As an non-atheist and non-theist agnostic, I have been very open to the idea that consciousness presents a big challenge to materialism. Consciousness is non-physical or it is unlike any other physical thing in the Universe. I have argued that point-of-view for years. In this thread, I will showcase some of the strongest points.
Here are my reasons for viewing consciousness as being non-physical:
1. The ontology or nature of mental imagery. Mental images are our mind's visual like representations of the physical world (of physical objects, physical activities, etc). Yet, these mental images lack all of the usual properties we'd expect from physical things, such as being objectively observable, occupying space (hallucinations don't occupy space), having mass, etc. The one physical association we have is that they are connected to brain activity. Some go along to presume that the brain activity causes (as opposed to correlate with) mental images, which leads me to my #2 point.
2. Would scientists ever discover subjective experience by studying brain activity alone?! (rhetorical). Imagine that a scientist is living in a world where everyone is in a constant state of asleep. He is unable to communicate with any of the inhabitants. If the brain alone causes or leads to consciousness, then you'd expect the scientist to discover the subjective experiences of others by just studying the brain.
But from what we see from the progression of the science of mind, discovering consciousness with a sole focus on studying the brain would be unlikely. Perhaps given all that we know now, some scientists might say we would know, but hindsight is always 20/20
. The fact is that the ONLY way scientists know about subjective experience is because we are able to report it to them. It did not come about by solely studying the brain nor is it imaginable to see how they would've ever discovered it seeing how heavily they depend on the subject to report their subjective experience to know about consciousness. This is consistent with brain not being enough to explain consciousness.
3. Consciousness persists even in a limited or declining brain function (vegetative states and NDEs):
It was once thought that if a patient can't respond via behavior (following commands), that they were unconscious. We now know that that isn't the case given Dr. Adrian Owens evidence for the 'locked-in syndrome'. So now we accept that consciousness can persists even during a vegetative state. Sure patient's in a vegetative state still have brain activity. But then there are cases where awareness is reported even at times where brain activity is slowed down (anesthesia) or even impaired and near-death, and yet some patients still report conscious experience - IF we are able to bring them back that is. Despite there being brain activity in these cases, I still think they support the view that consciousness does not need brain, because the type of brain activity during cardiac arrest and anesthesia should not leave consciousness intact. People have to remember that it's not just any activity that scientists say leads to consciousness - as if even one neuron firing could salvage consciousness, but rather you need a good amount of brain activity for vivid experience. If such vivid conscious experience can persist even during impaired brain conditions, then I next logical question to ask is if brain is needed at all for consciousness, and if it's just that we can't measure awareness once the brain activity stops completely.
My theory...
Another member critiqued my view on another forum saying that I need to offer my own explanation for consciousness before trying to shoot down the materialistic explanation. My hypothesis is that the brain is just a medium for consciousness. In other words, the relationship between consciousness and brain is that the two interact, but are not limited to each other. Consciousness can also exist without the brain and even as part of other mediums, like in Ai.
Topic...Any feedback welcomed. What's your view regarding if consciousness is physical or not? Do you agree with the above views?
Here are my reasons for viewing consciousness as being non-physical:
1. The ontology or nature of mental imagery. Mental images are our mind's visual like representations of the physical world (of physical objects, physical activities, etc). Yet, these mental images lack all of the usual properties we'd expect from physical things, such as being objectively observable, occupying space (hallucinations don't occupy space), having mass, etc. The one physical association we have is that they are connected to brain activity. Some go along to presume that the brain activity causes (as opposed to correlate with) mental images, which leads me to my #2 point.
2. Would scientists ever discover subjective experience by studying brain activity alone?! (rhetorical). Imagine that a scientist is living in a world where everyone is in a constant state of asleep. He is unable to communicate with any of the inhabitants. If the brain alone causes or leads to consciousness, then you'd expect the scientist to discover the subjective experiences of others by just studying the brain.
But from what we see from the progression of the science of mind, discovering consciousness with a sole focus on studying the brain would be unlikely. Perhaps given all that we know now, some scientists might say we would know, but hindsight is always 20/20
. The fact is that the ONLY way scientists know about subjective experience is because we are able to report it to them. It did not come about by solely studying the brain nor is it imaginable to see how they would've ever discovered it seeing how heavily they depend on the subject to report their subjective experience to know about consciousness. This is consistent with brain not being enough to explain consciousness.3. Consciousness persists even in a limited or declining brain function (vegetative states and NDEs):
It was once thought that if a patient can't respond via behavior (following commands), that they were unconscious. We now know that that isn't the case given Dr. Adrian Owens evidence for the 'locked-in syndrome'. So now we accept that consciousness can persists even during a vegetative state. Sure patient's in a vegetative state still have brain activity. But then there are cases where awareness is reported even at times where brain activity is slowed down (anesthesia) or even impaired and near-death, and yet some patients still report conscious experience - IF we are able to bring them back that is. Despite there being brain activity in these cases, I still think they support the view that consciousness does not need brain, because the type of brain activity during cardiac arrest and anesthesia should not leave consciousness intact. People have to remember that it's not just any activity that scientists say leads to consciousness - as if even one neuron firing could salvage consciousness, but rather you need a good amount of brain activity for vivid experience. If such vivid conscious experience can persist even during impaired brain conditions, then I next logical question to ask is if brain is needed at all for consciousness, and if it's just that we can't measure awareness once the brain activity stops completely.
My theory...
Another member critiqued my view on another forum saying that I need to offer my own explanation for consciousness before trying to shoot down the materialistic explanation. My hypothesis is that the brain is just a medium for consciousness. In other words, the relationship between consciousness and brain is that the two interact, but are not limited to each other. Consciousness can also exist without the brain and even as part of other mediums, like in Ai.
Topic...Any feedback welcomed. What's your view regarding if consciousness is physical or not? Do you agree with the above views?
Last edited:
