• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A Case for a Non-physical Consciousness

I think there would be no consciousness if not for the physical processes giving rise to consciousness, so clearly, I do not deny a physical basis for consciousness; however, I do not believe consciousness is itself a physical process. There is a physical process, and if not for that physical process, there would be no consciousness. Consciousness is the result of the physical processes, but they are not one and the same. There is a transition that is non-causal. There's a subtle point where language becomes dominant.

Think of hunger. We can describe in detail the underlying physical processes causing one to feel hungry, and being hungry is a consequence of a myriad of physical processes, and we can explain hunger in physical terms, but we can no more touch hunger than we can consciousness. I would submit that the touching of the various atoms, elements, chemicals, neural pathways, etc that make up the physical processes that give rise to hunger is not hunger itself. It's a creature of language. No, I'm not saying language plays a role in our being hungry--that's a consequence of things happening in the physical world. What I am saying is that language plays a major role in why it's a mistake to think of abstractions as something physical just because of the underlying physical basis for abstractions.
 
fast said:
I think there would be no consciousness if not for the physical processes giving rise to consciousness, so clearly, I do not deny a physical basis for consciousness; however, I do not believe consciousness is itself a physical process. There is a physical process, and if not for that physical process, there would be no consciousness. Consciousness is the result of the physical processes, but they are not one and the same. There is a transition that is non-causal. There's a subtle point where language becomes dominant.

Think of hunger. We can describe in detail the underlying physical processes causing one to feel hungry, and being hungry is a consequence of a myriad of physical processes, and we can explain hunger in physical terms, but we can no more touch hunger than we can consciousness. I would submit that the touching of the various atoms, elements, chemicals, neural pathways, etc that make up the physical processes that give rise to hunger is not hunger itself. It's a creature of language. No, I'm not saying language plays a role in our being hungry--that's a consequence of things happening in the physical world. What I am saying is that language plays a major role in why it's a mistake to think of abstractions as something physical just because of the underlying physical basis for abstractions.
Click to expand...
Language is not the problem when people elect to use the term "abstraction" to refer to entities like hunger which are less abstract than almost anything else.

Well, for me it is if not for you.
EB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom