Gambit
Well-Known Member
Does there need to be a substrate?
If there isn't any substrate, then what exactly is your rationale for believing that both the mental and the physical are emergent properties?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does there need to be a substrate?
So I was wrong to make a claim regarding conclusions of scientific research on this. I assumed greater knowledge on the subject than I am entitled to do so. my apologies.
Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness, but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory. Most neurobiologists assume that the variables giving rise to consciousness are to be found at the neuronal level, governed by classical physics, though a few scholars have proposed theories of quantum consciousness based on quantum mechanics.
I experience subjective awareness during sleep.
We are spiritual entities. As such, we are pure consciousness. But we (our consciousness) is isolated from the spirit and we reside in our brains. By doing so, we feel the hold on the body through muscle tension. This is the only thing that actually creates the 'physical'. And also by doing this we lose ~99% of our actual conscious awareness.
If consciousness is an emergent property, it is still a physical property.
To me physical = existing. Non-physical = non-existing.
In quantum mechanics it is easy to prove that electrons in chemical reactions are governed by probability rather than pure classical Newtonian mechanics; that given a perturbation from time t=0 to some later time when time = t, the probability is equal to an integral that the electron will change state in the course of a chemical reaction. If every physical parameter were known about the electron, including the electric and magnetic perturbations acting upon it, the laws of physics themselves cannot predict exactly when it will change state.
Our consciousness consists of the physical processes of chemical actions in the brain within and between neurons and Heisenberg indeterminacy proves that the only physical part of it is the probability for any chemical action that will manifest itself in an act of the will, what lies within the probability is not some hidden physical variable, it is something unknowable and mysterious, inaccessible to any kind of mechanics. That means that within that inaccessibility is a measure of free will that is non-physical.
That free will is both our responsibility and our intrinsic dignity given in Kant's categorical imperative. I think that same dignity applies to animals who bear central nervous systems.
If it is still a physical property, then we should be able to detect the physical properties.
I am pretty sure you are able to "detect" your own thoughts and emotions when those properties arise.
The second law of thermodynamics debunks that hypothesis. Not that I'm an expert or anything.
We can detect electromechanical waves by how they interact with physical objects but are the waves themselves physical?
Could consciousness be seen as a very complex wave pattern which interacts with the physical brain?
If it is still a physical property, then we should be able to detect the physical properties.
If the waves are detectable and they exist, then sure they are physical and interact with the physical.
We see this electrical and chemical energy taking place.
When we see these process stop, there is no consciousness in brain dead people.
Grow up mate, if mud flinging is all you have - you have nothing. If you had an argument instead of these silly attacks you would present it. There are a number of interesting discussions and ideas being discussed here - all you seem able to contribute is the occasional outburst.Everyone is wrong except you eh Bunyip? Even if there are experts in their fields.
Go join the YECs and CC deniers, you belong with them.
I have no idea what you are wanting to quote from me from other threads or why. If you wish to engage with some point I have made on another thread post on that thread and I will respond, I do not wish to derail this one.I can quote many things, but here my "capacity" is limited. You state you haven't said things and refuse to allow me to quote you (which is your right), so I'm not sure what you mean by incredible capacity (other than the dripping sarcasm, of course).