Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The argument that consciousness is generated by the nervous system and neurons is invalid, to me. I'll explain why I feel this way...
OP indirectly presumes that if we could somehow replace neurons with transistors that we would perhaps be able to generate a form of "consciousness." The error with this line of thinking, is that it assumes that neurons form the basis of consciousness. However, do we not consider substance as existing in one of two phases, the first matter, and the second energy?
I don't think it's a stretch to assume that consciousness consists of energy, while neurons consist of matter. Having said this, its rationale to theorize that perhaps consciousness (a non-matter entity) controls the electrical signaling occurring between the neurons. And when the neurons die, this does not imply that the consciousness itself, must vanish. It just means the consciousness loses its connection with the neurons.
Something to think about, at least. . .
@Rion
Oh, bullshit. You are making an assumption!
You said "And when the neurons die, this does not imply that the consciousness itself, must vanish. It just means the consciousness loses its connection with the neurons." That is NOT what it means. Prove a conscious is there after the neuron dies. That is a BIG claim you've made now prove it. No, better yet just take your twisted fucked up illogic and leave.
@Myk Re: Rion The Lion
Hey, Myk, I could always distract him with a feather on a string. Oh, better yet..... Hey! Anybody here got a laser pointer I can borrow for a moment?
@Tin-man
Just checked out his site...IT'S FOR SALE on Domainhub. Rion is a fraud.
Rion, how are you defining energy?
I don't think energy can exist independent of matter. It still needs a source from which it is emitted, and a destination upon which it is transferred. If you define consciousness as energy (which I don't have any reasonable objections to) it would still be emitted by the brain. If instead you think it is emitted from elsewhere, causing the brain to behave in specific ways, you would need to identify the source. Energy can't be self-sustaining.
I do think that viewing consciousness as energy is clever: two neurons that aren't transferring energy, aren't going to produce a mind. You need that energy transfer to be alive and conscious. I can't even disagree that the source of that energy can't be external. I can use Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to transfer electrical energy across your skull and into your motor cortex, thereby moving your limbs. So external sources of energy that manipulate the brain are possible, but notice that in my example, the source is an electrical device.
A soul, if it behaved like energy, cannot exist on its own, much less be perpetual. It would need to be emitted from somewhere, disappearing as its being consumed
That is a great question. When a new-ager tells you that your soul/conscience/whatever is energy, they are performing a bait and switch. Energy is a scalar quantity with dimensions ML^2/T^2. So if your soul (or whatever) is energy, then your soul must be a scalar quantity with those dimensions; which is of course laughable. So clearly they mean something else, and it would be nice if they would tell us (it would also be nice if they were to call it something other than energy).
------------------------------------------------------
dE/dt = 0; if that isn't "self-sustaining", then I don't know what is.
Nyarlathotep,
I'm stealing that first para...brilliant! Sciency and everything I love it!
Not sure what the second part means. But the basis of my statement was perpetual motion machines, they're not possible. If I can't build a machine that gives me an endless supply of energy. Then you can't have an energy, which would itself be an endless supply of energy, produced and sustained by itself.
I personally don't mind him using energy instead of soul. You need to take arguments as they're presented, not as you interpret it. Its similar to my tuning problem. If he's saying energy, then he's saying energy, until the moment he says soul.
@Rion
Hey, Rion! Any chance you are related to my old pal from Oz? He often talked about some kin of his who were space cadets.
@Rion The Lion: "I don't think it's a stretch to assume that consciousness consists of energy"
So what's the source of that energy?
My version of Algebe's question might be:
If consciousness is energy, and joules is a common unit for energy (and any other unit of energy can be converted into joules): how many joules might a typical consciousness be?
See equating consciousness and energy doesn't mean your consciousness has X joules, it means your consciousness IS X joules. That is why equating consciousness and energy is ludicrous.
I don't think that statement is ludicrous. That's literally how we sometimes measure consciousness. We strap people to an EEG machine, and look at their brain activity. If we see Beta Waves we know they're alert and engaged. If we see Alpha waves we know their brains are relaxed. If we see Theta or Delta waves, we know they're asleep.
