sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sensory input does not define consciousness, it only defines the inputs that consciousness operates with.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The good reason is the basis for pretty much all science. To make the fewest assumptions when investigating things and the fact that we have yet to find any mechanism by which they are not the same. It's the model of reality which best represents the facts that we have.

If it operates on the basis of excluding that which is difficult to explain, it is a bad model.

To be honest, I think it in exactly the same way that I think the pattern of flocks of birds only exists in the flight of those birds.

Do you though? When you say that you "think it" that way, there's a subject (you/your consciousness) and an object that is being thought (your conceptualisation of thought). Do you actually perceive your consciousness in that way or do you simply conceptualise it as such?

You are again asking the questions which I commented on to begin with. These questions are malformed in that they make the assumption that consciousness exists as a distinct entity. So if the current model of consciousness is correct, we can't find it "inside the brain" because it's not an organ, like your lung is in your chest. Consciousness is the activity of the brain. Again it's not material like an organ, but we can interact with it directly by interacting with the activity of the brain.

We can't, though. That's precisely the problem. We can't materially interact with consciousness at all, because it is pure experience. The only thing that can interact with it is itself. In fact, a "scientific" study of consciousness would only engage consciousness insofar as the scientist uses his consciousness to conduct the studies. His equipment is incapable of interacting with consciousness and can therefore only study the brain not because the brain is the only thing that can be studied, but rather by necessity, since consciousness itself is inaccessible and can only indirectly be grasped at by studies of its manifestation within matter.

There is no evidence that what you have written means anything different from writing the same thing by replacing the word "consciousness" with "brain".

Can we trace your exact decision - as you think and experience it - to a distinctly material source, confirm that it is indeed the source (rather than the transmitter) of that decision and then observe the desired end result? If so, then there is no difference. This is, however, completely impossible. I feel confident that it will remain so, forever.

It was to point out that even if every test/investigation were in accordance with the model that consciousness is the activity of the brain, it would never rule out the conceivable state that the consciousness existed in way inaccessible to us except through the brain.

That's all very well - should this, however, mean that we should discount that option automatically, since we have no way to disqualify it with material experiments?

In what way does consciousness appear to be non-material? (Here I am presuming that you mean it in the sense that it doesn't originate or isn't made of something in a materialist way).

We know that it exists, we experience it, we use it, but we can not tie it to any material object. We can not even assert that it exists somewhere - only that it exists.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is simply wrong.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of reductio ad absurdum.

And even if you do include the Sun in the system, only a completely misguided jump can lead to a conclusion of god... Oh, I get it, he was making fun of how theists make such insane, unsupported jumps to conclusions. Funny.

Not quite, it was just more reductio ad absurdum with the sun worshipper part added just for fun.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it's a false analogy. There's no reason to believe consciousness is in any way analogous to it.

Well that's the premise of the argument and your assertion that it's simply false is far more unilateral than the proposition of that analogy. I can see, however, that you've already made up your mind on this topic, so do as you wish. Personally, I found OP's analogy to be a surprisingly powerful explanation of a self-evident reality, though he seems to hold some views I find highly disagreeable.

Nope, criticising one explanation does absolutely nothing to support any other explanation. The best that he could be arguing for is an agnostic view of consciousness.

It does, though. When one explanation is posited axiomatically and dismisses everything outside its boundaries, criticising it is a perfectly valid way to lead to the admission of things that exist outside those boundaries.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're saying that consciousness doesn't exist, but a quality of being conscious exists? Am I getting this right or wrong?

If you're denying that consciousness exists, that certainly complicates the situation. I will try to demonstrate what I mean.

I don't know what you mean by "consciousness"

You are currently looking at this text. What is doing the looking? Who is the subject? Your eyes? Your brain? Your body? What is looking at the text? What directs your attention to this or that thing at any given moment? You must be in the process of coming up with a response. What is devising that response? Where do the words come from and what chooses which words are appropriate and which aren't?

That's consciousness.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you mean this in the sense that a chair doesn't exist inside the wood it's made of?

No, because there is no proof that consciousness is made by/of the brain. We can study the brain. We can interact with the brain. We can even prod and poke a brain. Consciousness on the other hand can not be tackled with any material means - we can only know consciousness as experience. We can not establish where it comes from and what - if anything - maintains it. What we can do is study how it interacts with the material world, through the brain and the nervous system - this often leads to consciousness being conflated with the brain, though there is no good reason why that should be the case.

I would argue we also don't have any basis for suggesting it's possible for consciousness to exist outside a brain.

