We don't know if consciousness is physical, Period.

[AgnosticBoy]

On another thread, one member stated the following regarding consciousness:

Where you are begging the question is when you assume that the mind (i e. Something immaterial) is responsible for that, when the brain (network of neurons plugged to stimulus from the outside world + a bunch of accidents of evolution) can perfectly be pointed as the source of those behavior.

Before assuming something immaterial is responsible for a phenomenon, starts by proving something immaterial exist to begin with.

Not only am I skeptical of this claim, which is a common claim made by atheists, but I also get annoyed by the level of confidence that people have in the above claim. If the researchers that study consciousness acknowledge that it presents a 'hard problem', then why should I believe any claims that explain consciousness as being physical? In my view, there are good reasons to doubt that consciousness is material or physical. The way I look at it is that even if consciousness is physical, it is still unlike any other physical phenomenon in the Universe. The main reason for that is that the presence of subjectivity. As it stands, subjective experiences can only be observed by the subject. Also, they are not measurable nor observable from the third-person point-of-view. Don't all of those characteristics sound familiar to some thing else? Immaterial or non-physical (also being unobservable, not measurable, etc.)?

Please debate:
1. Is it arrogant to claim that consciousness is physical?
2. Are there good reasons to doubt that it is physical? Or do you agree with the point from the post I quoted at the beginning of this post?

[Gracchus]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]
Before you start arguing that consciousness must be something other than physical, I suggest you check out:

The books for the course are:
Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, by Robert Sapolsky
Chaos, by James Gleick

Then we can discuss the facts that form the bases of our opinions.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #8]

"I wouldn't argue with that. I don't think it is physical either any more than a thought is physical, or an inspiration, or a hunch. Consciousness appears to be a manifestation of the workings of a physical brain ... an emergent property. That seems (to me) to be the most obvious and reasonable explanation given all of our observations."

How could an atheist argue this? If all that exists is matter then consciousness could only be the result of a chemical process and the randomness associated with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. An AI system can appear to have consciousness because it follows the program that was input into it. It appears to learn because its program tells it what is perceived to be good and what is bad.

Here you seem to be implying that there is some sort of structure to categorize and file memories, feelings, and other things that make us conscious. If AI has taught us anything it is the fact that knowledge does not produce consciousness but there has to be some sort of mental structure to organize and categorize all of the information.

In fact the simpler the organism the easier it is to see the original program that was given by God who programmed it like for example the bee.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #22]

How could an atheist argue this? If all that exists is matter then consciousness could only be the result of a chemical process and the randomness associated with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. An AI system can appear to have consciousness because it follows the program that was input into it. It appears to learn because its program tells it what is perceived to be good and what is bad.

Here you seem to be implying that there is some sort of structure to categorize and file memories, feelings, and other things that make us conscious. If AI has taught us anything it is the fact that knowledge does not produce consciousness but there has to be some sort of mental structure to organize and categorize all of the information.

All I'm arguing is that the brain, as a complicated system, is far more than the sum of its parts in terms of function. It can create perceptions, store memories/experiences, produce thoughts, emotions, consciousness, etc. all through the interactions of neurons, memory elements, electrical and chemical signals, etc. It is the simplest and most obvious explanation for consciousness, and of course observation tells us that consciousness exists in things with working brains, and apparently nowhere else (using a dictionary definition of consciousness). The strong implication is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and this has yet to be disproved.

Chemistry isn't random but is driven by the bonding behaviors of the outer electrons of atoms. Crystals aren't random structures, combining an acid and a base produces a salt plus water, not some random alternative outcome, and there are countless more examples of nonrandomness in chemistry. The brain is a very complicated system of networks, all working together, and we don't understand much of it yet. But there's no reason to invoke "god programming" when progress is made every year on better understanding how memory works, and in interpretation of measurements on brain activity via EEGs, MRI, fMIR, etc.

The "structure to categorize and file memories, feelings and other things that make us consciousness" is called the physical brain. How it does all of this we don't yet fully understand, but it is a pretty safe bet that it does. Even a tiny nematode worm with only 302 cells in its nervous system can display complex behavior:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 143517.htm

Scale this up to a human brain with upwards of 100 billion neurons, and a far more complicated structure that evolved over millions of years, and consciousness doesn't seem like such a stretch.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #22]
Thought is physical, the transmission of neurotransmitters across synapses in the brain. Deactivate the synapses and thought stops. Neural nodes that are stimulated by sensory inputs are restimulated by similar inputs and this is the basis of memory, dreams, and poetry. The sensory perception of self is also a matter of memory, and is largely the same set of nodes that constitute the idea of deity. "I AM" is the secret name of all gods, which is how believers seem to know what "God" approves.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #23]

All I'm arguing is that the brain, as a complicated system, is far more than the sum of its parts in terms of function. It can create perceptions, store memories/experiences, produce thoughts, emotions, consciousness, etc. all through the interactions of neurons, memory elements, electrical and chemical signals, etc. It is the simplest and most obvious explanation for consciousness, and of course observation tells us that consciousness exists in things with working brains, and apparently nowhere else (using a dictionary definition of consciousness). The strong implication is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and this has yet to be disproved.

