Consciousness Used to Indicate that there is No God

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is a new thread to continue an off-shoot in a thread dealing with Pontius Pilate. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9389745#post9389745

NonServiam suggested that because we have not observed consciousness without a brain, it is indicated that consciousness can only exist with a brain.

No. It’s not merely that we haven’t yet observed a consciousness without a brain. It’s that:
– we have tons of evidence indicating that influencing the brain influences consciousness, which strongly implies that consciousness is an emergent property of brains
– we not only have no knowledge of any mechanism by which a “non-physical mind” (whatever that means) may interact with a physical brain, any such mechanism would violate what we understand about the natural world

It’s not ironclad “proof” of any kind, but the evidence that we have definitely points in a direction: that consciousness – however it works exactly – is the product of brains.

Unless and until some convincing evidence comes along to demonstrate otherwise, that’s the only conclusion that we’re justified in accepting.

My question (not yet answered) is: And what is the evidence of consciousness? And does evidence of consciousness only exist where we find brains?

 

[GEddie]

What signs does consciousness produce apart from movement or behavior in a living body? And how would you go about looking for those signs without such a body?

The argument that consciousness is not observed absent a living brain (and by extension, it’s body) and must therefore not exist without them, is, IMNAAHO, equivalent to saying that because you see nobody while blindfolded, there must then be no-one around.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[empther]

Consciousness is an activity. It is not a thing.

How can an activity be aware of itself? This is impossible.

In this life, it’s God’s plan that we are made of body and soul. While we are to some extent dependent on the body for our thoughts, we are not completely so. When you think of abstract thoughts such as the unified field theory or Shakespeare’s real purpose in writing Macbeth, you must be aware that the brain alone could not do this. No organization of matter could understand such complicated things completely beyond the realm of evolution and survival of the fittest. You are aware of your soul’s intellect. You have consciousness of it. However, your soul is not within reach of your senses, and therefore some people will say there is no soul.
Nonsense!

 

[FurtherSuntime]

i like the driving car example i made up…

i see your car, watch where it rolls and knocks into other cars loosing momentum, gaining momentum,driving alongside for the scenery…but in all instance never see you in the drvers seat, either do you see yourself or me, just the rolling consciousness and direction.

under the hood the scientists are playing with the spark plugs,many other things but still havn’t figured out the moment to moment happening is due to a moment to moment collision explaining the composition of our beings…that being sun-mass, , we need a constant for the driver-actual self. we need something for the car…mass, known and societal self…an asteroid slamming into a planet, will explain each of the participants construction by the collision from now until the end up time, little pebbles the explosion. the light from the sun impacting earth and found element on earth allows the light a found property of itself for explanation in collision…just like the rock, the rock will go through space until its finds itself…(planet)…so motion is in duration and now representing time…our life, our time.

so thats what were doing, the driver,actual self…light motion…time-constant
and mass, the car…the movement of the car represents the scattered movement of dust from the rock that hit the planet…but this time, light is in the mixture and needs to be represented, so how can the motion of light be represented…actual self-the driver…so the rolling car is a moment to moment collision but…with constant property allowing for the added dimension in non relative issue toward mass…the only way …that…could “be”…is to be aware of it…

well I could change my mind but to be honest theres not many examples i see that make sense…maybe the awareness is relative, who knows

 

[FurtherSuntime]

so above scheme is not in conflict with teachings that consciousness evolved and it is also not in conflict with our science which fairly state that from what we know physicality does not “prohibit” consciousness…to explain:

the consciousness ascribed in science is the consciousness we know, however there is a subtle suggestion that it is an isolated mechanism . The scheme above forwards consciousness into a system. Mans consciousness being a well defined representation of the collision. A blade of grass, a plant we can show will do well with the talking…

bundy and stalin with little measure representing the physicality in keeping with the prohibited clause in science.

the understandings that we can become more charitable, self less would underscore the lightsome doorway in the actual self and its non relative feature…a feature of absolute non-materialism which opens the door to the spirit. why…because there is something in experience for the spirit enabling association…so the union enhances and therefore snowballs the richness of the life…by habit and texture of union in the moment to moment collision…just an idea, no big deal and i really don’t care about this stuff anymore and am checking out ufo’s for the relaxing fun of it, and i really love the night sky…more so than the ocean i think…all that water and the power of mother nature with plates and tornadoes is starting to get to me.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

What signs does consciousness produce apart from movement or behavior in a living body? And how would you go about looking for those signs without such a body?