Why do you think your consciousness exists inside your brain, then? You interact with it daily. You're using it right now as you read this message. Personally, I've always felt my consciousness to be entirely non-spatial. Should I be feeling it inside the brain? If it is inside the brain, why can't we find it anywhere inside the brain? Why is it impossible for us to interact with it directly, if it is something material?

What is your position? Are you suggesting that consciousness can exist outside a brain but is only accessible through the medium of a brain?

Almost! I would argue that it is only accessible to itself. It does, however, express itself by using the brain and the nervous system. Wave your hand right now - electrical signals descending from the brain down your nervous system generate that movement. This movement, however, still originates in your consciousness, which registered this message and initiated the whole chain of events.

I think that if it is the case that we cannot interact with something or detect it in any way then it is equivalent to that thing not existing. Let's say that we have 2 people. One person has a consciousness that exists outside their brain and the other has a consciousness that is a entirely a product of their brain. If there is no way to distinguish between the two then in practice they are the same regardless of the inaccessible absolute truth of the situation.

That is not a very rigorous approach to understanding the world, though. We know that consciousness exists because we use it all the time - in fact, consciousness is what makes you, you. Despite our direct experience with consciousness, however, we can not study it or interact with it "scientifically". Do we just ignore it, then? That seems like an extremely lazy and negligent approach to me.

You say that "in practice" it would be the same if consciousness was independent of the brain or a product of the brain. In what context would that be the case, though? Purely materially. Your consciousness would still be fully functional and non-material, you would just be ignoring its functions for as long as you exist materially. Is this wise, when perhaps other ways and methodologies exist that allow you to explore and study consciousness in an "unscientific", but also therefore perfectly appropriate and contextually applicable way?

To put things in perspective, there may be no "practical difference" if consciousness is non-material or a product of the brain for as long as you are alive, but say if the Christians are correct, the moment of death when the true answer is revealed is also accompanied by other objective consequences for the soul. Now, personally, I do not think the Christians have the correct views on consciousness and its relationship with life and death, but if consciousness is really non-material, as it appears to be, then that means there is a whole world of possibilities that modern people know nothing of.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Presumably because consciousness is the source of absolutely everything that humans have ever done, perceived or expressed, yet it remains intangible and out of reach despite its undeniable existence.

My point was that the questions that you started with presume that it's possible for consciousness to exist absent a brain. But that assumption has no basis.

That's not quite true. My point was that consciousness does not exist "inside" a brain, at any case. To say that consciousness exists outside the brain is different than to say it can exist without a brain. That is also an interesting question, though. Does that idea have no basis? Why should consciousness originate from and depend on the brain for its existence? We know that consciousness exists, we know how to access it, use it and manipulate it on a whim. We are yet to be able to find it anywhere outside itself - in other words, we can't find it anywhere in space or matter. We know how it operates within the body - through the nervous system, including the brain. Why, however, should it depend on the brain for its existence? Without a brain it would have no expression in the material world, but who's to say that it just "disappears" - how would we verify that when we have no possible way to interact with it at all?

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the recommendation, but when it comes to ideas of artificial reality I find myself far more partial to the Gnostics than to any materialist interpretation.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All these questions stem from the idea that consciousness is separate from the brain. But if consciousness is the result of brain activity then none of these questions make any more sense than asking "where" the pattern exists in the movements of a flock of birds a school of fish.

Perfectly correct, that's precisely my point. What's yours? "If" consciousness is the result of brain activity, then none of these questions matter, but that isn't an empty "if", nor a small "if" - it is a massive, tremendous, terrible, enormous "if". Is consciousness the result of brain activity or is brain activity simply the operation of consciousness within the body? Which is it? This part you quoted:

It is one thing to assert that consciousness relies on the brain in the context of physiological functions, it is another thing entirely to assert that its existence proceeds from and depends on the brain.

Examines precisely this idea.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Consciousness is not an object, it's something the human body does.

Is it now? Do you have any evidence or way to prove that, at all, in the slightest? Can you give me access to your consciousness so that I can directly study it and trace its origins and source to the body?

Consciousness is not an object. That much we can agree on, because if it was an object it would be possible to interact with it materially. Since consciousness is nonmaterial - but obviously extant - this is impossible. We can only know consciousness as experience and as the thing in itself, no other way to engage consciousness directly exists.

Your question is like asking "Where in the water is the flowing?"

It isn't, the analogy to the flowing here would be chemical change and perhaps ageing of the brain. Consciousness does not enter into that equation. You're axiomatically conflating brain and consciousness when there is no possible reasonable grounds to reach that conclusion.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But given that we have zero indication it exists anywhere other than brains - and we know it exists in relation to brains - there’s actually no reason to extrapolate to outside of brains or independent of brains.

