"it is clearly something beyond any material explanation"
More correctly, it hasn't been explained to date, so your statement is not justified on any grounds I'm aware of.
Scientist Argues that Consciousness is Not a Product of Evolution But That It’s the Other Way Around
Sort:
Jan 15, 2023
0
#23
Someone needs to explain it to you, not just anyone, but someone you agree with that can do it so you can keep your worldview intact? Can you not think this through yourself? Even my dog knows how to communicate what he wants when he needs to go outside, or when he wants a treat or affection, a computer doesn't have wants, a rock doesn't have needs, and you still require a materialistic-only explanation?
Jan 15, 2023
0
#24
As I stated above, comparisons with man-made technology are unhelpful.
And as for the position I take on the possible origin of life, it's the same as that of researchers in the field, as I've told you many times before. That is not going to change.
You are the one who's thinking is dictated by the dogma of the OT, not me.
Jan 15, 2023
0
#25
So what would you compare conscience too in the material world that remotely resembles it?
Jan 15, 2023
0
#27
stephen_33 wrote:
'conscience' or consciousness? They're very different things.
My bad brain fart my part consciousness was the topic I wrote wrong word. They are very different correct, both immaterial in substance yet part of the universe none the less. Can you bring anything to the table to compare consciousness to?
Jan 15, 2023
0
#28
"Can you bring anything to the table to compare consciousness to?"
No, of course not but then the very finest minds have tried to do this and mostly (or entirely) failed I believe.
Jan 15, 2023
0
#29
Those things transcends the material world, they go beyond it, there isn’t a natural connection that can show how they arisen. Not unlike your ability to read and understand or your ability to write and express yourself sharing your thoughts on anything.
Hard physical stops like a wall can explain why someone or thing must stop when they reach it, but when every action is free to go on until the ability to continue is removed stoplights would be a mystery. Chemical reactions don’t have stop mechanisms they just react depending on environmental conditions or the material depletes itself.
Accepting only natural materialistic explanations for an immaterial phenomenon by definition is looking in the wrong place.
I mentioned sleeping because the interruption to consciousness that it creates strongly suggests that consciousness emerges from the activity of the brain. If it's independent of the functioning of the brain, it's puzzling why we cease to experience it when asleep.
And I think comparisons between organic processes and those created artificially in program-controlled machines are probably very limited and we shouldn't try to take them too far.
Again you can learn while a computer has to be programmed, you both are part of the material world. That doesn’t change anything, it is clearly something beyond any material explanation. We can design radios to send and receive messages, but radios have no understanding. It is more than just material it is far more.