The argument that consciousness is not observed absent a living brain (and by extension, it’s body) and must therefore not exist without them, is, IMNAAHO, equivalent to saying that because you see nobody while blindfolded, there must then be no-one around.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

Is order a production of consciousness? Is decision making a production of consciousness? Is creating a production of consciousness?

 

[NonServiam]

My question (not yet answered) is:

I just saw this thread, and I’m just getting to this.

And what is the evidence of consciousness? And does evidence of consciousness only exist where we find brains?

I’m not really sure what you’re asking. “Consciousness” implies self-awareness and, usually, at least some degree of intelligence.

So in order to demonstrate that there’s a consciousness without a brain, one would have to demonstrate that there’s some sort of self-aware creature that doesn’t function with a brain or physical body.

I’m not entirely sure what such evidence would look like – since I’ve never seen such evidence – but I could speculate as to what it might look like. Say, for example, that someone claimed to be in touch with an angel (or ghost, or demon, or what-have-you) and that this being lacks a physical body or brain and yet has consciousness (and, in fact, can converse with the person in question by means of telepathy or something like that).

Well, demonstrating that this consciousness really does exist without a brain would be child’s play. You would put the guy who made the claim in a locked room and then, down the hall, you would randomly pick a word out of a book and write it on a blackboard. The guy would then send his angel to read the word and report it back to him, and he would give the word accurately.

If the angel were real, then obviously, the guy could do this every single time, and it would prove, without a doubt, that something is definitely happening that our naturalist model of the world cannot explain.

Now, that wouldn’t necessarily demonstrate that the “angel” is real or that there really is a consciousness without a body (after all, maybe the guy making the claim is really some kind of psychic, and the “angel” is just a delusion he’s seeing)…but it would be a pretty great start to demonstrating such a claim, and further investigations could be made.

So let me ask you: what evidence is there that has convinced you that there is consciousness without a body? Or convinced you that it’s possible enough to seriously consider?

 

[NonServiam]

The argument that consciousness is not observed absent a living brain (and by extension, it’s body) and must therefore not exist without them

That’s not the argument. Go back and read the quote from me in the OP.

 

[NonServiam]

the understandings that we can become more charitable, self less would underscore the lightsome doorway in the actual self and its non relative feature…a feature of absolute non-materialism which opens the door to the spirit. why…because there is something in experience for the spirit enabling association…so the union enhances and therefore snowballs the richness of the life…by habit and texture of union in the moment to moment collision…just an idea, no big deal and i really don’t care about this stuff anymore and am checking out ufo’s for the relaxing fun of it, and i really love the night sky…more so than the ocean i think…all that water and the power of mother nature with plates and tornadoes is starting to get to me.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

And you are not the only one.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I just saw this thread, and I’m just getting to this.

I’m not really sure what you’re asking. “Consciousness” implies self-awareness and, usually, at least some degree of intelligence.

So in order to demonstrate that there’s a consciousness without a brain, one would have to demonstrate that there’s some sort of self-aware creature that doesn’t function with a brain or physical body.

I’m not entirely sure what such evidence would look like – since I’ve never seen such evidence – but I could speculate as to what it might look like. Say, for example, that someone claimed to be in touch with an angel (or ghost, or demon, or what-have-you) and that this being lacks a physical body or brain and yet has consciousness (and, in fact, can converse with the person in question by means of telepathy or something like that).