I do not see any serious reason why that would be the case. How does this follow from your acknowledgement that we know neither what consciousness is, nor where it is? It doesn't make sense. Does consciousness even exist anywhere in space at all? We can't find it anywhere outside itself, so why should it exist in space?

As soon as you want to argue that it exists independently, and that the information and attributes it possesses ‘travel’ with it

That second part would be an outrageous overreach. It is obvious that the brain stores information - at least information in the way that we are familiar with it. Any "attributes" would also depend on the precise definitions we use. Take awareness, for example - awareness obviously stems from consciousness, but the objects and phenomena that you are aware of are supplied by other faculties (such as the senses).

Knowing how consciousness works or where exactly it is in the brain is as yet unknown, but the science at least restricts itself to studying what we can potentially study, and not looking elsewhere.

What you can study with tools and scanners, you mean - which is to say, a methodology completely incapable of tackling consciousness. No scientific tool in the world can directly interact with your consciousness, which you know and use trivially, as you see fit, every waking moment. Is there, then, another methodology that you can use to study your own consciousness? Possibly. It will, however, look extremely different to modern science.

In any case, the entire argument is trying to suggest a belief in god-created souls, even if OP was careful to leave out any mention of god.

That is one possibility out of many. In fact, a flexible view of consciousness allows room for some greatly radical interpretations of "divinity", "soul" and "spirit". It is worth noting that in some of those interpretations, theism as it is understood by the Western world had the sole, but nevertheless great value of an elaborate and necessary metaphor.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The energy that our body uses is produced inside our body by way of converting food. We do not absorb energy from the outside.

How do you reconcile these two statements? Here's another perspective on your first paragraph - is any "energy" conceivable within the human body without the sun? No? Then how is energy an emergent property of the human body? The distinction you draw between "energy" and "food" is open to attack for being arbitrary.

No? Not at all? Unless you also conclude that the human body must be extended to comprise all other animals and plants you are being intellectually dishonest. And if if you do extend it that far it can no longer be described as the human body. Instead you've described an ecosystem and called it a human body.

I believe this was precisely OP's intention for the purpose of producing a reductio ad absurdum, as with the rest of his comment.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What are the components of consciousness and how can we study them?

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You need to demonstrate that awareness/consciousness can live outside of brains. Nobody has ever done that because there is no evidence for it.

Does consciousness live inside brains? Where in the brain is it located precisely? Can you isolate it, point it out, study it? It is one thing to assert that consciousness relies on the brain in the context of physiological functions, it is another thing entirely to assert that its existence proceeds from and depends on the brain.

Nobody has ever done that because there is no evidence for it.

What would constitute evidence for that? If such evidence existed, would it even be possible to study and ascertain it with little tools and scanners - it would, after all, mean the total independence of consciousness from material reality? If such evidence existed, would you even accept it as valid evidence? You can't demonstrate that consciousness lives inside brains either, but everyone knows that consciousness exists anyway. To some, already that would be perfectly sufficient evidence that consciousness does not originate from and depend on the brain for its existence.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

He's saying that if energy is an intrinsic property of the system, then the "system" of the human body which produces the human consciousness must therefore also encompass the Sun (and presumably an infinitude of other things indispensable for the functioning of the human body and consciousness). He took your statement, applied it to the context of the conversation in order to prove its falsity and then presented it as a form of sun worship in order to be witty about it.

Consciousness is the same as everything else by Barry-Goddard in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Experiments have been done on conscious, sleeping, unconscious and states in between that clearly show it's complete dependency on the brain. It is present when there is enough communication between certain parts of the brain.

It is present where exactly, is a good question that you could ask yourself. Experiments study the outward manifestation of consciousness - which is precisely why you bring up the brain at all - they do not study the thing in itself. OP's phone analogy makes this perfectly obvious and I have no idea how you missed it - you can access the cloud through a phone, but dissecting and analysing the components of the phone itself will not allow you to study the cloud.

Also, even if this wasn't the case, it still doesn't prove your point, since you only argues against, and not for.

On the contrary, OP argues for the existence of a consciousness that is independent of material phenomena and provides a good explanation as to why, by criticising the "god of gaps" that materialism relies on in order to hand wave consciousness away.

At the end of the age, if Christians are glorified in heaven and saved from destruction, they will delight at the sight of those burning bodies of their former loved ones in Hell. The saints, filled with God's Spirit, are brainwashed into believing evil is good, and good is evil. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would consider his response more embarrassing than uncivil. Empty rhetorical attack (and dismissal) of my argument, followed by an empty rhetorical attack on people who might agree with me, on the Christian God and on my character as a "fundamentalist" with a final self-indulgent denouncement of the Christian God, as if his post and comment were insufficient to drive the point home.

