First I would like to say this is in relation to a comment I got. This is not me. I just don't know how to answer the first part about conscious... all I can say is all we have is this world, the material world to go on. We have no reason to suggest the supernatural place exists.
Here is the rest of it:
"there has to be a world beyond the physical because we have consciousness. You can sew a body together but you can never give it conciousness. For the physical to exist another relm must exist. Does it make logic sense to assume a creation has no creator?"
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.
This seems to me to be another "god of the gaps" argument, as in, "Scientists don't understand consciousness," (True) “therefore god must be the cause of it.”
While I agree with your statement, I would have put "Partially true" instead... because there has been so much research in neurology to show that the brain is what does consciousness. We have evidence that the material world, specifically brain and nervous system creates consciousness, although we don't understand much of the process. And this is where your god of the gaps theory comes into play.
@ Fruyian:
I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
i just don`t know if there is anything else you can attribute conscious to.the great minds are researching that very thing today maybe where have closure on this one day.but the ultimate question is how this all came into being,was it supernatural or natural means.we may never really know.from all mankind has formulated throughout time we may still be left not knowing.this subject has baffled the greatest minds the planet has produced.
Just because the origin of consciousness has, until now, baffled scientists does not mean that we will never sort it out. And, if the problem is insolvable, that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or not of any deity. There is no linkage between the two.
"absolutely nothing to do with the existence or not of any deity"
and a supernatural realm.
But yea I agree wholeheartedly. It's argument from incredulity No need to postulate something to make it what we don't currently know to fit especially when there is no shred of evidence for said being and place.
Current scientific findings show that consciouness is not one thing. It is a series of processes in the brain that gained complexity over time through evolution.
I think the consciousness is the only form of "soul" that we possess. It is the only concept that reaches beyond the physical world. The evidence that it cannot exist without our body is inherent in the fact that while we sleep we have no control over our thoughts. If your consciousness didn't require something physical to exist then there should be nothing to inhibit your consciousness from working out mathematical conundrums while your physical body sleeps. The fact that this does not happen destroys the imaginings that your consciousness will exist without your physical body to power it.
If you could use your consciousness at night while your body sleeps then it would make sense that there would be an alternate realm for it to exist in, but this is evidence that it doesn't exist outside of your physical body. Sometimes a great mind just brings too much rubbish to an equation, after all, it is our fantastic mind that comes up with these concepts about deities in the first place. What a waste of time to trifle over the imperfect reasonings of a flawed mind, particularly while insisting it is perfect.
We've each got around 100 billion brain cells, countless trillions of synapses, a trillion bit per second processing capacity, and enough storage capacity for several Libraries of Congress. The complexity of our brains is the result of gradual evolution and selection over billions of years. With all that wonderful equipment between our ears, why would anyone need a spirit world or other plane of existence to explain consciousness?
No doubt Moore's Law will take silicon brains to the same level of complexity in a few years, and we'll probably see the emergence of self-aware computer intelligences. I wonder if they'll look on their creators as gods or viruses.
"there has to be a world beyond the physical because we have consciousness. You can sew a body together but you can never give it conciousness. For the physical to exist another relm must exist. Does it make logic sense to assume a creation has no creator?""
1) If consciousness is a complex, emergent property (as it seems to be), then there is no requirement for a "world beyond." Softness, for example, is a property that doesn't exist at the atomic level. It shows up when enough atoms with weak linkages are massed together. Temperature is another emergent property. At the atomic level it merges with velocity. Color is yet another emergent property, one that involves us. Single atoms have no inherent color. The ability of a computer to play chess, and therefore have some "idea" of chess, is still another emergent property. None of its individual transistors, diodes, resisters, capacitors, and other components have any "idea" about chess. Only at a higher level of organization does this ability manifest itself. Consciousness seems to be in this category. If you look at simpler and simpler creatures (with simpler and simpler brains) you see a steady decrease of consciousness. Long before you reach the level of bacteria, consciousness seems to no longer apply.
2) Sewing a body together but not being able to give it consciousness is a statement about our current level of technology and cannot be assumed as an absolute truth.
3) "For the physical to exist another relm must exist."
An emergent property in our world requires no outside realm.
4) "Does it make logic sense to assume a creation has no creator?"
It only makes sense if you define "creation" as something that requires a creator. That renders the point as a mere tautology. The question that must be asked is "Do we have a "creation" or do we have something that merely resembles it in some ways.
Conclusion: The "argument" doesn't rule out emergent properties (a very plausible alternative explanation) and, therefore, fails.
This is too easy. Ask them to provide that there is a ''world beyond the physical''. As it stands, this is nothing but a bald faced assertion.
I don't sweat the small stuff. How do I know it's small? I don't sweat that either. I just deal with me, what revolves around me and leave the profound thinking to those who need to sweat the profound. They sweat, I don't. Saves me on deodorant.