No matter = No Consciousness ?!

[Jot]

How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?

[shirgall]

How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?

 

All independently verifiable observed instances of consciousness have been backed by matter to date.

[Jot]

All independently verifiable observed instances of consciousness have been backed by matter to date.

 This might count as evidence not proof.

[Guest Gee]

So dead people have no conciousness and we know that because we measure their brain activity vs live people.

We can generalise their brain activity as electrical impulses firing in synapses, further generalising as simply electrical impulses.

 

If we create a space with no matter we create a vacuum.

So now conciousness without matter becomes electrical impulses in a vacuum.

But electrical impulses can be further generalised as the movement of charged particles and we have defined the space of no matter as devoid of all particles.

So in a space of no matter, a vacuum, no particles thus no impulses thus no conciousness.

 

If we wanted to we could say that conciousness without matter is a violation of Maxwell's equations in a vacuum.

 

Conversely, the validity of Maxwell's equations is a proof that there can not be conciousness without matter.

[Jot]

So dead people have no conciousness and we know that because we measure their brain activity vs live people.

We can generalise their brain activity as electrical impulses firing in synapses, further generalising as simply electrical impulses.

 

If we create a space with no matter we create a vacuum.

So now conciousness without matter becomes electrical impulses in a vacuum.

But electrical impulses can be further generalised as the movement of charged particles and we have defined the space of no matter as devoid of all particles.

So in a space of no matter, a vacuum, no particles thus no impulses thus no conciousness.

 

If we wanted to we could say that conciousness without matter is a violation of the first two of Maxwell's equations in a vacuum.

 

Conversely, the validity of Maxwell's equations is a proof that there can not be conciousness without matter.

How do you know that consciousness can only arise as the result of a functioning brain?

[Will Torbald]

How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?

 

Going to matter from brain is a stronger leap than what is actually observed: Without a sufficiently complex brain there can be no consciousness. It isn't matter that has consciousness, it's a specific structure made of matter that manifests the consciousness. A simple analogy is that of the lamp and the light. The light is generated by the lamp. Without lamp, there is no light. You can ask if there can be light without a lamp (or a 'light source' to be more accurate) but then you would have to ask if "Things that come from sources can exist without the source" and that sounds much more easier to answer: No.

[Lykourgos]

How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?

 

We can't, because consciousness is ultimately a form.

[neeeel]

 

So now conciousness without matter becomes electrical impulses in a vacuum.

But electrical impulses can be further generalised as the movement of charged particles and we have defined the space of no matter as devoid of all particles.

So in a space of no matter, a vacuum, no particles thus no impulses thus no conciousness.

 

 

Is consciousness electrical impulses? I realise that without one, there isnt the other, but does that mean they are one and the same? I dont think we have actually found what consciousness is, just what conditions are needed for consciousness to be present.

[Jot]

Going to matter from brain is a stronger leap than what is actually observed: Without a sufficiently complex brain there can be no consciousness. It isn't matter that has consciousness, it's a specific structure made of matter that manifests the consciousness. A simple analogy is that of the lamp and the light. The light is generated by the lamp. Without lamp, there is no light. You can ask if there can be light without a lamp (or a 'light source' to be more accurate) but then you would have to ask if "Things that come from sources can exist without the source" and that sounds much more easier to answer: No.

 

How do you know the light-lamp analogy is an accurate analogy?

 

Interestingly enough your analogy supports the consciousness can exist independent of the brain theory...If the lamp is the brain and the consciousness is the light, without that lamp or any other "complex" sources like a device or stars etc...there would still be light in the absence of all these complex sources.

 

 

"Things that come from sources can exist without the source" and that sounds much more easier to answer: No."

This is only true if WE KNOW that the only thing that can generate that "something" is only the thing itself or others alike it...

 

 

Again...how can we know that  without matter there can be no consciousness?

We can't, because consciousness is ultimately a form.

1.Wha do you mean?

2.How do you know?

Is consciousness electrical impulses? I realise that without one, there isnt the other, but does that mean they are one and the same? I dont think we have actually found what consciousness is, just what conditions are needed for consciousness to be present.

Funny thing...you could use his argument to argue for consciousness without a brain, since you don't need a brain to generate electrical impulses.

 

Did we find what are the conditions needed? 

 

1.What are those?

2.How do we know that we have the complete list of conditions in which consciousness arises?

[Guest Gee]

Is consciousness electrical impulses? I realise that without one, there isnt the other, but does that mean they are one and the same? I dont think we have actually found what consciousness is, just what conditions are needed for consciousness to be present.

 

Your right, without one there can not be the other. It doesn't mean they are one and the same but for the purposes of the argument it is important because now a rebuttal would require someone to argue that there is no difference in conciousness between the brain of a dead man and a live man or to prove Maxwell's equations invalid.

