AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:41 pm
On another thread, one member stated the following regarding consciousness:
Bubuche87 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:41 pm
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?
1. No, it's not arrogant, it's completely rational to hold this view:
A. Correlation between brain activity and conscious experience: One of the strongest arguments for physicalism is the close correlation between brain activity and conscious experience. Brain imaging studies have shown that specific regions of the brain are activated when people have certain kinds of experiences, such as seeing colors or hearing sounds. Damage to specific areas of the brain can also result in changes to conscious experience, such as blindness or deafness. This correlation suggests that conscious experience is closely tied to physical processes in the brain.
I have to wonder why you get annoyed at the confidence atheists have, when they are the ones providing all the scientific evidence to support their claim, while non-physicalists continue to hem and haw and hide behind elaborate smoke screens.
B. Evolutionary explanation: Physicalists argue that consciousness is a product of biological evolution, and as such, it is a physical phenomenon. Consciousness likely evolved as an adaptation to help organisms navigate and survive in their environments. If consciousness were a non-physical phenomenon, it would be difficult to explain how it could evolve through natural selection.
C. Occam's Razor: Physicalism is often seen as the simplest and most parsimonious explanation for consciousness. It avoids the need to posit non-physical entities or forces, which can be seen as unnecessary and unprovable. The physicalist view argues that all phenomena, including consciousness, can ultimately be explained in terms of physical processes.
D. Lack of evidence for non-physical entities: While some argue that consciousness is not physical, there is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of non-physical entities or forces that can explain consciousness. While the subjective nature of consciousness presents challenges for physicalist explanations, this does not necessarily imply that consciousness is non-physical.
2. No, there are no good reasons to doubt the physical nature of consciousness. What else is there?
Non-physicalists argue that conscious experience has properties that cannot be reduced to physical properties. They point to the subjective nature of consciousness, which cannot be directly observed or measured by others, and argue that it requires a non-physical or spiritual explanation. They also argue that the complexity of conscious experience cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone. Which is to say, they are arguing from the gaps in our knowledge ("Can't be observed or measured" Who says it can't be? Maybe not at the moment, but it's not right to say it will never be measured. Meanwhile, Physicalists are showing how we are able to measure much of our brain activity and it's relation to consciousness.)
Non-Physicalist are like pre-Darwin/pre-dna biologists claiming "we can't know how all these species arrived! We'll never be able to know, deep down, how each species get their particular shape and size!". Then Darwin, and later, dna science does exactly that.
We will soon be able to measure our brain activity with regard to subjective experiences, consciousness, etc. Be patient.
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the physicalist model of consciousness comes from studies of patients with brain injuries or neurological disorders. For example, patients with damage to specific regions of the brain, such as the visual cortex, can experience corresponding deficits in conscious experience, such as blindness or color blindness (Cowey, 2010). This suggests that specific areas of the brain are responsible for generating conscious experience, and that conscious experience can be directly linked to physical processes in the brain.
Similarly, studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that specific patterns of brain activity are associated with different kinds of conscious experiences, such as seeing a face or hearing a sound (Gazzaniga et al., 2008). This suggests that conscious experience is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but rather a complex interplay of different neural processes in the brain.
Moreover, recent research has shown that certain patterns of neural activity in the brain can predict conscious experience with remarkable accuracy. For example, a study by Kamitani and Tong (2005) showed that it was possible to predict with 75% accuracy which of two images a person was looking at based solely on their patterns of brain activity. This suggests that conscious experience can be directly linked to specific patterns of neural activity in the brain.
As Bebuche87 said: "Now, we have plenty of evidence for the natural stuff, and no evidence for the non-natural stuff. By induction we are justified in believing it's material."
Non-physicalists: prove there is something non-material and we can re-ignite the debate. Until then... best of luck in your endeavor to cheat people out of money claiming there is "energy" and "spirit" and other woo...