The consciousness issue

[FurtherSuntime]

With respects to what is called the Hard Problem in the origin of consciousness, I’m wondering if there are any philosophical approachs or, what the most popular address of the question would be of late. I don’t think its all that un-reasonable for example to limit a God potential in equipping creation itself by physicality in actual concept toward the age ole query in the origin of consciousness. I don’t really find Chalmers approach on things that well put forward for a few reasons and if evolution-Darwinism is workable, in principal or theory consciousness should be explainable.

 

[paduard]

Some theologians will express the opinion (and I agree with it) that the ‘person’ exists before his/her ‘consciousness’; at the very least in God’s Mind.

 

[runningdude]

Its my opinion that consciousness is simply a biological process. However, without an immortal soul, “consciousness” would be meaningless.

For instance, a computer can interpret images from a camera, and the human brain can interpret images from the eye. However, in a computer, the image is not seen. Even with a brain, the image is nothing but neurons firing. It takes a **soul **to see something out of all this biological activity.

Based this opinion, I don’t see any conundrum about the origin of human consciousness. Its is simply a more advance version of animal consciousness, with the addition of a human soul that gives the conscious meaning. Adam and Eve, in this scenario, would simply be the first biological creatures given the gift of an immortal soul and the ability to know God. Their parents would be some proto-human creature with only a mortal, animalistic/material soul.

 

[tonyrey]

Its my opinion that consciousness is simply a biological process.

“simply” suggests that consciousness has been explained…

 

[runningdude]

“simply” suggests that consciousness has been explained…

I’m an engineer . I put it a black box that says “biological process”, and I’m satisfied with the explanation!

 

[johnnyjones]

Birth is the consciousness. As well we must all have a moral consciousness on our hearts. Otherwise, laws or not, we would rape pillage and plunder. Even an Atheist could consider himself “moral”. Why be good?

 

[greylorn]

With respects to what is called the Hard Problem in the origin of consciousness, I’m wondering if there are any philosophical approachs or, what the most popular address of the question would be of late. I don’t think its all that un-reasonable for example to limit a God potential in equipping creation itself by physicality in actual concept toward the age ole query in the origin of consciousness. I don’t really find Chalmers approach on things that well put forward for a few reasons and if evolution-Darwinism is workable, in principal or theory consciousness should be explainable.

Even if an evolution theory could explain consciousness, it cannot explain how a distinct entity with the ability to retain consciousness after bodily death might have developed.

Thus, religionists who wish to retain belief in a functional afterlife
will find all theories of evolution (except mine) to be in conflict with their beliefs.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Even if an evolution theory could explain consciousness, it cannot explain how a distinct entity with the ability to retain consciousness after bodily death might have developed.

Thus, religionists who wish to retain belief in a functional afterlife
will find all theories of evolution (except mine) to be in conflict with their beliefs.

Something smells like a Cartesian dualist here… can’t be, because only driveling morons believe in such garbage. Two words, Interaction Problem.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Something smells like a Cartesian dualist here… can’t be, because only driveling morons believe in such garbage. Two words, Interaction Problem.

Can you help me understand something, I’m trying to get at the full definition of awareness.
What would the explanation be in your own words for self awareness, what exactly is happening and what importantly is being represented in order to achieve? Is there an association going on, and if so how is it explained?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Even if an evolution theory could explain consciousness, it cannot explain how a distinct entity with the ability to retain consciousness after bodily death might have developed.

Thus, religionists who wish to retain belief in a functional afterlife
will find all theories of evolution (except mine) to be in conflict with their beliefs.

Good point and I think the conflict with communication these days is making for quite a popular showing.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

So we can say a total of two things:

a) a biological process with the added gift of soul
b) a package gift, including soul

In both above, the Divine is required. The idea then becomes an argument for something that can’t be explained, to explain the Divine. Faith and mystery then hold all the cards along with experience which shows a normality in calm or smooth operations by conforming with nature, by virtue. The nature which is responsible and defines the Divine.

This is the faith. It is without a rational explanation upholding the infinite out of the finite biological, or spirit out of mortality.

A non relative constant is required somewhere in the construction, and then the question becomes how did it get there as, there is an understanding of soul?