Well, demonstrating that this consciousness really does exist without a brain would be child’s play. You would put the guy who made the claim in a locked room and then, down the hall, you would randomly pick a word out of a book and write it on a blackboard. The guy would then send his angel to read the word and report it back to him, and he would give the word accurately.

If the angel were real, then obviously, the guy could do this every single time, and it would prove, without a doubt, that something is definitely happening that our naturalist model of the world cannot explain.

Now, that wouldn’t necessarily demonstrate that the “angel” is real or that there really is a consciousness without a body (after all, maybe the guy making the claim is really some kind of psychic, and the “angel” is just a delusion he’s seeing)…but it would be a pretty great start to demonstrating such a claim, and further investigations could be made.

So let me ask you: what evidence is there that has convinced you that there is consciousness without a body? Or convinced you that it’s possible enough to seriously consider?

brain manufactures consciousness but just because the factory doesn’t have its hands on the product , how can it be suggested it somehow disappeared …the body is just the factory, thats how I see it.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

If you guys are going to limit consciousness to the known awareness in the brain, then how can the question even be interesting? It seems like saying when looking at a raft… are all things that float limited to a boat ?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If you guys are going to limit consciousness to the known awareness in the brain, then how can the question even be interesting? It seems like saying when looking at a raft… are all things that float limited to a boat ?

I don’t mind ‘interesting’. But ‘totally incomprehensible’ is not a type of ‘interesting’ that I can find a use for.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I don’t mind ‘interesting’. But ‘totally incomprehensible’ is not a type of ‘interesting’ that I can find a use for.

Ok thats fine…I will read instead and try to learn something, sorry to take up the time…

 

[runningdude]

This is a new thread to continue an off-shoot in a thread dealing with Pontius Pilate. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9389745#post9389745

NonServiam suggested that because we have not observed consciousness without a brain, it is indicated that consciousness can only exist with a brain.
NonServiam;9384619:

Alrighty.

No. It’s not merely that we haven’t yet observed a consciousness without a brain. It’s that:
– we have tons of evidence indicating that influencing the brain influences consciousness, which strongly implies that consciousness is an emergent property of brains
– we not only have no knowledge of any mechanism by which a “non-physical mind” (whatever that means) may interact with a physical brain, any such mechanism would violate what we understand about the natural world

It’s not ironclad “proof” of any kind, but the evidence that we have definitely points in a direction: that consciousness – however it works exactly – is the product of brains.

Unless and until some convincing evidence comes along to demonstrate otherwise, that’s the only conclusion that we’re justified in accepting.

My question (not yet answered) is: And what is the evidence of consciousness? And does evidence of consciousness only exist where we find brains?

The only consciousness thus far extensively studied is that experienced by human beings. MRI scans and studies of the electrical activity of the human brain shows a strong coloration between brain activity and conscious experience.

However, while studies have shown human consciousness to be dependent on a human brain, this does not logically suggest God does not exist. These studies deal with a discrete biological phenomenon, and cannot be extrapolated into the field of theology. To do so is academically dishonest.

 

[ASimon]

The only consciousness thus far extensively studied is that experienced by human beings. MRI scans and studies of the electrical activity of the human brain shows a strong coloration between brain activity and conscious experience.

However, while studies have shown human consciousness to be dependent on a human brain, this does not logically suggest God does not exist. These studies deal with a discrete biological phenomenon, and cannot be extrapolated into the field of theology. To do so is academically dishonest.

You certain can extrapolate these findings into the field of theology. Some theological questions can certainly be informed by them. For one thing, they do logically suggest there is no afterlife. They don’t necessarily address the question of God’s existence, so long as you keep the definition of God open-ended.

 

[tonyrey]

NonServiam suggested that because we have not observed consciousness without a brain, it is indicated that consciousness can only exist with a brain.