This is my point the internet has all kinds of knowledge and facts. But will never become conscious or even act conscious unless there is an AI system that has been programmed to organize, catalog, and use the information in what it deems, either a self-sustaining way or a moral way and these need to be programmed into it from an outside entity.

Chemistry isn't random but is driven by the bonding behaviors of the outer electrons of atoms. Crystals aren't random structures, combining an acid and a base produces a salt plus water, not some random alternative outcome, and there are countless more examples of nonrandomness in chemistry. The brain is a very complicated system of networks, all working together, and we don't understand much of it yet. But there's no reason to invoke "god programming" when progress is made every year on better understanding how memory works, and in interpretation of measurements on brain activity via EEGs, MRI, fMIR, etc.

Chemistry is totally driven by probability. Orbitals are simply calculations of where the electron has the highest probability of being. Crystals are not random. They are produced by bond angles and the crystalline structure will be the same every time. These structures can be predicted before the crystal even forms. The same could be said about a pile of dirt when a dump truck dumps a pile of it. Or how a pile of manure is going to fly when it is tossed by a manure spreader. This is what I am saying. Chemical reactions do have predictable outcomes.

Yet that is not what we see with any type of consciousness from a honey bee to man. Materialism would predict man is not responsible for his actions because he is simply a result of the chemical process that is going on in his brain. The more complex the system the lower probability there is that these chemical reactions will work together to produce some sort of logical thought. There has to be some sort of preexisting program to process information in a logical way.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Gracchus in post #24]

Thought is physical, the transmission of neurotransmitters across synapses in the brain. Deactivate the synapses and thought stops. Neural nodes that are stimulated by sensory inputs are restimulated by similar inputs and this is the basis of memory, dreams, and poetry. The sensory perception of self is also a matter of memory, and is largely the same set of nodes that constitute the idea of deity. "I AM" is the secret name of all gods, which is how believers seem to know what "God" approves.

So what is the basis of this dream thought that allows you to put it in a logical connection with other thoughts? Or even connect to something that is not necessarily related to this thought. Just like in an AI system there has to be a preprogrammed program for your brain to assess and categorize information.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #25]

Materialism would predict man is not responsible for his actions because he is simply a result of the chemical process that is going on in his brain. The more complex the system the lower probability there is that these chemical reactions will work together to produce some sort of logical thought.

Materialism just says that the complex system called a brain is capable of producing consciousness and all of the other perceptions we have (thoughts, emotions, memories, dreams, etc.). There is no rule that the more complex the system the less likely the components can work together to produce certain outcomes. A new 787 is orders of magnitude more complex than a lawn mower, but is put together in such a way that all the parts work successfully together. And it does what none of the individual components can do ... fly hundreds of people from point A to point B despite gravity. It is an example of a complex system having capabilities far beyond its individual components (like a brain).

There has to be some sort of preexisting program to process information in a logical way.

"Program" may not be the right word, but brains evolved over time to reach higher and higher levels or organization and function. Ganglia and nerve nets preceeded more centralized brains, and these were able to evolve over time to become more and more complex and capable as the animal evolved new structures and needed greater integration and control. It wasn't as if a complex brain suddenly appeared fully formed and "programmed." The process took hundreds of millions of years of gradual change, and proceeded with other changes over time. The "program" grew from relatively simple, to very complex, as brains evolved. It all makes sense, without the need for some external "programmer" beyond the normal evolutionary process.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Materialism just says that the complex system called a brain is capable of producing consciousness and all of the other perceptions we have (thoughts, emotions, memories, dreams, etc.). There is no rule that the more complex the system the less likely the components can work together to produce certain outcomes. A new 787 is orders of magnitude more complex than a lawn mower, but is put together in such a way that all the parts work successfully together. And it does what none of the individual components can do ... fly hundreds of people from point A to point B despite gravity. It is an example of a complex system having capabilities far beyond its individual components (like a brain).

Both were designed by a designer along with the individual part. What materialism is proposing is that the individual atoms and compounds came together and produced the components, the lawn mower and the 787 by a chemical process without a designer. That is impossible. So you obviously believe in miracles this is why I say that atheists are nothing more than Pantheists in disguise.

"Program" may not be the right word, but brains evolved over time to reach higher and higher levels or organization and function. Ganglia and nerve nets preceeded more centralized brains, and these were able to evolve over time to become more and more complex and capable as the animal evolved new structures and needed greater integration and control. It wasn't as if a complex brain suddenly appeared fully formed and "programmed." The process took hundreds of millions of years of gradual change, and proceeded with other changes over time. The "program" grew from relatively simple, to very complex, as brains evolved. It all makes sense, without the need for some external "programmer" beyond the normal evolutionary process.

