There is currently no material evidence (at all) that electrical/chemical activity can produce what we know as consciousness. The fundamental properties of chemical compositions, of electron spin, of electro-chemical energy provide no indication (whatsoever) consciousness as we know it can be produced by these elements. Self-awareness, and the 'qualia' question of consciousness (at the heart of the mind/body problem), such as perceiving the color 'red' i.e. what makes red red, is also one of the most baffling and unanswered questions regarding the science of consciousness.
Once again, correlation is not causation. Just because the brain is a complex phenomena does not scientifically prove it is the cause/produces consciousness. Just because a computer can be built to be a highly complex series of electrical signals and computations, has not proven a computer can become 'self-aware' or conscious. In fact, some recent attempts to do just that have failed.
I am not saying it may eventually be proven consciousness is produced by fundamental properties of electricity and neurons. But what I am saying is science currently has not established this is the case. And therefore, the question is a philosophical mind/body problem remaining unresolved scientifically and ontologically.
I don't disagree at all, except to point out that you're still expounding on what I've enumerated as properties of living systems (energy transformation, matter recycling, networked feedback computation); which underpin, but do not constitute their essence. I'd wager that you're familiar with the terminology "emergent properties". Very different from the fundamental physical parameters --- but, somehow derived -- probabilistically -- from them. I emphasize the "somehow". I'm surely not saying that I have a reliable handle on what this means in detail. But I know that without that probabilistic flexibility, a truly novel idea could not arise; and even with my fundamental dark view of humanity, I still belief in the possibility of novel ideas.
But I am also familiar with the excellent work of scientists like Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia, Pim van Lommel, Michael Sabom, Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson.
One approach reductive materialists often overlook when attempting to ascertain the fundamental properties of 'consciousness' is by not studying consciousness itself. That is, what does the observation of consciousness (behavior and perception) tell us about consciousness? Luminaries such as William James, his good friend Frederic Myers, Carl Jung - all of whom spent their lives studying consciousness itself (not just neurons)and were able to deduce certain properties of consciousness that the 'materialists' are only now beginning to theorize about, many do so based on the scientific parameters that have been discovered in quantum physics, such as nonlocality is a fundamental property of our reality, and time also is a property that is not quite what it appears to be.
It is interesting reality (and consciousness) may be fundamentally driven by probability - and it seems quantum physics has put to rest the age old question of determinism. I would also posit the still ongoing scientific research into Psi and the extensive NDE research is putting to rest the materialistic assumption consciousness is simply a product of neural processes. It is more likely (to me at least, at this time) consciousness is a more fundamental property of reality, just as electrons and electromagnetic energy are fundamental properties. And though I would not go so far as to assume consciousness itself produces reality, I would say it interacts with reality, is a part of it as a fundamental Observer.
This is a bit far afield though of the Abortion debate. But I think it serves to point out we all have different metaphysical/philosophical views on the nature of ourselves and reality. And it was a wise decision by the founding fathers of the US government to insist church and state remain separate.
Yes, we're far afield of the abortion debate, and reductive materialism is clearly inadequate to explain consciousness. But in invoking quantum properties like nonlocality, it's useful to add that the molecular orbitals of the chemical components of living systems are also subject to quantum considerations, and we've barely scratched the surface of what might be the implications. So much to yet discover -- if our species survives long enough (speaking of far afield from Catlin's article). Total agreement about the clear necessity for church-state separation. I think we've covered the bases and then some.
And the men can get over the idea that they have ANY say in what a woman does with her body. If you don't like abortion, fellas, then make sure you don't ejaculate into a woman's body. Problem solved. It's the MEN that cause pregnancy, not the woman.
There is currently no material evidence (at all) that electrical/chemical activity can produce what we know as consciousness. The fundamental properties of chemical compositions, of electron spin, of electro-chemical energy provide no indication (whatsoever) consciousness as we know it can be produced by these elements. Self-awareness, and the 'qualia' question of consciousness (at the heart of the mind/body problem), such as perceiving the color 'red' i.e. what makes red red, is also one of the most baffling and unanswered questions regarding the science of consciousness.
Once again, correlation is not causation. Just because the brain is a complex phenomena does not scientifically prove it is the cause/produces consciousness. Just because a computer can be built to be a highly complex series of electrical signals and computations, has not proven a computer can become 'self-aware' or conscious. In fact, some recent attempts to do just that have failed.
I am not saying it may eventually be proven consciousness is produced by fundamental properties of electricity and neurons. But what I am saying is science currently has not established this is the case. And therefore, the question is a philosophical mind/body problem remaining unresolved scientifically and ontologically.
https://youtu.be/x-6hosFAObI
I don't disagree at all, except to point out that you're still expounding on what I've enumerated as properties of living systems (energy transformation, matter recycling, networked feedback computation); which underpin, but do not constitute their essence. I'd wager that you're familiar with the terminology "emergent properties". Very different from the fundamental physical parameters --- but, somehow derived -- probabilistically -- from them. I emphasize the "somehow". I'm surely not saying that I have a reliable handle on what this means in detail. But I know that without that probabilistic flexibility, a truly novel idea could not arise; and even with my fundamental dark view of humanity, I still belief in the possibility of novel ideas.
I am familiar with 'emergent' properties.
But I am also familiar with the excellent work of scientists like Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia, Pim van Lommel, Michael Sabom, Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson.
One approach reductive materialists often overlook when attempting to ascertain the fundamental properties of 'consciousness' is by not studying consciousness itself. That is, what does the observation of consciousness (behavior and perception) tell us about consciousness? Luminaries such as William James, his good friend Frederic Myers, Carl Jung - all of whom spent their lives studying consciousness itself (not just neurons)and were able to deduce certain properties of consciousness that the 'materialists' are only now beginning to theorize about, many do so based on the scientific parameters that have been discovered in quantum physics, such as nonlocality is a fundamental property of our reality, and time also is a property that is not quite what it appears to be.
It is interesting reality (and consciousness) may be fundamentally driven by probability - and it seems quantum physics has put to rest the age old question of determinism. I would also posit the still ongoing scientific research into Psi and the extensive NDE research is putting to rest the materialistic assumption consciousness is simply a product of neural processes. It is more likely (to me at least, at this time) consciousness is a more fundamental property of reality, just as electrons and electromagnetic energy are fundamental properties. And though I would not go so far as to assume consciousness itself produces reality, I would say it interacts with reality, is a part of it as a fundamental Observer.
This is a bit far afield though of the Abortion debate. But I think it serves to point out we all have different metaphysical/philosophical views on the nature of ourselves and reality. And it was a wise decision by the founding fathers of the US government to insist church and state remain separate.
Yes, we're far afield of the abortion debate, and reductive materialism is clearly inadequate to explain consciousness. But in invoking quantum properties like nonlocality, it's useful to add that the molecular orbitals of the chemical components of living systems are also subject to quantum considerations, and we've barely scratched the surface of what might be the implications. So much to yet discover -- if our species survives long enough (speaking of far afield from Catlin's article). Total agreement about the clear necessity for church-state separation. I think we've covered the bases and then some.
Well said.
And the men can get over the idea that they have ANY say in what a woman does with her body. If you don't like abortion, fellas, then make sure you don't ejaculate into a woman's body. Problem solved. It's the MEN that cause pregnancy, not the woman.
“And it was a wise decision by the founding fathers of the US government to insist church and state remain separate.”
Doesn’t make them wise about everything, considering most of them were slave owners and privileged rich white guys.
Agree. But on keeping church and state separate - they got it right in my opinion.
While we are on the subject of religion you should check out the Baha’i: https://youtu.be/GPKEkSXhtgw