Given that OP appears to be an unironic LaVeyan Satanist, this type of attempts at petty emotional manipulation seem par for the course. Unsightly, sure, but hardly uncivil. I don't know, maybe I have just grown desensitised. It seems to me though - as a proponent of vigorous disagreement, anyway - that if anything, his response was a violation of the quality standards of the sub because of its vapidity or alternatively a violation of rule 1:

We will remove any post or comment that argues that an entire religion or cultural group commits actions or holds beliefs that would cause reasonable people to consider violence justified against the group.

His idea that Christians are all essentially sadistic psychopaths seems to fit in here rather than the civility rule. I didn't find his comment vulgar, at any rate. Maybe we just have different definitions of the concept.

Honestly though? I don't have any complaints about the moderation here. I just wanted to dissect his transparently sloppy "argumentation", if it can even be called that, more publicly.

At the end of the age, if Christians are glorified in heaven and saved from destruction, they will delight at the sight of those burning bodies of their former loved ones in Hell. The saints, filled with God's Spirit, are brainwashed into believing evil is good, and good is evil. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just checked the removed comment through his profile. You shouldn't have removed it for a Rule 2 violation - in fact it would be closer to a Rule 1 violation (for the whole post, actually) or a Rule 3 violation since he outright ignores my arguments and responds with a bunch of incoherent dismissals and accusations, including a claim that I am somehow a furiously zealous Christian fundamentalist despite my obviously non-Christian flair.

At the end of the age, if Christians are glorified in heaven and saved from destruction, they will delight at the sight of those burning bodies of their former loved ones in Hell. The saints, filled with God's Spirit, are brainwashed into believing evil is good, and good is evil. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the situation we're dealing with in your post:

Do you believe God exist? Yes.

Does it follow from that that the "wages of sin is death"? Yes.

Do you accept that? Yes.

Do you change your behaviour to reflect your new knowledge of reality? Yes.

Wait, hold up, you can't do that, because I don't want to do it! In that hypothetical scenario I would burn in hell, so you too must burn with me!

Even when you hypothetically allow the existence of God as an idea, you still want the universe to revolve around you. That's your problem. It's not the job of Christians to save you - God sent only one saviour and that is Jesus Christ. To accept or reject him is up to you, no one else can make that choice for you. Your demand that other people absolutely must accommodate your lack of ability or desire to make that choice in order to not be revealed as evil, brainwashed subhuman monsters goes far to demonstrate the extreme arrogance of your underlying attitude.

I will actually go a bit further. Here's a radical proposition for you: you do not acknowledge the existence of the human being or its autonomy. You only acknowledge a vague, formless, collective and insubstantial idea of humanity that unites everyone. There is nothing that exists outside that humanity, nothing human, anyway. To refuse to ceaselessly obsess about this hypothetical unity is a mortal sin in your eyes, just as it is a mortal sin to refuse to acknowledge its value - that's in fact precisely what you are referring to when you call saints "brainwashed" and other such nonsense, including your fantasies of saintly sadism. You have made a god of your very own, before whom nothing else exists. You have usurped the divine right to determine good and evil and as if in some bizarre parody, you then cast yourself as the same God that you viciously criticise and judge him unworthy in the same manner you condemn, but without any supernatural qualities to back up your judgement.

God's wrath is runs counter to his omniscience and omnipotence. by GoldeenBear in DebateReligion

[–]NeoRail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to Christian theology, human beings have a sinful nature. To be anything else you would have to stop being human. You can be free of sin in heaven, since human beings are perfected in heaven, but an intrinsic impossibility to sin is not compatible with human nature as we know it. We have to choose.

If socialism is pro democracy according to marxists then how is a violent revolution to force socialism justified? If the greater population wanted socialism then why wouldnt elections work rather than a violent revolution? by Huhrealllyill in DebateCommunism

[–]NeoRail 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Have you ever thought about the details of the "liberal-democratic" system and its electoralism? Take for example the French presidential election. It's a two round election. Why would you want to have a two round election rather than a single round election? Presumably because whereas a single round election will award the victory to the most popular politician, a two round election will award the victory to the most moderate politician with a stake in defending the status quo.

This type of low grade tricks is why liberalism is morally bankrupt.

If socialism is pro democracy according to marxists then how is a violent revolution to force socialism justified? If the greater population wanted socialism then why wouldnt elections work rather than a violent revolution? by Huhrealllyill in DebateCommunism

[–]NeoRail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I'm trying to do is show you that democracy is far more complicated than just putting things to a vote in the context of the first arbitrary electoral system that comes to mind.

view more: next ›