This is not what happened with the internet. It will take programmers to produce an algorithm for the internet or robot to appear to be conscious. The bottom line is that any AI system will simply be following the algorithm it was programmed with. Following whatever the algorithm deems to be of the highest importance. This is a pantheistic belief of yours. So are you saying that our brain is more simplistic than a lawn mower or a 787? Because they were not produced by natural processes but were designed by men. Are you saying that the aluminum alloy 2024 that the hauls of planes are made of could have been produced in nature along with all of the other alloys used to produce airplanes? Are you saying that steel 1095 that is used to make mower blades were produced in nature? These are impossible feats that would never have happened unless they were designed by an intelligent designer.

There are over 20,000 different proteins in the human body and nature cannot make a simple alloy. Things like you are suggesting do not happen naturally without a designer. It is a pantheistic belief to believe that nature could produce even the 20,000 different proteins let alone the structure of the organism without a designer and that is just to produce the mechanism. The complexity of the algorithm needed to produce consciousness goes beyond even the simple structure of any orgamism.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #28]

What materialism is proposing is that the individual atoms and compounds came together and produced the components, the lawn mower and the 787 by a chemical process without a designer. That is impossible. So you obviously believe in miracles this is why I say that atheists are nothing more than Pantheists in disguise.

That is the old and worn out "tornado in a junkyard producing a 747" argument. That is not at all how evolution works, or how consciousness emerges from brain function. Eyes did not randomly evolve many different times in different formats because a bunch of chemicals by pure chance assembled themselves into an eye. The process started with light-sensitive molecules that conferred an advantage to the organism (eg. allowed detection of the shadow of a predator, or prompted movement into sunlight to aquire energy). Then light patches developed that were more capable, then cupped light patches to better capture and focus incoming light and help determine direction, etc. through a large number of incremental steps that resulted in different eye structures and associated nerves, etc. It was anything but random, and driven by natural selection and the mutations that it works with, over thousands of generations of the organism. No "designer" required ... just mutations that natural selection selected (you can call that the "designer") based on benefits to the organism

This is not what happened with the internet. It will take programmers to produce an algorithm for the internet or robot to appear to be conscious. The bottom line is that any AI system will simply be following the algorithm it was programmed with. Following whatever the algorithm deems to be of the highest importance. This is a pantheistic belief of yours. So are you saying that our brain is more simplistic than a lawn mower or a 787? Because they were not produced by natural processes but were designed by men. Are you saying that the aluminum alloy 2024 that the hauls of planes are made of could have been produced in nature along with all of the other alloys used to produce airplanes? Are you saying that steel 1095 that is used to make mower blades were produced in nature? These are impossible feats that would never have happened unless they were designed by an intelligent designer.

Another bad analogy. The internet, or computers running AI code, are indeed human inventions. They are useful to society as evidenced by usage and economics (it is very profitable for companies to develop these things because people will pay for them as they find them useful). The internet doesn't need to eat, or mate, or fight off rivals. So the analogy to evolution would be that the selection process for development of the internet (or any product or service) is that it is useful and profitable. And humans do the development.

Evolution of brains progressed because more capability and higher intelligence proved to be advantages for populations allowing them to reproduce and survive against competitors. It was driven by the same process that led to eyes, hearts, lungs, etc. There is no need for an intelligent designer for any of this ... it is why evolution has been such a successful theory despite denials by creationists who simply can't accept that complex life forms could arise via the process.

There are over 20,000 different proteins in the human body and nature cannot make a simple alloy. Things like you are suggesting do not happen naturally without a designer. It is a pantheistic belief to believe that nature could produce even the 20,000 different proteins let alone the structure of the organism without a designer and that is just to produce the mechanism. The complexity of the algorithm needed to produce consciousness goes beyond even the simple structure of any orgamism.

"Nature" can make a simple alloy. It produced humans who figured out how to combine different metals to form alloys with desirable properties. Life didn't begin with a 20,000 protein organism (and the human body has far more than 20,000 proteins (something like 1e28 ... but about 20,000 protein-encoding genes). It started with something far simpler and life evolved from there. We don't know what that initial life form was, but it certainly was not some conscious human-like creature with 20,000 different kinds of proteins.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #26]
I previously posted a link to a series of lectures about the biological bases of human behavior. In short, life is an electrochemical gradient across a semipermeable membrane. It is complex, but nothing other is required to explain what is observed. Please follow the link that I posted to the video lectures at Stanford.edu and available on YouTube. Or you could read Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst a 2017 non-fiction book by Robert Sapolsky. It describes how human behavior, including thought, is a biochemical process, and shows the reasons why behavior, as reaction to environment, varies among individuals and across species. No non-physical processes are necessary.
One thing pointed out is that humans often react without first interposing the anterior cingulate cortex of the frontal lobes, and only rationalize their behavior after the fact. Ironically enough, this explains the puzzlement of "Saint Paul" over the fact that he continued to sin.