A theory is an explanation behind a claim, an explanation preferably supported by scientific evidence. For example the theory of evolution is certainly a real theory and, on top of being a real theory, is supported by a ton of strong evidence and scientific facts.
Not the same can be said about materialism - the claim that consciousness comes from matter.
There is no theory behind this claim, not even an attempt at a theory. When it comes to evidence, there is none because you don't even have a theory to begin with - you don't even have a theory that evidence could possibly support.
So, as atheist, what is your opinion about the idea that consciousness comes from matter ? Do you believe in it, despite no theory being behind it, let alone evidence to back that theory ?
Atheism is not the same as materialism - it only means not believing in the existence of a god, especially not without some kind of theory or evidence behind this claim. One can be an atheist without believing in materialism.
So what are your opinions about materialism ? Can you believe in this claim without 1) a theory and 2) evidence to support it ? Can you believe it it based purely on intuition ?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Your consciousness comes from your brain, and your brain is made from matter.
The argument you brought up only proves that consciousness requires material support in order to exist - something that Buddhism claims too.
In order to prove the kind of relationship between consciousness and matter than materialism proposes, you need to attempt to provide a mechanism. You need to explain why an insect with 5 neurons does posses consciousness but a computer that can beat you at chess does not. You need some kind of a theory, some kind of explanation behind this claim. Showing that consciousness requires matter in order to exist does not prove consciousness came from matter.
Software requires hardware as a support. Yet, it can not be said that hardware created software or that software comes from hardware.
Sure, it's an intuitive idea, I agree with that. But the world being flat was also an intuitive idea. Intuition is not something you can rely on. You need some kind of an explanation behind a claim, showing that it's an intuitive idea is not enough.
Define what you mean by "consciousness".
Your consciousness is software and your brain is hardware. Your consciousness comes from your mind, which comes from your brain. Without your brain, there is no mind and consciousness.
And without consciousness, there is no matter to speak of - something proven by quantum physics.
The fact that consciousness requires matter in order to exist in no way proves that it came from matter. For example in Buddhism, consciousness and matter are said to be like 2 leafs that support one another. No consciousness without matter, no matter without consciousness.
Consciousness requires a brain to exist. The brain requires a body to exist. So consciousness can't exist without a matter based body.
Well that is certainly false.
Not proven. No one knows where consciousness comes from or why or how we have consciousness. All science can do so far is show us different parts of the brain where consciousness is occuring. Neuroscientists are working on the question of how we have consciousness all over the world right now.
But I do. Neurotransmitters.
rmfr
I thought nature abhorred a vacuum?
Only to 33 feet.
So what? Science couldn't explain earthquakes, disease, tsunamis and lightning once upon a time. However in every single instance the explanations are always 100% natural physical explanations. What's more consciousness has never been observed with a functioning physical brain, and when a brain is physically damaged the resulting impairment ALWAYS reflects the area of the brain that is damaged. In every single instance of every single human that has ever lived when the brain dies, the consciousness disappears with it and forever.
To assume here that an argument from ignorance fallacy entitles you make assumptions for supernatural causation behind human consciousness is woeful nonsense. We've seen countless apologists try this on here and elsewhere, you will make no traction with such fallacies on here, you might as well know that up front.
Also the paramecium has consciousness and does not even have a brain.
"Also the paramecium has consciousness and does not even have a brain."
When they can write poetry and play chess let us know. That scraping sound you're producing is the bottom of your superstitious barrel.
@dxm_dxm that is a very limited definition of materialism. What is wrong with the definition "(philosophy) The philosophical belief that nothing exists beyond what is physical."?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/materialism
I don't know why you say materialism is said to be a theory and not a philosophy.
I think materialism is a very good philosophy, because it takes into account only those things that can be observed to exist and does not take into account things that are known to be impossible.
I would have asked you to give evidence of something that exists that is not a form of matter, but I cannot, because it would be an oxymoron to give evidence of something that exists that is not a form of matter.
"Define what you mean by "consciousness"."
Consciousness always changes, it changes every moment. There is ear consciousness, eye consciousness, etc. For example in the case of a car parking sensor, there are two elements. 1) the car parking sensor and 2) things perceived by the car parking sensor.
In the case of living organisms, you have 3 elements: 1)the eye, 2) eye-sights and 3) eye consciousness. The meeting of the 3 means contact. Because there is contact, there are also feelings, perceptions and volitions. Without contact, could such a thing as feeling ever exist ? Nope. That's why feelings do not appear in a car or computer - because there is no contact.
It is in this way that I am speaking about consciousness, not in some mystical way.
Actually, you are deep into mystical woo woo land, babbling about computers, butterflies, car sensors, and Buddhist philosophy. You like to drag a lot of unnecessary baggage into a conversation, How about trying to stay on topic and provide proof instead of word salad.
We have a complex brain, and we are self-aware. That self-awareness gets confused with consciousness. And feelings? Those are emotions triggers by stimulus.
Consciousness is an emergent property of increased awareness.
"""I think materialism is a very good philosophy, because it takes into account only those things that can be observed to exist and does not take into account things that are known to be impossible."""
Materialism claims consciousness comes from matter. But it does not provide a mechanism or some form of explanation for this. It has no theory behind it, let alone evidence to support that theory. In this case, isn't it correct to claim that materialism is based on intuition rather than logic and reasoning ?
"""I would have asked you to give evidence of something that exists that is not a form of matter, but I cannot, because it would be an oxymoron to give evidence of something that exists that is not a form of matter."""
A belief is not a form of matter. Yet, a simple belief has so much power as to change how matter behaves, and change it so bad that it does not respect laws of physics anymore. (the placebo effect) That belief have a support on matter, same as software is supported by hardware. But you can not say that the belief is the same as the neuron it is supported by, or that software is actually hardware, cause it's not. It has different properties, different everything. That's of course if you're not a postmodernist. A postmodernist can change the meaning of words to fit what he wants to say.
"Materialism claims consciousness comes from matter. But it does not provide a mechanism or some form of explanation for this. It has no theory behind it, let alone evidence to support that theory. "
You mean other than the physical evidence that consciousness disappears forever EVERY SINGLE TIME the host brain dies?
Oh mama, check mate.
"You mean other than the physical evidence that consciousness disappears forever EVERY SINGLE TIME the host brain dies?
Oh mama, check mate."
That only proves that consciousness requires matter in order to exist. To prove consciousness originated from matter, you need to tell me why a primitive ant with 5 neurons has consciousness but a super computer not - they both are made out of matter. You need to at least attempt to provide some kind of mechanism for why consciousness exists in an ant but not in a supercomputer.
What you are doing is similar to the other extreme of solipsism where people claim all kind of solipsistic ideas are true based on quantum physics. Neither of these 2 extremes is correct, they are ideas built up upon a piece of truth. But they are refuting each other with the little piece of truth that they are built upon.
Does an ant have consciousness? How would you demonstrate that they do?
And, btw, an ant brain has around 250000 neurons.
Lol suddenly you're a biologist.
Actually, it’s called ‘looking something up’ to verify if a piece of information it correct or bupkus. Do you find that an inappropriate action to take?
No; I find your "I'm not qualified" excuse for not looking stuff up to be what's inappropriate. What you just did here, is what I expect you to do every time. Look up information and interact with the question, not tell people to go somewhere else to appease your lack of credentials.
John, I have no idea what you’re driving at. That response doesn’t make any sense to me.
Read it a few more times. Comprehension sometimes improves with repetition.
No thanks.
Except when you write it.
rmfr
Pages