[utopian]

 

Just gonna leave this here. Don't really wanna get into this discussion right now, just some interesting food for thought. Also, And I can't find the link for this right now, but in the realm of science, quantum physics is currently stuck at the god particle. The Higgs-boson is the particle that gives matter mass, but science cannot yet explain how these massless particles exist in the first place. A prevailing theory, in conjunction with the theory of universal consciousness, is that the universe (and these massless particles) is actually made up of nothing more than mental thoughts. Everything is just the imagination of a giant universal brain.

[Jot]

Your right, without one there can not be the other. It doesn't mean they are one and the same but for the purposes of the argument it is important because now a rebuttal would require someone to argue that there is no difference in conciousness between the brain of a dead man and a live man or to prove Maxwell's equations invalid.

I'll ask you again since you didn't address this..."How do you know that consciousness can only arise as the result of a functioning brain?"

 

How do you know that without one there can not be the other?

[Guest Gee]

How do you know that consciousness can only arise as the result of a functioning brain?

 

I got from conciousness to Maxwell's relations and I think I deserve more than moving the goal posts.

 

You can rebut my argument in one of two ways.

 

Prove a proof of the invalidity of Maxwell's equations. 

 

or

 

Provide an argument that dead people are concious.

[Will Torbald]

How do you know the light-lamp analogy is an accurate analogy?

 

Interestingly enough your analogy supports the consciousness can exist independent of the brain theory...If the lamp is the brain and the consciousness is the light, without that lamp or any other "complex" sources like a device or stars etc...there would still be light in the absence of all these complex sources.

 

 

"Things that come from sources can exist without the source" and that sounds much more easier to answer: No."

This is only true if WE KNOW that the only thing that can generate that "something" is only the thing itself or others alike it...

 

 

Again...how can we know that  without matter there can be no consciousness?

 

That's why I said it was a simple analogy. All analogies are imperfect, so to use the fact that light exists outside of lamps is unfair. It simply is an example. Focus on the last bit about sources and products.

 

Going deep into language distinctions for a moment, we only actually know of one kind of consciousness: human consciousness from the human brain. Other animals have brains and varying degrees of consciousness, but for philosophy's sake we'll stick to human consciousness. Now, a "consciousness" is strictly that which we experience with our brains. Not with a kidney, or with an elbow, or the skin. It is purely a function of the central nervous system.

 

So, to ask if there are consciousness without brains would be like asking if there were mangos without mango trees. Do we really know if the only way to get a mango is from a mango tree? It's a very tautological question. If we were to find a mango that didn't come from a mango tree and instead came from a seaweed, there are two possibilities: 1- it's not a mango, it only looks like one. 2- it's a mango that comes from a seaweed, and the seaweed makes an exact replica of a mango. In terms of consciousness it would be if we were to find something that has consciousness but doesn't come from a brain: 1- it's not consciousness, it only looks like it. 2- it's consciousness that is replicated by some other mechanism. However, that mechanism would have to be a thing in itself. It has to be something made of stuff, matter, energy. To ask if consciousness can exist without matter would be to ask if anything can exist without matter - which would be like asking if something can exist without existing.

[Jot]

I got from conciousness to Maxwell's relations and I think I deserve more than moving the goal posts.

 

You can rebut my argument in one of two ways.

 

Prove a proof of the invalidity of Maxwell's equations. 

 

or

 

Provide an argument that dead people are concious.

I never moved the goal post...my OP is "How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?" to which you replied with an argument that is built on the premise that consciousness can only arise as the result of a functioning brain. Then, I immediately asked you to back this up, you never did that...

 

Without demonstrating this premise your argument is vacuous and it is certainly not a proof.

 

I don't need to rebut an argument that is built on a premise that you didn't account for.

It is you who need to provide an argument that dead people cannot be conscious since this is the premise of your argument, not mine.

 

 

 

I didn't move the goalpost, you did.

[Guest Gee]

I never moved the goal post...my OP is "How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?" to which you replied with an argument that is built on the premise that consciousness can only arise as the result of a functioning brain. Then, I immediately asked you to back this up, you never did that...

 

Without demonstrating this premise your argument is vacuous and it is certainly not a proof.

 

I don't need to rebut an argument that is built on a premise that you didn't account for.

It is you who need to provide an argument that dead people cannot be conscious since this is the premise of your argument, not mine.

 

 

 

I didn't move the goalpost, you did.

 

The assumption on the first line of my argument is that there is a difference in conciousness between the brain of a dead and live man and that difference can be characterised by a measurable difference in brain activity.

 

I have therefore proven scientifically that conciousness can not exist without matter predicated upon this assumption.

