• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?

Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?

  • physical

  • nonphysical

  • neither

  • both

  • other

  • it all depends

  • I don't know


Results are only viewable after voting.

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If the physical and the mental are both emergent properties, what exactly is the substrate from which they are both emerging?

According to what I believe, they emerged from the Sunyata.

SUNYATA

Why I believe this, the word/description I've adopted. However it is also part of my experience. I was thrilled to find they had a word for this. I saw I was not alone in this experience. Also it is something that is difficult for me to describe properly.

The way I describe it before I knew of this word was, the truth is emptiness, however within this emptiness, all possibilities exist.
 

Edwin

Member
Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?
There should be a verb "to consciate" to go along with the adjective "conscious" and the abstract noun "consciousness". A human (or animal) is functioning a certain way when it is conscious, so the language should have evolved so that we could say "That human (or animal) is consciating".
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Not all functions of the brain are shut down during sleep. And those which hibernate also are at call.

The Sanskrit "turiya" is the term employed to describe the state of pure consciousness which is the background for the three common states of consciousness (waking consciousness, dreaming, dreamless sleep).
 

Edwin

Member
Abstractions are clearly nonphysical. So, are you arguing that consciousness is nonphysical?
Abstraction are just linguistic devices to speak of lots of physical things at once. Forest is to tree as abstraction is to the physical. It's just a matter of semantics. Everything that exists is physical. What we call "an abstraction" is just a semantic device so we can talk about lots of things without being specific. "Nonphysical" is also just a semantic device which we attach to such semantic devices. If it's nonphysical, it's only part of the language, not part of anything outside of language.
 

Bill Van Fleet

Active Member
MIND-BODY PROBLEM: Introduction

INTRODUCTION



Throughout much of Western philosophical thought there has been an overt and/or underlying set of problems that have produced polarities of thinking, such as idealism vs. realism, but never to my knowledge any satisfactory conclusion. These problems have long been called "the "mind-body problem" and the "free will vs. determinism problem," or referred to in some similar manner. They are actually problems associated with some of our species' most difficult issues (involving major decision-making). I wish to solve these problems, and believe I have. See if you think I have.


The "mind-body problem" has to do with what the connection is between the two, including the issue as to how it can be that one may influence the other, especially when the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), that have made great strides in understanding how the body (including the brain) works, use formulas that contain no variables having to do with the mind. And the "free will vs. determinism problem" has to do with how, if everything in the universe occurs according to causal laws, we are able to make decisions, when what we do was already bound to occur anyway.


I wish, however, to be somewhat more specific about the nature of these problems before giving you my solutions. And it will be crucial that, in order to have adequate understanding, we will need to use words with specific, agreed-upon meanings for the purpose of this discussion. (There is much misunderstanding related simply to individuals using the same words with different meanings.)


By "world" we will mean everything that exists, consisting of entities and their tendencies to interact. "Entity" will mean anything to which we can or could assign a name, or noun, such entities often being referred to as "things." The concept of "entity" will be discussed in greater detail later in this presentation.


(By "imaginary world" we can mean everything that exists only in imagination, referred to as "imaginary entities" or "imaginary things," and contrasted with what is often called the "real world." And we will recognize that there will be at times disagreement as to whether a certain particular entity is in the "world," or "real world," or in the "imaginary world," that is, whether it "exists" or "does not exist." Thus, we can say that some entities "exist" and some do not. This issue will become clearer as the presentation proceeds.)


Almost everyone agrees that the world (real world) exists, and that it contains entities we can sense, including stars, planets, gravity, light, dirt, water, air, plants, and animals, including humans, and also entities we can't sense, including molecules, atoms, electromagnetic force fields, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, gluons, etc. These entities are generally considered part of the "physical world," studied by the physical sciences.


But almost everyone also agrees that the world contains minds (especially, or maybe only, of humans), which in turn contain sensations, perceptions, concepts, thoughts, feelings, wishes, memories, fantasies, motivations, drives, aspirations, ideals, intentions, decisions, etc. These entities are generally considered part of the "mental world," studied by the psychological and social sciences. Three terms related to (but not necessarily identical with) "mind" are "consciousness" (or "conscious awareness"), "soul," and "spirit." All three are associated with some controversy, which I believe this presentation may resolve.


