The Argument from the Hard Problem of Consciousness
1. The Hard Problem of Consciousness for materialists consists in the difficulty in explaining why it subjectively feels like something witnessing the functioning brain and body. (This is to be distinguished from the so-called Easy Problem of Consciousness, which is to explain why some brain processes are unconscious and others are conscious.) Just like you suppose you are a man. You had a body of a child. You remember that you had a body of a child, but that body is no longer existing. But you remember; therefore you, the owner of the body, is existing. Otherwise how do you remember, "I had a body like this with this measurement? But that body is no longer existing, but you are remembering. So you are the owner and witness, transcendental to the body. Just like you have now for example a black coat. Say after two days you may put on another colored coat, but you remember that "I was putting on one black coat on that day." So you are existing; the coat is changed. Similarly, the soul is existing; the body is changed.
2. Consciousness (in the Hard-Problem sense) is not a complex phenomenon built out of simpler ones; it consists of the irreducible substrate or basis of “raw feels, thoughts and desires” like seeing red, tasting salt, experiencing feelings, having thoughts.
3. Science explains complex phenomena by reducing them to simpler ones, and reducing them to still simpler ones, until the simplest ones are explained by the basic laws of physics.
4. The basic laws of physics describe the properties of the elementary constituents of matter and energy, like quarks and quanta, which are not conscious.
5. Science cannot derive to consciousness by reducing it to basic physical laws about the elementary constituents of matter and energy (from 2, 3, and 4). Science doesn’t have a theory of neuroscience that explains how consciousness emerges from patterns of neural activity.
6. Material science will never solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness (from 3 and 5) because it is not an emergent of matter (see 1) since it is the eternal transcendental spectator of matter
7. The explanation for consciousness is that it is beyond physical laws (from 6).
8. Consciousness, lying outside physical laws, must itself be immaterial (from 7). Every measurable manifestation of consciousness, like our ability to describe what we feel, or let our feelings guide our behavior (the “Easy Problem” of consciousness), has been, or will be, explained in terms of neural activity (that is, every thought, feeling, and intention has a neural correlate). Only the existence of consciousness itself (the “Hard Problem”) remains mysterious, for materialists.
9. A intelligent mind is also immaterial. When you understand that "I, the proprietor of the body, I am different from this body," then you will understand God also, very easily. Because you are the proprietor of this body, and you are given the controlling power of the body by thinking, feeling, willing, by acting. You have your body. You are sitting. You can say, "Now I am going away." The body is under your control. You can do that. Similarly, when you understand this fully, then you'll understand that in this huge, gigantic body, material cosmic manifestation, there is also an immaterial proprietor and controller, easily. God is not different in quality than you. God means like you in huge, unlimited quantity. As you have got little intelligence—you can create a wonderful thing, Boeing 747 airplane flying in the air—so God has got unlimited brain. The process is the same. You are teeny. You are very much proud that "I am so advanced that I have manufactured the 747." Now compare with the intelligence of God? Such a huge lump of matter, the sun, is floating also there. That is the difference between you and God. You have got brain, He has got brain, but your the brain is very teeny, little, and His brain very big. That is difference between you and God. So if you understand yourself, sample of God, then you understand the Supreme God.
10a. Consciousness and God both consist of the same immaterial kind of being (from 8 and 9). Consciousness comes from a spark of the divine, the soul.
10b. God has not only the means to impart consciousness to us, but also the motive—namely, to allow us to enjoy a good life, and to make it possible for our choices to cause or prevent suffering in others, thereby allowing for morality and meaning.
11. God exists.
This is the word of the Lord concerning Israel. The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundations of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him…."
The mystery of how information is "coded." Scientists can SEE the human brain, can MEASURE electrical pulses traveling within the brain, etc., but how can this explain our thoughts? The article goes on to draw this comparison:
"The challenge is something like popping the cover off a computer, measuring a few transistors chattering between high and low voltage, and trying to guess the content of the Web page being surfed." 1
Science has no idea how memories are stored and retrieved in the human brain:
"Memory retrieval is even more mysterious than storage…there is no good theory to explain how memory retrieval can happen so quickly." 2
–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Planck, who founded quantum theory, and who is therefore one of the most important physicists of all time.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
the origin of consciousness is a big problem for evolution. Richard Gregory, evolutionist and professor of neuropsychology and director of the brain and perception laboratory at the University of Bristol in England, explained a major dilemma: 3
Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effect—if consciousness is not a causal agent—then it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete.— Richard Gregory, evolutionist and professor of neuropsychology.
‘If the brain was developed by Natural Selection, we might well suppose that consciousness has survival value. But for this it must, surely, have causal effects. But what effects could awareness, or consciousness, have?
‘Why, then, do we need consciousness? What does consciousness have that the neural signals (and physical brain activity) do not have? Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effect—if consciousness is not a causal agent—then it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. Worse, we are on this alternative stuck with mentalistic explanations, which seem outside science.’
Douglas Graham Atheists have a black hole on consciousness until the brain developed sufficiently to create it. Another lie. How is it a lie? Imagine unconscious beings existing successfully until their brains developed sufficiently to create consciousness. What can an unconscious being do for themselves? Nothing. Atheists are hungry for something they can feel a sense of belonging. The only thing in nature they mirror is darkness.
What is consciousness? A scientist’s perspective. 4
We all know what consciousness is. We can tell when we’re awake, when we’re thinking, when we’re pondering the universe, but can anyone really explain the nature of this perception? Or even what separates conscious thought from subconscious thought?
What is consciousness?
Imagine the difference between the image of an apple to your brain and a digital camera. The raw image is the same whether on a camera screen or in your head. The camera treats each pixel independently and doesn’t recognise an object. Your brain, however, will combine parts of the image to identify an object, that it is an apple and that it is food. Here, the camera can be seen as ‘unconscious’ and the brain as ‘conscious’.
A human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons whereas a mouse brain contains only 75 million (over a thousand times less). A person might then argue that it is because our brains are bigger and contain more nerve cells that we can form more complex thoughts. While this may hold to a certain extent, it still doesn’t really explain how consciousness arises.
If you cut off a bit of your cerebellum (don’t try this at home) then you may walk a bit lopsided, but you would still be able to form conscious thoughts. If however, you decided to cut off a bit of your cortex, the outer-most folds of the brain, your conscious thought would be severely diminished and your life drastically impacted. So it seems that the number of brain cells we have doesn’t necessarily relate to conscious thought.
A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events. 5
How can consciousness have evolved if it serves no purpose? 6
And there's another huge contradiction in the scientific community. Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will. Yet, at the same time, they claim this false "mind" has no actual impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.
So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?
This is a stinging contradiction demonstrating the false beliefs of the materialists (i.e. mainstream scientists). Given enough time and effort, I could name a hundred more obvious contradictions they shamelessly promote as "facts."
The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the "hard problem." It is hard because it defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, the experience of redness is not accounted for. 7
Last edited by Admin on Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:23 am; edited 10 times in total