 

Rebut the assumption. Argue there is no difference in conciousness between dead and live people. Or accept my argument.

[Lykourgos]

1.Wha do you mean?

2.How do you know?

 

1. I mean that being consists of matter and form, and consciousness falls under the category of form. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say consciousness, but I assumed you were in some sense referring to the notion of a soul/awareness/a driving life force.

 

2. Well, I don't have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality if that's what you mean. I'm just a person writing posts like everyone else. I say that I know you can't prove the contention, because I believe that the soul is a form and therefore not ultimately reliant on matter for its existence. If you ground up a person's body into a fine powder, I would maintain that the life persists. Obviously, the matter persists, too, just re-arranged.

[Jot]

That's why I said it was a simple analogy. All analogies are imperfect, so to use the fact that light exists outside of lamps is unfair. It simply is an example. Focus on the last bit about sources and products.

 

Going deep into language distinctions for a moment, we only actually know of one kind of consciousness: human consciousness from the human brain. Other animals have brains and varying degrees of consciousness, but for philosophy's sake we'll stick to human consciousness. Now, a "consciousness" is strictly that which we experience with our brains. Not with a kidney, or with an elbow, or the skin. It is purely a function of the central nervous system.

 

So, to ask if there are consciousness without brains would be like asking if there were mangos without mango trees. Do we really know if the only way to get a mango is from a mango tree? It's a very tautological question. If we were to find a mango that didn't come from a mango tree and instead came from a seaweed, there are two possibilities: 1- it's not a mango, it only looks like one. 2- it's a mango that comes from a seaweed, and the seaweed makes an exact replica of a mango. In terms of consciousness it would be if we were to find something that has consciousness but doesn't come from a brain: 1- it's not consciousness, it only looks like it. 2- it's consciousness that is replicated by some other mechanism. However, that mechanism would have to be a thing in itself. It has to be something made of stuff, matter, energy. To ask if consciousness can exist without matter would be to ask if anything can exist without matter - which would be like asking if something can exist without existing.

How do you know it necessarily has to be a mechanism?

How do you know that nothing can exist without matter? Using this definition: exist - to be real, to have correspondence in reality;

[Will Torbald]

How do you know it necessarily has to be a mechanism?

How do you know that nothing can exist without matter? Using this definition: exist - to be real, to have correspondence in reality;

 

And what's the definition of real without referring to existing?

[Jot]

The assumption on the first line of my argument is that there is a difference in conciousness between the brain of a dead and live man and that difference can be characterised by a measurable difference in brain activity.

 

I have therefore proven scientifically that conciousness can not exist without matter predicated upon this assumption.

 

Rebut the assumption. Argue there is no difference in conciousness between dead and live people. Or accept my argument.

Your premise (not mine): Dead people have no consciousness because there is no electrical activity in their brains.

 

What intrigues me is that you agreed that this is just an assumption and didn't even try to back it up, instead you seem to believe that it is me who needs to prove you wrong...I am not understanding this...

 

I never made the claim "there is no difference in consciousness between dead and live people"...so why do you ask me to account for something I never said? 

 

 

But let us assume for a second that I take that position and say...okay...I cannot prove this...so you urge me then to accept your argument?! Okay let us assume I do that too...but what happens if someone will come along who will give evidence for "there is no difference in consciousness between dead and live people"?! Does this mean that your proof magically transforms into non-proof? 

 

Why do you believe that you can assert something without giving evidence for it and then you ask me to offer counter evidence to it? Is this not an example of an argument from ignorance fallacy? 

[dsayers]

 This might count as evidence not proof.

How do you prove that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2? Because the evidence is consistent that it is.

 

As far as we know, consciousness is an emergent property of matter.

[Jot]

And what's the definition of real without referring to existing?

Haha, I actually cannot think of one.

 

So, is existence only possible within matter?

How do you prove that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2? Because the evidence is consistent that it is.

 

As far as we know, consciousness is an emergent property of matter.

Hmm, good question, I am having trouble with the distinction between proof and evidence...but I'd say that we only have evidence for gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2...not proof too, for me proof needs to be something that is formally demonstrated, for example Pythagorean theorem is a good example of something that is proved.

 

Yes, as far as we know...does this bear anything on the conclusion that there is no such thing, though?

Well, I don't have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality if that's what you mean. 

 

This is certainly not something that I mean...what I mean is that every positive claim made by someone needs to be justified/proven/demonstrated/etc... otherwise we can all make our version of "reality" that in fact has nothing to do with reality.

[AncapFTW]

How can we prove that without matter there can be no consciousness?

