We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary

[John_Martin]

Bahman,
Your very first post (and thread) on CAF was similar to this one, where you wrote:

There are several phenomena that we related them to self/soul, such as consciousness, creativity, logical thinking, free will, memory, etc.

Our body is subject of change but self. Some of this phenomena however are affected by ageing or brain damage, such as memory, logical thinking, creativity. The relevant question is why and how these phenomena could be subject of change if they are related to self.

From this, I am thinking that you are trying to put together an understanding of yourself and how all of you works as a whole and you continue to be “you” (self) in the midst of the changes of accidents and aging. How are “you” still remaining “you” even when old or being in a coma take away all physical mental activities or phenomena from your brain. Or how are “you” still “you” if a doctor were to say there is “brain death”?

Are you speaking in your post of “Self-Consciousness” where I realize “I am I and I am not you”?
Or are you speaking of “Consciousness equaling mental thoughts in my brain, where my eyes notice a car driving by even if I do not think about it as anything of interest to ponder”?

I am going to also say this, that I do not think English is your primary language because of what I see in your phrasing of things. (This may be true or it may not be true, because not all people write the same way they would say things in person when speaking). If English is a second language, there may be terms you have come to use that do not match the terms or words that we would use in English. I think that is why I am asking about your usage of the term “consciousness”. Am I seeing this correctly? or not?

 

[Bahman]

1. Correct, no consciousness as you know it now when you write your replies, or think about what you read - gone - there will be no comparing and contrasting to reach conclusions, which is an activity of the soul / body composite being, and as an activity it is moved by the will as informed by the intellect, therefore caused, and therefore reducible or corruptible. Since consciousness is an activity of a composite being, not being itself, it is not simple, and therefore reducible.

First, you didn’t comment whether you agree with the second argument or not. There, we simply show that consciousness is primary so it could not drive from another thing.9

Second, concept soul and body unification has serious problems regardless of how do you unify them, whether it is substance dualism or hylemorphic dualism, in first there is the problem of how they interact and in the second soul as form of matter is subject of corruption.

Third, the existence of soul is just a big assumption which has a deep root in tradition. There is no way to justify the existence of soul nor experiment it whereas each person has a common sense of consciousness. Moreover we know that no sort of life is possible without consciousness hence it is necessary.

 

[Tomdstone]

Moreover we know that no sort of life is possible without consciousness hence it is necessary.

I don’t believe that viruses have consciousness.

 

[Bahman]

1. An assertion you make but fail to prove - whereas soul is well defined and its effects coincide directly with its definition.

First, you didn’t prove the necessity of soul as well.

Second, there is a common sense understanding of the fact that no “will” is possible without consciousness and intellect cannot exist without consciousness either. That is consciousness which help you to act hence consciousness is will and that is consciousness that help you to get involve in an intellectual activity hence intellect is consciousness.

1. An assertion you cannot prove and you have not given evidence of effects matching your assertion

I indeed can prove that. Assume a system in state of S and state of S cause state of S’. Since both S and S’ cannot coexist then S should be annihilated before S’. The key question is how any change is possible since S is annihilated therefore how the system know how to get to S’ unless the knowledge of state S exist as consciousness upon annihilation of the state S. This means that consciousness is the fundamental being in any change without that no change is possible.

1. Consciousness moves (changes) and disappears and reappears, if you are speaking of empirical consciousness that is the common understanding of that term. If you have another definition you have neither defined it nor proved it.

No, a system which undergo any change is conscious. Please read previous argument. Moreover, different qualities give rise to consciousness once one of them is off we cannot be conscious of that quality, hence this is a common mistake to say that is consciousness that goes off and on.

 

[Bahman]

The human afterlife is dependent upon a bodily resurrection; the nature of the renewed embodiment (pneumatikon soma) being somewhat unspecified Scripturally, but nonetheless indispensable to subserve the cognitive mind; there can be no “thinking nothing.”

Consciousness is the attribute of a fully live body that enables there to be a cognitive mind, but remains contingent on said body’s being alive!

ICXC NIKA.

There is a serious problem with resurrection and that is the identity problem which means that God has to recreate the same person since the identity is gone upon death. In another word, soul is like a blank being and the person is not capable of experiencing anything even his/her identity. Now you tell me what advantage a soul provides if it is not able to carry your identity upon death? This somehow sounds very ironic to me since it seriously question the judgment day hence God has to recreate a new person to make sure that judgment is fulfilled! It is ironic since there is no difference between recreation of a new person and resurrection if soul cannot carry your identity upon death.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, I’m trying to understand what you’re asserting here.

Let me break it down a bit. We (human beings?) cannot be created (cannot come into existence out of nothingness by an external agent called God) since (because) consciousness (the ability to experience and affect other mental states) is irreducible (is not able to be reduced or simplified) and primary (and not derived from, caused by, or based on anything else). Is that what you mean?

That is correct.

Is it not true that the ability to experience things (and for those experiences to affect mental states) can be simplified into a set of more or less distinct processes? When a human mind experiences something there will be some combination of things such as perception, thought, emotion, imagination, memory. Below this level there are the actual cognitive processes that take place within the brain.

Yes, but any single experience is unitary by itself meaning it has a feature that we can distinguish it from others. You experience X and Y and there are distinguishable for you. If you experience Z which is related to X and Y yet Z is still distinguishable from X and Y and it is unitary.

Here’s a thought experiment: Is it possible to damage your brain in such a way that your emotional responses are removed, but your other capacities remain? Or is it possible to develop a disorder that changes how you perceive things? In these cases the ability to experience has been altered. You still have the ability to experience things, but certain components of yopur former ability to experience have gone. To me this suggests that the ability to experience (as you’ve defined consciousness) is not irreducible. It’s made up of a combination of more specific processes.

