Consciousness Used to Indicate that there is No God

Dan Grelinger · #1 Jun 10, '12, 2:06 pm

This is a new thread to continue an off-shoot in a thread dealing with Pontius Pilate. http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...45#post9389745

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonServiam

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** · #2 Jun 10, '12, 2:38 pm

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 · #3 Jun 10, '12, 2:49 pm

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 · #4 Jun 10, '12, 2:58 pm

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 · #5 Jun 10, '12, 3:23 pm

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 · #6 Jun 12, '12, 8:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonServiam

I have no idea what you're talking about.

And you are not the only one.

FurtherSuntime · #7 Jun 12, '12, 9:01 am

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 · #8 Jun 12, '12, 9:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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

FurtherSuntime · #9 Jun 12, '12, 9:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

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..

JDaniel · #10 Jun 13, '12, 11:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

And you are not the only one.

Dan:

FurtherSuntime writes poetically - and no doubt thinks poetically. (How incredibly fortunate!) When I first encountered his prose, a while back, I was taken back by it, and reacted as many herein do. In time, the more I read his prose, the more I've come to appreciate what he says and, particularly, the way he says it. Try re-reading his posts a couple of times; you'll discover something that is nearly reality in (a sublime flow of) words. Understand: it's not rigid English.

For many, it won't be easy. For some, I think it will be worthwhile.

God bless,
jd

Dan Grelinger · #11 Jun 11, '12, 9:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

runningdude · #12 Jun 12, '12, 9:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

This is a new thread to continue an off-shoot in a thread dealing with Pontius Pilate. http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...45#post9389745

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonServiam

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 · #13 Jun 12, '12, 12:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningdude

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.

WillP · #14 Jun 13, '12, 9:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by runningdude

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.

I think there is an abject failure of folks in this discussion to simply admit that we do not know. "Being" or "existence" is a mind numbing concept. Consciousness is even harder to subject to analysis--perhaps a bit similar to trying to look directly into one's own eyes,

Even Decartes explanation (cogno ergo sum) for how he could be certain that he exists remains in play. What Decartes' argument overlooks, is that it assumes that there is an "I" which engages in cognition. In reality, it may be better, or, more correctly stated that there is an activity of experience which arises as a result of certain physical processes---hence no "I" or self in the sense that some in this discussion think of as a "soul".

Altogether, I am ather certain, that, whatever, the correct answer may be in the riddle of consciousness, that the issue will never be resolved in any satisfactory manner by resort to the type of medieval exegesis which is relied upon so heavily, by some, to explain catholic doctrines..

Soldier Of God · #15 Jun 13, '12, 10:15 am

Material objects are persistent grouping of physical events. Consciousness is a persistent grouping of mental events, the coordinated streams of our awareness. A brain is a material object and subject to physical laws. Does that necessitate that consciousness and awareness are wholly dependent properties of these physical laws?

Our consciousness and brains can be both ontologically different, yet dynamically connected by physical laws. Physical events to can hang together by virtue of physical connections. Can groupings of mental events hang together by virtue of mental connections alone? It would not be incompatible with orthodox quantum theory if this is the case.

I think it would be easier to envision a basically mental “world” creating for itself a physical substructure to attend to details, than to imagine a purely physical world creating a mental superstructure. We can think up physical laws but no one has yet been able to persuasively explain how consciousness could emerge from mindless matter.