Looking at the energy emitted by the brain with various imagine techniques, is literally how we know sleep has a partial loss of consciousness, and a coma essentially a complete loss of consciousness.
Although it is measured in hertz not joules. I don't know if they overlap.
Again, I'm not saying that your consciousness (or your brain or whatever) does not have energy. I'm saying your brain ISN'T energy. You can tell if your hamburger is finished cooking by measuring its thermal energy. However your hamburger ISN'T energy.
Hertz has dimensions of 1/T; energy has dimensions of ML^2/T^2. Hertz is not energy.
He didn't say the brain is energy either. He said consciousness might be energy. There's a distinction there.
Hertz is not energy, but isn't energy its underlying factor? An EEG is measuring the frequency at which the electrical activity of brain is occurring. Isn't that energy?
Again, I'm not saying that consciousness does not have energy. I'm saying consciousness is not energy.
Just like a hamburger has energy, but a burger is not energy. Energy is an attribute of system (but only one of its many attributes).
My house smells like cherries, but by house isn't cherries.
His suggestion that consciousness is energy constitutes removing the entire system and replacing it with a scalar quantity. It is simply ridiculous.
Right, but consciousness is not physical so you can't compare it to a hamburger. We don't know what consciousness is yet, nor why it exists. Its abstract. So sure a hamburger isn't energy, but what does that tell us about consciousness? The reason why I have a degree in psychology and not neuroscience, is because the two are separate. A neuroscientist studies what the brain is, a psychologist studies what the brain does. Consciousness is something the brain does, just like releasing energy is also something the brain does. So I think its a great change of perspective.
I don't know what a scalar quantity is, so what do you mean by it?
A scalar quantity is just a number (and sometimes a unit). Energy is a scalar quantity. When Rion said consciousness is energy, that is the same as saying consciousness is a scalar quantity with dimension ML^2/T^2; expressed as some unit (typically joules).
In short he is saying that your entire consciousness can be replaced by a single value (and a unit), perhaps 7. It is sheer madness.
I suppose I understand what you're saying.
But at the same time there are instances where our entire consciousness is in fact replaced with a single value. That's what the Glasgow Coma scale is for and also its variants like the AVPU scale, it measures your level of consciousness.
A value of 7 on the Glasgow scale implies that you've lost consciousness and are in a coma. 14 or 15 means you're fully conscious.
You must realize that scalar is not a replacement for your consciousness, it is a gross macroscopic state variable that is useful for predicting something about you (presumably, I don't know anything about the Glasgow Coma scale).
When Rion say consciousness is energy; it is like saying coffee is temperature. Sure my cup of coffee has a temperature, but it is much more than just temperature.
Well yeah, I'm using "replacement" loosely. The Glasgow Coma scale is more like what you described, a variable that is useful for predicting something about you, namely your level of consciousness. It tells me if you're conscious, delirious, confused, or in a coma.
John ! If we do not know what consciousness is, how can you make the claim it is not physical?
Well, because a dead body is physically identical to a living body, yet one has consciousness and the other does not.
One has a pulse and the other does not. Is a pulse physical? Vision? Hearing? Movement?
I would consider a pulse physical, since its the physical movement of a physical object. When it comes to vision it depends on what aspect. The eyes are obviously physical and its connections to the cortex. But vision itself isn't physical, its psychological. Same with hearing, amplitude is physical, loudness is psychological.
I am not buying the vision/ hearing not being physical. But, if a pulse is physical and the dead have no pulse, why is consciousness not physical?
Well because by definition a pulse is just a rhythm, its a verb describing a physical action. I can squeeze a dead heart with my hands and give it a pulse. Consciousness is not an action, so they're not even on the same playing field.
Again, if we do not know what consciousness is, then how can you claim it is not physical?
Because we do know its psychological. Saying we don't know what consciousness is, isn't like saying we don't know a Kangoodle is.
Vision. Does a dead humans retina convey information to the brain along the optic nerve?
No.
Pages