It is matter of what is delivered to consciousness.

Secondly, is it not true that the ability to experience that a human baby has is derived from, caused by and based on the genetic material that the baby inherits from its parents? Another thought experiment: If both parents had a genetic disorder that prevented them from perceiving colours, or feeling empathy or forming long-term memories, then their baby could inherit that limitation. In this case the baby’s impaired ability to experience would be derived from its parents. To me this suggests that the ability to experience is not ‘primary’ as defined above.

If these are not the definitions that you intended then please clarify the terms that you are using.

Again, it is matter of what is delivered to consciousness. The body is solely a utility of consciousness and it cannot cause consciousness.

 

[GEddie]

There is a serious problem with resurrection and that is the identity problem which means that God has to recreate the same person since the identity is gone upon death. In another word, soul is like a blank being and the person is not capable of experiencing anything even his/her identity. Now you tell me what advantage a soul provides if it is not able to carry your identity upon death? This somehow sounds very ironic to me since it seriously question the judgment day hence God has to recreate a new person to make sure that judgment is fulfilled! It is ironic since there is no difference between recreation of a new person and resurrection if soul cannot carry your identity upon death.

The soul does maintain the identity, and the mind, but goes into abeyance during human death because there is no body to hold and express it, nor head to hold the mind.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

Consciousness is certainly primary but the principle of economy requires that it is unitary. One Supreme Being has created all conscious beings in His image and likeness. Why multiply entities unnecessarily?

 

[John_Martin]

Bahman, you have not answered on your definition of Consciousness.
Here are some choices:
Full Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS
1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Which is the one you are using.
All of them consider it a “state” of being, meaning by inference that there can be other “states”, and implying motion, or change from state to state, and consciousness being the current position of being.
Item 2 on a cursory look would seem to be like the “soul” of Aristotle or Aquinas, except that intellect is not included, and the items that are included are actually effects of the soul (for example, emotion and volition are actualizations of will, rather than will itself, and thought is an actualization of intellect via the will in concert with the body and equaling mind…

So, again what is your definition of consciousness?

 

[Bahman]

The soul does maintain the identity, and the mind, but goes into abeyance during human death because there is no body to hold and express it, nor head to hold the mind.
ICXC NIKA.

That is not correct. Identity can be corrupted upon brain damage which is a common thing among people with Alzheimer or death.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, you have not answered on your definition of Consciousness.
Here are some choices:
Full Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS
1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Which is the one you are using.
All of them consider it a “state” of being, meaning by inference that there can be other “states”, and implying motion, or change from state to state, and consciousness being the current position of being.
Item 2 on a cursory look would seem to be like the “soul” of Aristotle or Aquinas, except that intellect is not included, and the items that are included are actually effects of the soul (for example, emotion and volition are actualizations of will, rather than will itself, and thought is an actualization of intellect via the will in concert with the body and equaling mind…

So, again what is your definition of consciousness?

I already defined consciousness in the arguments. Consciousness is the ability to experience and affect/create mental/brain states.

 

[Michael19682]

I already defined consciousness in the arguments. Consciousness is the ability to experience and affect/create mental/brain states.

That sounds more like God than consciousness. Why do you arbitrarily assign God’s qualities to the word “consciousness”? (Just a thought)…(I’m not really in on this one since I didn;t follow from the beginning.)

 

[Bahman]

That sounds more like God than consciousness. Why do you arbitrarily assign God’s qualities to the word “consciousness”? (Just a thought)…(I’m not really in on this one since I didn;t follow from the beginning.)

You can call that God. But if that is God then who you are and what you are able to do? Moreover what is your definition of consciousness?

 

[BrassAnkles]

1. Do you as Christian believe that you will not have any consciousness after your death!?

What happened to our conscience before we were born?

 

[Bahman]

What happened to our conscience before we were born?

Do you mean consciousness? We were consciousness before we were born, we just didn’t made any memory of it or it is gone.

 

[John_Martin]

I already defined consciousness in the arguments. Consciousness is the ability to experience and affect/create mental/brain states.

“Consciousness is the ABILITY…”
An ABILITY is a faculty of an OPERATOR, in other words, it is a capacity of an operator, and has no being in itself at all. An ability is a property of a being or object.
If the being or object is corruptible, then the property of that being goes with it into corruption.

Your own definition calls it an “ability”, therefore it is not being.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Do you mean consciousness? We were consciousness before we were born, we just didn’t made any memory of it or it is gone.

What was conscious before we were born?

 

[Michael19682]

You can call that God. But if that is God then who you are and what you are able to do? Moreover what is your definition of consciousness?

God is three persons. In us he is the Holy Spirit. Consciousness is (consciousness of) God.
Consciousness belongs to God but its relation to a person is not measurable. You need Grace to measure that. The only real way to know is the person who says “Jesus Christ is Lord.” No one can say that except in the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, unless the Holy Spirit is in you, i.e., you are not apart from Jesus, you can do nothing.
This is a profound thought. You can go about doing all sorts of things, but you will be doing nothing.

 

[jimmy]

Do you mean consciousness? We were consciousness before we were born, we just didn’t made any memory of it or it is gone.

So are you saying you have always existed and have always been conscious?

 

[jimmy]

Bahman’s assertion is that consciousness is a basic property of the universe, that is only aided by memory and other functions of the brain. The universe is conscious but it is only through a brain that memories can be formed to establish the distinction of individuals. Memory, reason, and emotion are tools that can be utilized by consciousness. That is my understanding of what is being said.

That can’t be proved anymore than the existence of God though.