A magic wan at some point? I’m not trying to be difficult.Simply believe there is more in understanding then what is seemingly at face value. Anyway , I think my time schedule is a little different then most due to this present new location. This clip looks interesting and was watching so I will include in this entry. Maybe the content will be interesting.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mJKloz2vwlc#t=8s

 

[TS_Aquinas]

What would the explanation be in your own words for self awareness

As much as it pains me to quote the man, Descartes puts it well, Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). If you question whether anything exists at all, you can be sure that you yourself exist as a thinking mind whether you exist here, somewhere else or nowhere at all. You must exist in order to do the thinking or dreaming or whatever have you, point is you exist. The battle of whether your mind is a separate substance or the actual physical person is another topic, of which the defender of the former has misguided beliefs that the conceivability argument gives them the rope he or she needs to settle the debate. Only to find the rope they are given is the rope they’ll use to hang themselves with since they forget the mind - brain relationship is a rigid designator.

what exactly is happening and what importantly is being represented in order to achieve?

Represented? Implying indirect realism are we? I’ll quote Feser’s, from Philosophy of the Mind, summary of Howard Robinson’s argument of how the external world is real but Howard believed to be only indirectly observed.

1. By stimulating the brain so as artificially to produce a neural process that is normally associated with a certain veridical perceptual experience, it is possible in principle to bring about a hallucination that is subjectively indistinguishable from that experience.

1. But if the immediate causes of veridical perceptual experiences and their hallucinatory counterparts are of the same sort, then these effects must be of the same sort as well.

1. In the case of hallucinations, the effect is obviously direct awareness not of any external physical object, but rather of a subjective mental, perceptual representation of an external object.

1. So in the case of veridical perceptual experiences too, what one is directly aware of must be a subjective perceptual representation.

The belief gives way to skepticism but a glaring problem of indirect realism is how is the external world seen at all. Descartes fills gap with God, a god of the gaps argument. Some of us rational thinkers rather not use such a controversial argument and appeal to natural explanations. The simple rebuttal is invoking Ockham’s Razor and proposing that direct realism is the far simpler theory that has less to zero problems.

Is there an association going on, and if so how is it explained?

Are we still speaking of representationalism or moving on to the subject of qualia?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

TS Aquinas;9196989]As much as it pains me to quote the man, Descartes puts it well, Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). If you question whether anything exists at all, you can be sure that you yourself exist as a thinking mind whether you exist here, somewhere else or nowhere at all. You must exist in order to do the thinking or dreaming or whatever have you, point is you exist. The battle of whether your mind is a separate substance or the actual physical person is another topic, of which the defender of the former has misguided beliefs that the conceivability argument gives them the rope he or she needs to settle the debate. Only to find the rope they are given is the rope they’ll use to hang themselves with since they forget the mind - brain relationship is a rigid designator.

FS…

Not trying to be argumentative:

A rock exists and we know this for many reasons. A man exists and he wouldn’t be compelled to prove that he is in existence, in his own understood manner which is all that is possible. To be, and to be aware of being a man knows, but the question is how and where did the “stuff” of reason-consciousness-awareness come from?

TS

Represented? Implying indirect realism are we? I’ll quote Feser’s, from Philosophy of the Mind, summary of Howard Robinson’s argument of how the external world is real but Howard believed to be only indirectly observed.

The belief gives way to skepticism but a glaring problem of indirect realism is how is the external world seen at all. Descartes fills gap with God, a god of the gaps argument. Some of us rational thinkers rather not use such a controversial argument and appeal to natural explanations. The simple rebuttal is invoking Ockham’s Razor and proposing that direct realism is the far simpler theory that has less to zero problems.

Are we still speaking of representationalism or moving on to the subject of qualia?

FS

No, I should of been more clear. In the operations of the mind and well known properties, roles & relative associations, is something being represented within creation in these participating realities, which explains awareness. This would be a logical question.

If awareness is the highest form of mammal capability in nature, focus orientated, gestalt, it could be reasonably assumed that awareness is the cumulation of all distinct capabilities and function.

