Can consciousness be reduced?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YHWH_Christ

Guest
Often the argument I see made by skeptics/atheists is that there was a time when it was believed by many classical philosophers that life was something too beyond to simply be reduced to the processes of the natural world, that a life force was necessary. But now scientists no longer believe this as life can be described simply in terms of the arrangement of certain molecules and atoms in DNA and cells and proteins. Although consciousness seems very mysterious, like there must be some kind of “force” behind it, it has been suggested that perhaps in the next few centuries we’ll be able to describe consciousness in a reductionist way just as we have been able to do with life. Electrons and protons and neutrons, when arranged in a certain way, may give rise to consciousness just as they do for life. How do we respond to this argument or what is the Christian view of this?
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
But now scientists no longer believe this as life can be described simply in terms of the arrangement of certain molecules and atoms in DNA and cells and proteins.
Click to expand...
If it is so simple, then why haven’t they produced a life form yet by arranging molecules? The burden of proof is on them if they make such a claim.
 
Well that’s the issue of abiogensis, how these structures can arise on their own, not DNA and cells per se which are proven to be the fundamental building blocks of life. There is no “force” needed, just individual parts. The question on the origin of nucleic and amino acids and other building blocks is an interesting topic that also has philosophical implications but that’s not what’s being discussed here.
 
Last edited:
Big whoop.
We already know that damage to the physical brain can cause alterations in consciousness.
Heck, booze can do that!

So how does this discount a Creator?
 
If consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, would that imply consciousness is only a product of the brain?
 
In classical theology man is said to be both soul and body, so is the soul a product of the body? Or the body a product of the soul? The soul is said to be the “form” or “substance” of the body. Yet how could it survive death? Would its continuation after death be purely miraculous or within it’s nature? Yet when we speak of the nature of the soul how does this not lead to substance dualism which is rejected in classical theology?
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
40.png
YHWH_Christ:
But now scientists no longer believe this as life can be described simply in terms of the arrangement of certain molecules and atoms in DNA and cells and proteins.
Click to expand...
If it is so simple, then why haven’t they produced a life form yet by arranging molecules? The burden of proof is on them if they make such a claim.
Click to expand...
Just some advice here, Dan. I would strongly suggest that you say that life appearing naturally seems a very infrequent occurence as opposed to implying that it needed some divine sleight of hand. If you put all your eggs in the one abiogenesis basket and next week someone says - ‘hey, look what we’ve discovered - we just made life in the laboratory’, then that takes God out of the equation.

Or if you think that it wouldn’t then I fail to see what point you are making.
 
Last edited:
YHWH_Christ said:
If consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, would that imply consciousness is only a product of the brain?
Click to expand...
A deceptively simple response which pretty much sums up the problem. The person that you are, the conscious ‘you’ can be made to gradually dissapear as different parts of the brain are excised. At which point one might ask: ‘Where did it go?’
 
Last edited:
You need a brain for consciousness, you need a heart to circulate nutrients through the body, you need lungs and a digestive tract.
So what?
The atheist authors endgame is to disprove God, but how does pointing out how the body works disprove God?
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
You need a brain for consciousness, you need a heart to circulate nutrients through the body, you need lungs and a digestive tract.
So what?
The atheist authors endgame is to disprove God, but how does pointing out how the body works disprove God?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. Trying to find a scientific explanation for something is not an attempt to remove God from the equation.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
If consciousness is affected when the brain is damaged, would that imply consciousness is only a product of the brain?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. And since there are aspects of the mind (intentionality and mental causation) that seemingly cannot be explained by the mere physical components of the brain suggests that there is more going on then just the brain.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
Although consciousness seems very mysterious, like there must be some kind of “force” behind it, it has been suggested that perhaps in the next few centuries we’ll be able to describe consciousness in a reductionist way just as we have been able to do with life. Electrons and protons and neutrons, when arranged in a certain way, may give rise to consciousness just as they do for life.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t what we don’t know about electrons, protons, etc. the problem is what we do know about them. It seems intrinsically impossible for things that are governed by blind laws to also be governed by the laws of reason; it seems intrinsically impossible for things that are inherently not directed towards things other than themselves to also be directed towards things other than themselves (intentionality). The argument that we might in the future discover something new that will explain these things is question begging, since the claim against the naturalist is that naturalism fundamentally cannot explain these things.
 
Last edited:
SPBlitz said:
40.png
YHWH_Christ:
Although consciousness seems very mysterious, like there must be some kind of “force” behind it, it has been suggested that perhaps in the next few centuries we’ll be able to describe consciousness in a reductionist way just as we have been able to do with life. Electrons and protons and neutrons, when arranged in a certain way, may give rise to consciousness just as they do for life.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t what we don’t know about electrons, protons, etc. the problem is what we do know about them. It seems intrinsically impossible for things that are governed by blind laws to also be governed by the laws of reason; it seems intrinsically impossible for things that are inherently not directed towards things other than themselves to also be directed towards things other than themselves (intentionality). The argument that we might in the future discover something new that will explain these things is question begging, since the claim against the naturalist is that naturalism fundamentally cannot explain these things.
Click to expand...
Question begging you say. As in: The claim that the naturalist cannot explain these things via naturalism is correct because…um…naturalism cannot explain these things.
 
“Skeptics/atheists”, “philosophers”, “scientists”

It matters not one whit what all of them believe. Nor does it matter how they came to believe or disbelieve. What matters is revealed truth. Truth is Jesus Christ and they contradict Him.

As Dan said: the ball is in their court.
 
Freddy said:
Trying to find a scientific explanation for something is not an attempt to remove God from the equation.
Click to expand...
I know that and you know that, but the original post specifically mentioned this as an atheist concern.
 
Freddy said:
Question begging you say. As in: The claim that the naturalist cannot explain these things via naturalism is correct because…um…naturalism cannot explain these things.
Click to expand...
No - the reasons I gave were because it seems intrinsically impossible for material properties to have mutually exclusive properties (ie intentional and non-intentional) and seems impossible for the matter of our brains to be caused by two separate laws (the laws of physics and laws of reason)
 
SPBlitz said:
40.png
Freddy:
Question begging you say. As in: The claim that the naturalist cannot explain these things via naturalism is correct because…um…naturalism cannot explain these things.
Click to expand...
No - the reasons I gave were because it seems intrinsically impossible for material properties to have mutually exclusive properties (ie intentional and non-intentional) and seems impossible for the matter of our brains to be caused by two separate laws (the laws of physics and laws of reason)
Click to expand...
As long as we agree that it just seems that way.
 
Freddy said:
As long as we agree that it just seems that way.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it’s a little more than seems, but I recognize that my posts hardly count as a rigorous proof.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top