscious experience during that time. That goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the brain is where consciousness (or at the very least, memory) originates.
simply because physics and chemistry cannot give rise to consciousness .
You're either a materialist or a non -materialist : you cannot be both at the same time = a paradox : you cannot have it both ways , by believing both in the existence of the immaterial , and in the materialist version of reality you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " without question so far , the materialist false conception of nature , and hence the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " that have been assuming or rather believing for so long now , that everything is just material or physical .If everything is just material or physical, then there is no such a thing such as the immaterial ...obviously .So, make up your mind then , and stop being so ridiculously irrationally paradoxical or contradictory .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/11/2013 18:41:03You're either a materialist or a non -materialist : you cannot be both at the same time = a paradox : you cannot have it both ways , by believing both in the existence of the immaterial , and in the materialist version of reality you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " without question so far , the materialist false conception of nature , and hence the mainstream materialist false "scientific world view " that have been assuming or rather believing for so long now , that everything is just material or physical .If everything is just material or physical, then there is no such a thing such as the immaterial ...obviously .So, make up your mind then , and stop being so ridiculously irrationally paradoxical or contradictory .How is he being contradictory or paradoxical? Like you, he believes in the immaterial (or doesn't rule the possibility out) He just doesn't think consciousness is immaterial. You said: "All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect"Why is he forced to chose "one or the other" if you don't?
In short :If that guy does really believe in the immaterial , he should also believe in the immaterial side of man and life ,including in the immaterial nature and origins of consciousness thus , and in the immaterial side of reality as a whole , while rejecting that false 'scientific world view " regarding the nature of reality as a whole , the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical,including the mind or consciousness thus .He certainly can't have it both ways .
if reality thus as a whole is just material or physical , as you seem to assume it to be
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/11/2013 19:50:46In short :If that guy does really believe in the immaterial , he should also believe in the immaterial side of man and life ,including in the immaterial nature and origins of consciousness thus , and in the immaterial side of reality as a whole , while rejecting that false 'scientific world view " regarding the nature of reality as a whole , the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical,including the mind or consciousness thus .He certainly can't have it both ways .Well, I'll let Supercryptid speak for himself about what he believes or doesn't believe. But again, if its fine for you to believe that some things can be explained by just chemistry and physics, but "not everything", then it should be okay for anyone else to hold that view, even if they disagree about what goes in which category.[/quote
Quoteif reality thus as a whole is just material or physical , as you seem to assume it to beI don't. I believe in the existence of angels and demons. Therefore, I am not a materialist. Believing in angels and demons does not mean that I have to believe that the human mind is immaterial. These two beliefs are unrelated. It is not a paradox. I am having a really hard time following your line of reasoning. If I believe in the existence of material minds, why can't I also believe that there are other, fundamentally different, immaterial minds? That's like saying that I'm allowed to believe that ice cream can be made to have the flavor of chocolate, but that it cannot be made to have the flavor of vanilla.
Your biggest argument about this whole thing is that you cannot fathom how consciousness can arise from physical matter and as a result have come to the hasty conclusion that it can't. This is a perfect example of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Just because you can't understand it means that it can't be true? I, personally, don't understand calculus. Therefore, calculus must be wrong
I will give you some credit however, as you have outlasted me in this debate because I am no longer willing to continue. You keep reiterating the same points again and again with no evidence further than your own personal reasoning to back up your claims. To be honest, this kind of debate would be more at home on a philosophy forum than a science one. Unlike scientific arguments, philosophical arguments have a tendency to rely on the unprovable and as such are difficult to prove wrong in a debate.
You just did misunderstand my words :I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything" as the elusive so-called physical "theory of everything = nothing " tries to do , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .
If you say so...Cheryl j seems to understand why there is no paradox in my beliefs. I have a feeling that everyone else here does as well. I'm not going to get bent out of shape because one stranger on the Internet can't understand it. So this'll be my final post in this thread.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 18/11/2013 17:52:47You just did misunderstand my words :I have been saying that physics and chemistry alone cannot explain "everything" as the elusive so-called physical "theory of everything = nothing " tries to do , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material ,which means that physics and chemistry cannot explain anything in fact for that matter , they just try to describe the physical or material side of reality , physics and chemistry alone do not even succeed at explaining even the physical or material side of reality , they just try to describe it : see how modern physics have been superseding materialism .Yes, perhaps I have misunderstood you, and I'm sorry for forgetting at times that English is not your first language.
In English, when one says that "Not everything can be explained by X," it implies that some things can be explained by X, but other things cannot.
If you want to say that zero things are explained by X, you would say "nothing is explained by X"
What makes a phrase like "not everything" ambiguous is that it is not always clear if the writer means "not all of the members of a set" or "not every aspect of all members of the set."
To be honest though, I'm not 100% sure it is just a language problem. I am not entirely sure that you haven't flipped back and forth or contradicted yourself by saying in some posts that chemistry and physics could explain the "purely physical, purely biological" but later denying in other posts that anything is purely physical, or purely biological.
So this'll be my final post in this thread.