So the world, that which exists, is considered to be made up of "physical" entities and "mental" entities. We generally consider that there is a certain amount of interaction among some of these entities, in that some seem to influence others, such that we have developed the concept of "causation." Almost everyone considers that physical entities have causative influences on each other (heat causes chemical reactions to occur faster), and that mental entities also have causative influences on each other (certain thoughts or perceptions cause fear or anger), but the problem I am addressing has to do with whether physical and mental entities have any causative interaction with each other. Can something in the mind cause something in the physical world to happen, and/or vice versa, and, if so, how?


And there are additional aspects to the problem, having to do with the origins of the physical and mental world. From within science, the idea has arisen, with much evidence supporting it, that the physical world that we see around us came into being about 13.8 billion years ago, perhaps in something like a "big bang," and it has been operating since then according to a set of rules, or "natural laws." Somewhere along the line, however, this "lifeless" physical universe began to develop within it additional entities, opaque, invisible "minds," at least some of which have been attached in an unclear manner to entities within the physical world, these minds seeming to have some additional effect on the physical entities that goes beyond the rules according to which the physical entities had been interacting with each other. There have been other scenarios imagined, also, such as that the physical entities and the minds came into existence at about the same time. How, when, and why these minds came into existence has been a question that has never been answered to the satisfaction of everyone, or even the majority of people.


Of course, other scenarios have been imagined also. But again, no scenario has been imagined that seems believable by almost everyone, despite the fact that probably almost everyone, from ancient times until the present, has given it some thought.

So all of these issues are what this presentation is about. I hope to provide answers that anyone, who gives adequate consideration to the presentation, can accept. However, I know from what I went through in writing this that reading it superficially, so as to get a "general impression," will not accomplish any sense of confidence in what is written or feeling of good understanding of it. It will probably have to be read more than once, with some rereading of paragraphs during any one reading. Understanding of these issues will involve the development of new networks of enhanced neuronal connections in the brain, such development always being a gradual process that is accomplished through substantial repetition. That is what had to happen for me.
 
Last edited:

Edwin

Member
Physicist Frank Tipler says we can measure "information." But he describes it as immaterial, although it is in physical in the sense that it supervenes on the physical and is subject to the law of physics.



That's what I'm asking you. Is it possible to be conscious of reality. And if it is, then what exactly is this reality?
You are getting into semantics of language, leaving the real world behind. We see and think about real things in the real world. End of story. Don't let language trick you.
 

Gambit

Well-Known Member
Which is both physical, extremely misleading, and not a duality at all.

The "wave-particle duality" is part and parcel of the Copenhagen interpretation (a.k.a. the standard intepretation) of QM.

"The much-vaunted wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics conceals a subtlety concerning the meaning of the terms. Particle talk refers to hardware: physical stuff such as electrons. By contrast, the wave function that attaches to an electron encodes what we know about the system. The wave is not a wave of ‘stuff,’ it is an information wave. Since information and ‘stuff’ refer to two different conceptual levels, quantum mechanics seems to imply a duality of levels akin to mind-brain duality." - Paul Davies

(source: pp. 44-45, "The Re-emergence of Emergence" by Philip Clayton and Paul Davies)
 

Edwin

Member
An emergent property of the physical, as distinct from the physical, just as the abstract is distinct from the real.
I wouldn't say the adjective "white" is "something else besides than snow". "White" is just an adjective to help describe the snow, to tell how light reflects off it. The fact that we often add "ness" to the adjective "white" and use it as a noun often tricks people into thinking that "whiteness" refers to some sort of "etherial nonphysical thingamajig". but "whiteness" is just the adjective "white" used to describe the snow masquerading as an noun. Don't let semantics such as noun forms of adjectives and verbs fool you like they fooled Plato.
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
"Physical" to me means something you can touch. What sense are you using it in?

Physical to me means something having the ability to affect us, not necessarily only that which we can touch. I can't touch someone's negative thoughts, but they do affect me therefore even those thoughts are physical in some way. There is a physical cause and a physical affect.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Actually, I entirely agree with you and I see consciousness as just the same (we do need to eat etc). What I am getting at is that I see nothing extra once the physics is accounted for. There is just matter and energy doing their thing.

Oh ok, Cool.

Elan vitale is so nineteenth century!

What I would give to debate the 19th century view of things! I am still stuck with debaters of the 17th, lol.

Ciao

- viole
 

Edwin

Member
I voted 'nonphysical'

Here is the great divide that is the true separating issue in so many of our debates.

Physicalists: Matter is primary and consciousness is a product of matter

Non-Physicalists: Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness.
Counsciousness is not a "product" of matter, it is an ACTIVITY of matter.
 
Top