1. Co-existence does not necessitate dependence.
2. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sole reality.
3. There is no evidence that the brain is the** cause **of consciousness.
4. There is no evidence that **atomic structures **are conscious.
5. The hypothesis that the mind is merely the functioning of the brain is incompatible with free will.

 

[NonServiam]

However, while studies have shown human consciousness to be dependent on a human brain, this does not logically suggest God does not exist.

Of course not, and I don’t believe I have ever argued this point.

Rather, as ASimon points out, it suggests very strongly that there is no soul (or, at least, we’re not justified in believing that there is one).

That there is likely no soul may have theological implications, and it may rule out some concepts of a god (the Catholic god among them), but it wouldn’t, all by itself, “suggest God does not exist.”

 

[NonServiam]

I’m going to answer tonyrey’s post simply because I think my answers will be informative to others here. It’s not my intention to engage in a lengthy conversation with him because I have never once seen him engage in a productive dialogue with anyone. He just posts the same points over and over again (even after they have been refuted), refuses to acknowledge points that have been made, and, in short, does not perform any the behaviors that are essential to having a dialogue.

As such, it’s not my intention to converse with him, but to use the points he’s made as an opportunity to educate other readers of this thread.

Let’s begin:

1. Co-existence does not necessitate dependence.

It doesn’t “necessitate” dependence, but in the case of the observations we have about brains and consciousness, the data suggests very strongly that the physical brain governs consciousness and that this is likely because consciousness is an emergent property of it.

For example, if certain parts of the brain are stimulated with electricity, the subject smells a certain smell or remembers a particular memory or whatever: on a more trivial level, most of us have experience with taking substances, such as alcohol, that alter brain chemistry and affect the way consciousness works.

It’s not merely that brain functions and changes in consciousness “co-exist”: it’s that changing brain chemistry changes consciousness.

1. There is no evidence that physical reality is the sole reality.

No one claimed that it necessarily is. We’re merely talking about evaluating the claim that there is a consciousness without a brain. If there is insufficient evidence to support this claim, then logically, we cannot accept it.

Our not accepting the claim doesn’t say anything about other claims.

1. There is no evidence that the brain is the** cause **of consciousness.

See above: there’s a lot that suggests that consciousness emerges from brain functions.

1. There is no evidence that **atomic structures **are conscious.

No one has suggested that “atomic structures” are conscious: rather, consciousness seems to be produced by brains – organs that are made up of atoms but that possess abilities (like producing consciousness) that atoms don’t have.

Atoms also can’t pump blood, but enough atoms in the right configuration (which we call “the heart”) absolutely can pump blood.

Similarly, atoms aren’t conscious, but enough atoms in the right configuration (which we call “the brain”) do seem to be able to give rise to consciousness.

1. The hypothesis that the mind is merely the functioning of the brain is incompatible with free will.

Not necessarily: there are some compatibilist models of free will that could account for both.

But even if a real-world discovery were incompatible with some idea that some philosopher came up with, it would just demonstrate that the idea is wrong and needs to be discarded in favor of an idea that actually accords with our discoveries about the universe.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s not ironclad “proof” of any kind, but the evidence that we have definitely points in a direction: that consciousness – however it works exactly – is the product of brains.

We’re merely talking about evaluating the claim that there is a consciousness without a brain. If there is insufficient evidence to support this claim, then logically, we cannot accept it…

Lets imagine we have two hypotheses:
(1) Mechanistic/Materialist: Consciousness is caused by synaptic activity in an organ we call the brain.
(2) Moderate Realism: Consciousness is the “product” of mind and brain just as “David” is the product of shape and marble. Marble does not exist without a shape, and a shape cannot “live” without some form of material substratum.

Discovering empirically that consciousness is related to synaptic activity does not seem to differentiate between either hypothesis. So “insufficient evidence” does not logically necessitate affirming either hypothesis?

BTW Non Serviam which do you hold to be the independent variable, brain or consciousness?