A supernatural particle?
I don’t recall the physical nature of the particle.
It’s in his book “Metaphysics” It’s a small book, well worth the read.
A PhD in what? How does he have this information that no other biologist has?
The University of Sedona awards a PhD in Metaphysics.
Just sayin, ya know.
ETA: yeah, not too far off. From wiki:
Well, you could google the guy.
I clicked to see about this university’s accreditation, and got this.(Warning-put on hipboots before reading).
I just want to add that if you ask any neurobiologist (or someone like that) how exactly the brain produces consciousness, then they will say something along the lines of, “well, we think that once the brain becomes complex enough, consciousness spontaneously emerges.” Or IOW, they have no fucking idea how the brain produces consciousness or intelligence.
Of course they have been able to identify certain parts of the brain that are responsible for different things, but that doesn’t explain how the brain creates consciousness.
Don’t they even have doubts as to whether consciousness exists?
Metaphysics (which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything religious, spiritual, supernatural or mystical) would be completely irrelevant to this question.
I’ve never really understood what is actually meant by conciousness.
Nor self-awareness, for that matter.
Easy enough to say on behalf of neurobiologists as a whole…but some cites would be nice.
Talbot Mundy, in one of his (delightful) mystical adventure novels, said, we aren’t bodies that have souls; we are souls that have bodies.
Self-awareness, at least, makes pretty good sense. It might be brought into sharper focus by observing those times when it doesn’t operate. Ever find yourself in your car, having driven the last ten minutes…and having no memory of it? Even more daunting are events like sleep-walking.
It would be quite easy for you to search this yourself, and arrive at this conclusion quite quickly, but here’s a couple cites for you per your request.
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/church.neuro.html
Just read the first paragraph. Patricia Smith Churchland defines our future understanding of the brain and consciousness as, “cautiously optimistic.” Meaning, that someday we may be able to show that the brain explains consciousness due to our regular ability to progress scientifically and technologically, but until then, how the brain produces consciousness, if it does, remains a mystery.
There are also several neurobiological theories of consciousness:
http://www.lscp.net/persons/sidk/publi/preprint_Kouider_EncyclopConsciousness_inpress.pdf
I would rather call that concious.
But that is more like ‘not paying attention’ or ‘being aware’ not the way consiousness or self-awareness are most often used as terms to set us apart from animals. To make us feel special.
Sorry, that’s incorrect.
There are countless things that do exist, yet are not considered “material”. Language, for example. Stories & songs, which may be conveyed in material form (words, music, etc.) but are themselves abstract concepts. Human beings are unique (as far as we know) in being able to conceive & express these abstractions, which makes up a great portion of our culture and our consciousness – the former we can observe & describe, but the latter remains an illusive concept, even for modern philosophers.
A better claim would be that in our universe there is only matter and energy.
There is information, but it is carried in material or energetic form. Information isn’t a “third form” of existence.
Language, art, philosophy, all “exist,” but only as far as they are written (spoken, engraved, conveyed in Balearic Whistling Language," etc.: matter and energy.
(Amusing typo: mater and energy. Mumsie was a firecracker, she was!)
This problem goes back to Plato. If a language exists in the sense of an object, then so does a unicorn, a ghost and Darth Vader. The chair I am sitting in exists, but does “chair”? It is easy to define and measure the chair I am sitting in, but those who have tried to teach computers the concept of chair find it quite difficult.
We argue about whether God exists, but no one argues whether “God” - the concept - exists.
So saying that non-material things exist in the same way that the chair I am sitting in does leads to all sorts of problems.
Dang, you beat me to it! Information is just the way aspects of the material world are organized, whether it’s the bits in a computer chip, neurons in the brain, or ink on paper. It doesn’t exist without a physical implementation.
There is no reason that we therefore could not, with suitable technology, copy the entire contents of someone’s brain into a computer which, running an appropriate generic model of the brain, would then have acquired exactly the same “consciousness”.
I’ve never considered the “mind-body problem” to convey anything profound. It was postulated long before anything like computers was imaginable. Today we may as well ask how something abstract, like a computer program, could possibly exert an influence on the material world, like a printer, an industrial lathe, or a car-assembly robot. The answer is: through things that are variously called interfaces, controllers, or device adapters. They are not mystical.
The concept of a soul arises from the need to believe that there is some aspect of consciousness that survives death and persists forever. The science that one looks to for an explanation is not any physical science but psychology. The syndrome is commonly known as wishful thinking, the comfortable delusion that we are in some sense not only immortal but special among the earth’s creatures.