If this is so, what are the implications of this unification in associating properties. Is awareness representing something in nature in this unification? This would be consistent with the OP in discovery. Anyway I gotta go until Tom

 

[runningdude]

So we can say a total of two things:

a) a biological process with the added gift of soul
b) a package gift, including soul

In both above,** the Divine is required**. The idea then becomes an argument for something that can’t be explained, to explain the Divine. Faith and mystery then hold all the cards along with experience which shows a normality in calm or smooth operations by conforming with nature, by virtue. The nature which is responsible and defines the Divine.

This is the faith. It is without a rational explanation upholding the infinite out of the finite biological, or spirit out of mortality.
…

Ah, you missed the implication of option “a” - if consciousness is a biological process, then it is subject to the study by the methods of biology, neurology, psychology and other disciplines. Its my contention that a solution exists to the “consciousness issue”; researchers have simply not yet uncovered it.

However, I do take it as a matter of faith that human essence cannot be boiled down to mere biological circuitry. Human dignity comes not from triumph over all other creatures, but from the creator. Hence why an immortal soul is necessary.

Catholic teaching says that the soul is not just “added” to the body, but is integral to the human person. Through the methods of the Church, the human person can reach salvation. Through the methods of science, the process of thought and reasoning can be learned. These are separate, but complementary disciplines for the person of faith.

 

[levinas12]

With respects to what is called the Hard Problem in the origin of consciousness, I’m wondering if there are any philosophical approachs or, what the most popular address of the question would be of late. I don’t think its all that un-reasonable for example to limit a God potential in equipping creation itself by physicality in actual concept toward the age ole query in the origin of consciousness. I don’t really find Chalmers approach on things that well put forward for a few reasons and if evolution-Darwinism is workable, in principal or theory consciousness should be explainable.

Phenomenology is helpful. Consciousness is first and foremost a relation. The technical term for this relation is intentionality. Intentionality is awareness “of” something.

As often is the case, it is the preposition “of” here which is the philosophically “charged” word. The “of” is the ground from which truth blossoms and, thus, a fortiori, is the source of all science.

For human beings, the body (including the brains, nerves, sense organs, etc) is a necessary condition for the “of”. We can even say (with certain qualifications) that the “of” is a bodily activity. But it’s a peculiar activity - because this activity is a “dative” of manifestation - it makes possible the “to” in the “to which beings appear”.

But it would be a “category” mistake (Gilbert Ryle) to reduce the “of” simply to a quantum event - physics, or any of the other sciences, cannot account for the “intentionality”.

 

[greylorn]

Something smells like a Cartesian dualist here… can’t be, because only driveling morons believe in such garbage. Two words, Interaction Problem.

Anyone, except the occasional cretin, ought to be able to figure out that if there is an “interaction problem” between the soul and a brain specifically engineered to interface to the soul, the same problem applies to that of a spirit-being creating a material/physical universe. Luckily there are no cretins here on CAF, are there?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

runningdude;9197149]Ah, you missed the implication of option “a” - if consciousness is a biological process, then it is subject to the study by the methods of biology, neurology, psychology and other disciplines. Its my contention that a solution exists to the “consciousness issue”; researchers have simply not yet uncovered it.

FS

Quite so.

RD

However, I do take it as a matter of faith that human essence cannot be boiled down to mere biological circuitry. Human dignity comes not from triumph over all other creatures, but from the creator. Hence why an immortal soul is necessary.

FS

Completely agree. Our ability to exercise decisions and choice extends a self realization toward quality in available options. The discernment then in the active notional thought can show for a true value, a recognizable and unique occurrence of value, defined as dignity.

So the itemization of value dignity is well recognized by man, allowable by awareness from God. God being understood as infinite. We may have soul, but the leap to an infinity because it is from an understood given source of infinity requires the faith. A faith in the infinite value of dignity. A dignity which is a human translation of value in available constructive choice conforming with the natural in creations intended. This is where the question of infinity seems to entirely rest in a full faith concern.

It seems to me that faith address’s two concerns. The unknown idea of the exact scientific explanation for the essence in origin of awareness to come about and secondly, the idea in why value in choice or human dignity, can somehow be connected with infinity. So this is where the faith is installed. A faith in an infinite God sharing the everlasting for deciding to comply with his creation. I have no issue with this and agree with the common sense in the faith as well.