While that is is the only form of consciousness we've observed, I don't think that we can rule out the possibility of any other form.  Anti-matter, for example, could form a conscious being, and it may be possible for conscious beings to exist without the need for matter to interact with, or at least not a specific form of matter, such as energy based lifeforms from sci-fi.

 

If you are talking about humans continuing to exist after death, though, I would say that everything we know about how the human consciousness exists requires a human brain, so we have no evidence that it could exist outside of a working brain.

[Lykourgos]

This is certainly not something that I mean...what I mean is that every positive claim made by someone needs to be justified/proven/demonstrated/etc... otherwise we can all make our version of "reality" that in fact has nothing to do with reality.

 

Well, that's not true. If you stop someone on the street and ask them where Scotland is, they might tell you that it's north of England, but they don't "need" to explain that answer. They might not even have the time or ability to explain their answer in detail. Maybe they're not even all that knowledgeable; they just related an answer they heard from someone they trust, in the hopes that you wouldn't waste time walking in the wrong direction.

 

Anyway, I reached my conclusions by existing, studying philosophy, and considering the nature of reality.

[Jot]

Well, that's not true. If you stop someone on the street and ask them where Scotland is, they might tell you that it's north of England, but they don't "need" to do explain that answer. They might not even have the time or ability to explain their answer in detail. Maybe they're not even all that knowledgeable; they just related an answer they heard from someone they trust, in the hopes that you wouldn't waste time walking in the wrong direction.

 

Anyway, I reached my conclusions by existing, studying philosophy, and considering the nature of reality.

Knowledge is: justified true belief.

 

If someone says to me that Scotland is north and the reason they give me after I ask them how do they know is: "someone I trust told me so" then I declare so in other words you don't know...then I continue my trip to Scotland heading north as they told me.

[Guest Gee]

This is much better I think.

 

Conciousness is associated with processing information.

Processing information is associated with increasing entropy.

The rate of entropy change with respect to time of an ideal vacuum is zero. 

Therefore conciousness can not exist without matter.

 

So consider the ideal vacuum, stick a conciousness without matter in it.

Define conciousness as per wiki.

As the conciousness experiences whatever it experiences the entropy of the conciousness-vacuum system must increase.

The ideal vacuum can not increase in entropy.

Proof by contradiction.

[Lykourgos]

Knowledge is: justified true belief.

 

If someone says to me that Scotland is north and the reason they give me after I ask them how do they know is: "someone I trust told me so" then I declare so in other words you don't know...then I continue my trip to Scotland heading north as they told me.

 

You seem to miss my point. If someone says that Scotland is north, and you ask them how they know that, they may well tell you to go away. They don't "need" to tell you anything, and they weren't seeking you out to teach you about geography. You approached them on the street, or made a thread, and they were helpful enough to give an answer. It's perfectly acceptable for them to tell you to speak with a cartographer. At any rate, you adopted their answer, perhaps because it was more promising than your prior understanding of geography.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure where you're going with your theory of knowledge. I told you how I came to know the answer, and if you want to discuss the topic in more detail then feel free.

[Jot]

This is much better I think.

 

Conciousness is associated with processing information.

Processing information is associated with increasing entropy.

The rate of entropy change with respect to time of an ideal vacuum is zero. 

Therefore conciousness can not exist without matter.

 

So consider the ideal vacuum, stick a conciousness without matter in it.

Define conciousness as per wiki.

As the conciousness experiences whatever it experiences the entropy of the conciousness-vacuum system must increase.

The idea vacuum can not increase in entropy.

Proof by contradiction.

I find the word associated very bogus and obscure there, I'll need a more clear definition.

You seem to miss my point. If someone says that Scotland is north, and you ask them how they know that, they may well tell you to go away. They don't "need" to tell you anything, and they weren't seeking you out to teach you about geography. You approached them on the street, or made a thread, and they were helpful enough to give an answer. It's perfectly acceptable for them to tell you to speak with a cartographer. At any rate, you adopted their answer, perhaps because it was more promising than your prior understanding of geography.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure where you're going with your theory of knowledge. I told you how I came to know the answer, and if you want to discuss the topic in more detail then feel free.

You are right about the word "need" as being at least inaccurate there.

"Need" is a moral term, and morality does not enter the question of what I have said above.

 

What it would have been correct for me to say is "must be able to"

[Guest Gee]

I find the word associated very bogus and obscure there, I'll need a more clear definition.

 

That wasn't for you bro, it was for the other guys in the thread.

[Jot]

That wasn't for you bro, it was for the other guys in the thread.

And why wasn't it for me?

 

Okay, still this won't stop me from commenting on your argument...

 

First premise :"Consciousness is associated with processing information"

 

I took your advice and looked up wiki's definition: "Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.^"

 

In this definition I don't see anything that requires processing information...maybe I am not seeing it...but do you?