The Argument From Reason...

[DaveTheApologist]

There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the living brain.

Again, I addressed this argument. You have yet to address mine.

I agree that consciousness is, to a massive extent, dependent on the brain. All the same, because consciousness is the rug under which the Early Moderns swept everything that didn't fit the Mechanical Philosophy, consciousness cannot in principle have a mechanistic explanation, regardless of how dependent it is on the brain.

[Tassman]

Again, I addressed this argument. You have yet to address mine.

Philosophical speculation is NOT addressing the argument.

I agree that consciousness is, to a massive extent, dependent on the brain. All the same, because consciousness is the rug under which the Early Moderns swept everything that didn't fit the Mechanical Philosophy, consciousness cannot in principle have a mechanistic explanation, regardless of how dependent it is on the brain.

If consciousness is “dependent on the brain”, as you say, then it cannot exist without it.

[Markus River]

I agree that consciousness is, to a massive extent, dependent on the brain.

"Massive extent", that's a rather vague quantification. How big is massive? And by what method have you quantified it? What mechanism do you offer for whatever non-massive value of consciousness that is, presumably, independent of the brain?

It seems to me that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of complex brain evolution.

[seer]

It seems to me that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of complex brain evolution.

Well no, it is more complicated than that, atheist Sam Harris gets it right...

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.

Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view.

If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behavior—which may or may not be attended by consciousness. The fact that the behavior of our fellow human beings persuades us that they are (more or less) conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events. Is a starfish conscious? A scientific account of the emergence of consciousness would answer this question. And it seems clear that we will not make any progress by drawing analogies between starfish behavior and our own. It is only in the presence of animals sufficiently like ourselves that our intuitions about (and attributions of) consciousness begin to crystallize. Is there “something that it is like” to be a cocker spaniel? Does it feel its pains and pleasures? Surely it must. How do we know? Behavior, analogy, parsimony.

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-m...-consciousness

[Markus River]

Well no, it is more complicated than that, atheist Sam Harris gets it right...

Did atheist Sam Harris also get it right when he wrote that;

The idea of free will "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality" and is incoherent. And he writes in Free Will that neuroscience "reveals you to be a biochemical puppet."

So according to Harris, whether you get to heaven or not, is completely out of your hands. Every decision you think you’ve made throughout your whole life was preordained at the moment you achieved consciousness.

[seer]

Did atheist Sam Harris also get it right when he wrote that;

The idea of free will "cannot be mapped on to any conceivable reality" and is incoherent. And he writes in Free Will that neuroscience "reveals you to be a biochemical puppet."

So according to Harris, whether you get to heaven or not, is completely out of your hands. Every decision you think you’ve made throughout your whole life was preordained at the moment you achieved consciousness.

Yes he believes that. I think any materialist must. Of course rationality is lost. But that does not bear on his point about consciousness.

[Markus River]

Yes he believes that. I think any materialist must. Of course rationality is lost. But that does not bear on his point about consciousness.

Perhaps you should try some direct, empirical experimentation on the matter. I’d suggest removing your brain and have your remaining consciousness report back on the results.

[seer]

Perhaps you should try some direct, empirical experimentation on the matter. I’d suggest removing your brain and have your remaining consciousness report back on the results.

Sorry, you are missing the point. That because the mind is dependent on the brain does not mean that the mind can be reduced to the physical or is identical to the brain. Or that we have any idea how consciousness is possible.

[Markus River]

[T]hat the mind is dependent on the brain does not mean that the mind can be reduced to the physical or is identical to the brain.

Of course it's not identical to the brain, the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Just as wetness is not identical to water, but rather is an emergent property of water. Take away the water and you have no wetness. Take away the brain and you have no mind / consciousness. At least, none that anybody has been able to observe and measure.

[DaveTheApologist]

Philosophical speculation is NOT addressing the argument.

It's less "speculation" and more "demonstration."