RD

Catholic teaching says that the soul is not just “added” to the body, but is integral to the human person. Through the methods of the Church, the human person can reach salvation. Through the methods of science, the process of thought and reasoning can be learned. These are separate, but complementary disciplines for the person of faith.

FS

No doubt , the soul or actual self would belong to the order of the human experience. It inherently belongs to it and has a necessary conjunction with it. To be honest the salvation idea is the least of all interesting things to me, apart from a contribution in discovery. It is what it is, as we can understand which is very little. I like to try and understand how things work and understand the good methods and so on. Apologies for being long, but I’m trying to get at a good definition of awareness which appears to have quite a role .

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Phenomenology is helpful. Consciousness is first and foremost a relation. The technical term for this relation is intentionality. Intentionality is awareness “of” something.

As often is the case, it is the preposition “of” here which is the philosophically “charged” word. The “of” is the ground from which truth blossoms and, thus, a fortiori, is the source of all science.

For human beings, the body (including the brains, nerves, sense organs, etc) is a necessary condition for the “of”. We can even say (with certain qualifications) that the “of” is a bodily activity. But it’s a peculiar activity - because this activity is a “dative” of manifestation - it makes possible the “to” in the “to which beings appear”.

But it would be a “category” mistake (Gilbert Ryle) to reduce the “of” simply to a quantum event - physics, or any of the other sciences, cannot account for the “intentionality”.

Are you ruling out a creation by consequence? The above seems to impart a biological-finite premise in association (intentionality) without justification. I gotta go for now and thanks for the obvious patience.

 

[levinas12]

Are you ruling out a creation by consequence? The above seems to impart a biological-finite premise in association (intentionality) without justification. I gotta go for now and thanks for the obvious patience.

I’m not totally sure what you mean by “biological-finite premise”.

I’m not a materialist. Consciousness is not the same type of relation you find in physics. The gravitational “relation” between two masses, or the strong force “relation” that holds an atomic nucleus together, or the more basic “relation” between quarks, or a host of other “relations” from physics, belong to a radically different category than the “relation” of intentionality.

Intentionality opens up the “space” of truth, of disclosure. This is not the “space” of Einstein, the “space” of Newton, the “space” of Lucretius.

The space I’m referring to is more “primordial”. It is what allows beings to manifest themselves in the first place.

Now, beings manifest themselves to us. This is what I meant when I said that we are the datives of manifestation, we are the ones to which beings appear as they are in themselves.

The dative “to” (in the “to which”), or the genitive “of” (in the awareness “of”) are in some way “outside” the particle/wave relations in physics (even if, at the same time, they are “dependent” upon them).

The distinctions involved in the “to” and the “of” are not made in physics, only in philosophy.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I’m not totally sure what you mean by “biological-finite premise”.

I’m not a materialist. Consciousness is not the same type of relation you find in physics. The gravitational “relation” between two masses, or the strong force “relation” that holds an atomic nucleus together, or the more basic “relation” between quarks, or a host of other “relations” from physics, belong to a radically different category than the “relation” of intentionality.

Intentionality opens up the “space” of truth, of disclosure. This is not the “space” of Einstein, the “space” of Newton, the “space” of Lucretius.

The space I’m referring to is more “primordial”. It is what allows beings to manifest themselves in the first place.

Now, beings manifest themselves to us. This is what I meant when I said that we are the datives of manifestation, we are the ones to which beings appear as they are in themselves.

The dative “to” (in the “to which”), or the genitive “of” (in the awareness “of”) are in some way “outside” the particle/wave relations in physics (even if, at the same time, they are “dependent” upon them).

The distinctions involved in the “to” and the “of” are not made in physics, only in philosophy.

So this is good. I think you explained this really well.

In fairness the path “datives of manifestation” and as well the disclosure in greater truth can be also attributed to the flight of an eagle. Not suggesting flight is the preferred specialty.

Also, an explanation for the birds eye view, not the flapping and so on in the eagle, but the birds eye view cannot be explained in the anatomy or science.

It could be politely said therefore what?.. I know, thats what I’m trying to figure out