The Deistic God

Most of Con’s rebuttal was centred around consciousness possessing properties that matter alone cannot explain. ‘Refinement’ of the Argument: The refinement was actually a blunt correction of Pro’s loaded conclusion, which originally went farther than his premises allowed him to, if we look again at the conclusion: C.) Human’s possess an additional attribute over matter, i.e. the substance from which the physical object is composed, or assembled. Then my arguments regarding other attributes become very relevant. Sharpness, Smoothness, State, Chemical Bonding etc. can be fully explained by matter. If one was to simply apply this to consciousness, then it simply becomes a concept we attach to the processes from which manifest within the brain. As Daniel Dennet said, consciousness is likely but an illusion, and Con’s argument from incredulity doesn’t hold water. Is ‘Sharpness’ really an extra baggage over an arrangement of matter, does it need to be ‘imbued’ in order to be sharp? Pro’s rebuttal that these properties are not self aware is just side-stepping the point, they still possess properties that ‘matter’ alone does not, and therefore puts this premise on shaky ground. Material Conciousness: There is good reason for thinking this is the case. If consciousness was not an illusion than one could expect that minor physical changes in the brain should not cause substantial effects on consciousness, if the brain is just something that mediates it. However doses of Oxytocin, Cannabis, Heroine and other neurostimulants induce enormous changes in consciousness at the micromolar scale. Such changes are easily explained in Biology, with these drugs having substantial effects on the synaptic pathways from where consciousness is thought to manifest, but no such explanation is as readily given by Pro. Emotions too, are governed largely by hormones produced in various secretory organs (testacles, hypothalamus, the brain itself, etc). Furthermore, Pro makes the remarkable assertion, “If consciousness was just the brain at work you would think a neuroscientist would know my thoughts by looking at an fMRI scan of my brain.”. I am sure Pro has already seen the following TED talk where with technology available today, we can get an astonishing sight into what people ‘think’ [2]. Furthermore new applications for equipment controlled exclusively by brainwaves [3] (with great potential for ‘locked-in syndrome’). Working Processor: Pro gave the argument that the brainstem alone is unconscious, which rebuts the ‘emergent property’ argument. This is partially true, but that is gross misrepresentation of how something can be emergent. A single wire and battery isn’t going to do anything. Form a loop and you will have a heated wire, form multiple complex loops and you will get a magnet, flatten these out and change the conductivity in some areas and you will have a capacitor, and so on and so on and you will end up with a processor. All these ‘properties’ emerge from increasing complexity and at no point along this series does a magnet immediately become a magnet, or a capacitor become a capacitor etc. Of course if you cut out one of the core emergent ‘parts’, then that ‘part’ will lack the property that the system had, but it in no way invalidates that the property is an emergent one. Concious beings causing conscious beings: "The reason is simple. In the experiment, he is the conscious being who made the brain-dead mum live, concieve, and give birth" Interesting! Once again the fact that conscious beings mediated this process is irrelevant to the argument. The argument was to highlight that at no point is this consciousness ‘substance’ ‘passed down’ from parent to child in this scenario. And is now down to just stating consciousness is just a cause. But the premise was that conscious beings come from conscious beings, and if it is shown to be unnecessary and purely a result of biology, then this premise falls flat. Note that I don’t even agree with even the presupposition being this premise, that consciousness can come from anything, as it’s a manifestation of the material the brian is made of. In the context of evolution where the neurology becomes increasingly complex and the level of self awareness roughly scales with this increase over time. Going back to my brain cell count, what do Human’s have more then the Chimpanzee? Well obviously more neurones, more in some places than others. Both are self aware, although Humans are clearly more aware and much more capable of abstract though. Now what does a Chimpanzee have more than a Cat? Again more neurones, clearly is more aware, capable of deducing solutions (in the use of tools), and capable of complex sign language. We can continue on, and the trend will roughly hold. This argument is as bad as ‘life comes from life’ or ‘monkey’s come from monkey’s argument against evolution. The answer being, absolutely true, monkeys do come from monkeys, and they most certainly always will, however changes accumulate and a new species will emerge. At no point will you be able to say ‘new species evolved right here’, as the changes are very gradual. Similarly in the emergence of consciousness, the same argument applies. At no point ‘does the lights get switched on’, as Pro subtle suggests. Summary of Argument: Returning to Pro's argument: C1.) Human’s possess an additional attribute over matter, i.e. the substance from which the physical object is composed, or assembled. P1) Matter can't account for consciousness since it lacks it P2) There can't be an infinite regress of conscious beings P3) The cause of consciousness in conscious beings must be uncaused and conscious P4).Conscious beings come from conscious beings (as generally seen in mammals). C2.)I postulate that God is responsible for consciousness in humans. The position that conciousness is a manifestation of particular arrangements of matter [1], much like any other attribute that emerges (such as sharpness) rebuts P1. The argument that conciousness is not a has/has not dichotimy makes P2 completely irrelevant (as it then just becomes a finite regress into 'unconciousness', or at worst minimally conciousness (such as a simple electric cirtuit). Also P4 has already been conceded by con, or at the very least has been left so poorly defined it's a 'junk premise' which is subject to non-concious processes substituting the physical actions that current concious beings can do. Which is akin to what is argued in evolution. Worst of all, the conclusion once again goes farther than the premises allow, as at no point did Pro argue that the first concious being needs to be uncaused, he only argued that it could nto come form a concious being. What about a non-concious being? This is not as absurd as it sounds on the surface of it, although I also do not entertain the idea. The 'boltzman brain problem' [4] is that a brain could spontaneously appear as a random quantum fluxuation (although indescribably improbably for an any given period of time). However in a given reality where anything is possible, with unlimited tries, and that by the anthropic principle, we would not be discussing this problem if we were nto concious, it actually works to question this extra unargued for attribute in Pro's conclusion. References: 1. 2. http://www.ted.com... 3. http://www.ted.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...