1. If everything is scientifically explicable, then everything can be given a complete mathematical description.
2. Salient features of consciousness cannot be given a complete mathematical description.
3. Therefore, not everything is scientifically explicable.

QED.

If consciousness is “dependent on the brain”, as you say, then it cannot exist without it.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that the brain, considered as a physical object, cannot produce consciousness.

[seer]

Of course it's not identical to the brain, the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Just as wetness is not identical to water, but rather is an emergent property of water. Take away the water and you have no wetness. Take away the brain and you have no mind / consciousness. At least, none that anybody has been able to observe and measure.

So you are a dualist, the brain and mind are not identical, though interdependent. And wetness merely describes water - it is not an emergent property as such, even if it is, it is a physical property - how is consciousness a physical property? Can we touch it, taste it, put it under a microscope? As far as no mind, no consciousness - We Christians (at least most of us) are not materialists. So we are not limited to naturalistic possibilities.

[Markus River]

So you are a dualist, the brain and mind are not identical, though interdependent. And wetness merely describes water - it is not an emergent property as such, even if it is, it is a physical property - how is consciousness a physical property? Can we touch it, taste it, put it under a microscope? As far as no mind, no consciousness -

Water is an inorganic, transparent, tasteless, odourless, and nearly colourless chemical substance.

That’s a description of water.

Our peripheral and central neurophysiological senses, underpinned by perceptual learning via sensory experience, detect contact with water.

That’s a description of wetness.

We Christians (at least most of us) are not materialists. So we are not limited to naturalistic possibilities.

The rest of the world, in the meantime, chooses to retain its sceptical rejection of non-materialist magic, whether by sorcerers or gods. And continues to associate mind and consciousness as a property of brains. At least until you can falsifiably demonstrate otherwise.

[seer]

Water is an inorganic, transparent, tasteless, odourless, and nearly colourless chemical substance.

That’s a description of water.

Our peripheral and central neurophysiological senses, underpinned by perceptual learning via sensory experience, detect contact with water.

That’s a description of wetness.

Yes, water is wet, stop the presses. And would remain wet whether there were any 'neurophysiological senses' to discover that or not.

The rest of the world, in the meantime, chooses to retain its sceptical rejection of non-materialist magic, whether by sorcerers or gods. And continues to associate mind and consciousness as a property of brains. At least until you can falsifiably demonstrate otherwise.

So again, you are a dualist? Correct? And I did not deny that the brain and mind are interconnected - still science has no clue as to why or how consciousness exists. And consciousness, or first person experience, are beyond science - if you think otherwise hook me up to any machine and discover what my mother's pasta sauce tasted and smelled like... And can you prove that the mind is material?

[Tassman]

Yes, water is wet, stop the presses. And would remain wet whether there were any 'neurophysiological senses' to discover that or not.

Yes, water would remain “wet” but not as far as you personally are concerned once your 'neurophysiological senses' have ceased to exist.

So again, you are a dualist? Correct? And I did not deny that the brain and mind are interconnected

Not only are the brain and mind interconnected, there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the living brain. NO functioning brain, NO mind – or ‘soul’.

- still science has no clue as to why or how consciousness exists.

Science has numerous “clues” as to why or how consciousness exists via such technological tools as the encephalogram (EEG), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET).

And consciousness, or first person experience, are beyond science - if you think otherwise hook me up to any machine and discover what my mother's pasta sauce tasted and smelled like...

Your taste and smell of your mother’s “pasta sauce” was a unique subjective experience for YOU, which depended entirely upon the functioning of your living brain.

And can you prove that the mind is material?

Do you have any good reason to think otherwise?

[Machinist]

A couple questions here if I may:

1.) you can be a dualist and an atheist at once, no? These aren't mutually exclusive ideas are they? By the same token, couldn't one be a theist monist?

2.) Couldn't it be logically argued that properties of substances in general are emergent? Wouldn't wetness be an emergent property of distinct elements coming together in a certain formation?