What reaction do you have to any aspect of the information given in either paper?
"What is Consciousness? - An introduction"
"Mind -- The Gap"

Antony, thank you for your interesting papers. I find it intriguing that the mind is such a complex, powerful and multifaceted entity that the human mind more or less fails in its attempts to comprehend itself! Almost an unfathomable paradox!
Clearly, academia is puzzled and perplexed - perhaps even frustrated - in trying to find a form of understanding of the operation of our complex mental processes that makes them truly comprehensible.
Given that theologians would readily describe God as ' spirit ' ( that which is non-material) and possessing intelligence as well as intentionality (characteristics that we readily associate with mind, both human and divine) aren't the similarities between the creator and human beings such that here we have one of the most powerful forms of evidence for the existence of a creator?
While we must be very wary of a 'God of the gaps' argument ( science appears not to have a comprehensive answer so the cause must have been supernatural ) the materialist advocate must also beware of a similar form of philosophical category error: science of the gaps - the belief that one day science will explain all and will do so without having to refer in its ultimate explanations to a role for a creator. Isn't the concept of 'mind' as challenging to an atheist world view as the fine tuning of the universe? If so should it be more prominent in advocating a theistic worldview? I.M?

I think you are quite right Iain to link consciousness with the fact that we are made in the image of God......what a privilege that is!

As for the 'God of the gaps' issue; we do have to be careful not to fall into the trap of attributing to God anything we have not understood. However, although neuroscientists are making great strides in understanding brain functions, consciousness seems to be in a whole different non-material category. If you look at the latest research in neuroscience, there is nothing that approaches a theory of how we are conscious beings. It is what we do know about the mind, not what we do not know, that leads us to believe that we are not just physical.

It can be argued that there is no evolutionary reason for consciousness - we could just as well survive if we were unconscious; well adapted 'machines' but quite dark inside....It would be interesting to get other views on this!

Thanks for this paper! It's a great overview of the various problems and positions surrounding consciousness studies.

Few would deny that dualism - substance or property - is an intuitive position. It just doesn't seem that physical explanations are the *sort* of explanation that would best fit our rich inner lives and subjective experiences. And yet, there are reasons to question our intuitions regarding what science can or cannot explain. As Patricia Churchland has argued, "whether we can or cannot imagine a phenomenon being explained in a certain way is a psychological fact about us, not an objective fact about the nature of the phenomenon itself" (1997, "The Hornswaggle Problem"). Given that science has a historical track record of producing naturalistic explanations for seemingly inherently mysterious phenomena, is it wise to theologically depend on a nonphysicalist explanation of the mind?

Similarly, I find it fascinating that the science and theology discussion in particular has been so invested in nonreductive, nonphysical explanations for consciousness. That is, Christians have often found it necessary to believe in an immaterial mind or soul as the spiritual "seat" of the self. But what does this say about our theology? One could argue that the felt theological need for an immaterial mind betrays an implicit deism. That is, if you need to pinpoint the mind as uniquely nonphysical or uniquely spiritual, this might suggest that you're working with an insufficient understanding of God's immanence in the world. In other words - if God is active and immanently present to all of the natural, physical world, does it matter if there is a physicalist explanation for consciousness?

I smile at the heading "Grasping the Nettle". Danger of stinging ? Prefer the famous split infinitive - "To Boldly Go" !

I refer to a couple of sentences from paragraph 3 in the paper "What is consciousness - An introduction" : -

" It is so normal to be conscious that we tend to ignore the fact that it is an amazing and wonderful thing. We
take it for granted until we are asked to describe it."

Consciousness is indeed “an amazing and wonderful thing”. I believe the quoted phrase would still fall short even if it could be augmented ad infinitum; and I think that its secrets which presently lie beyond our understanding are about how brain deals with memory and communications; language.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy presents on Consciousness in admirably clear language and concludes that there is a way to go - likely a long way !

We are on a journey. There have been many changes (e.g. in knowledge); and surely more to come. I think that the scientists on the journey are better up-to-date than the theists ? I am sure that religion emerged for reasons having a sound base and that a substantial part of current practices and rituals (prayer, worship, preaching etc.) are 'good'. However, I wonder if the theists' nettle-grasping or boldly-going will, on the journey, enable a catching up with the scientists. Not in my lifetime, I think !

Many thanks Graeme for this. While I agree that neuroscience is making great and fascinating progress, I wonder if you know more than me about progress towards a scientific understanding of consciousness! I am not aware of any - apart from the correlation of certain areas of the brain with certain forms of thought (particularly with Fmri scans). So far there is no scientific understanding whatsoever of how consciousness arises.

Now this may be because we simply do not know enough - and I am cautious about assuming there is something non-material in that gap of knowledge. However there are some good philosophic reasons, which are discussed in this forum, why science will never get to grips with consciousness.

Hello Antony. On the one hand, you “agree that neuroscience is making great and fascinating progress”. Yet, on the other hand, you say “there is no scientific understanding whatsoever of how consciousness arises”. Perhaps you unfairly dismiss the available knowledge about neural interconnections / circuits and the enormous number of these at the brain’s disposal ? I’m sure that neuroscience’s observations have progressed beyond merely “areas” of the brain.

I refer to the concluding paragraph of your paper “Mind - the Gap” : -

- - The mind is still very much an enigma. Are we machines and nothing more? Or are we willing to
accept, with Descartes, that the mind is something quite different? How we see the human race
and ourselves as persons critically depends on these questions. - -

I’m entirely on your side with the first sentence. Re the second, surely we are not machines ? ; and, yes, surely “brain” and “mind” are mutually distinct - but I’m unsure about “something quite different” ! Finally, I wonder why you make no reference to creatures other than the human race. There’s lots of brains out there. Might chimps be persons with minds. Do they have a soul ? What about ants ?

Hi Graeme. I do completely agree with you that neuroscience has begun to trace the connections and pathways down to individual neurons in some cases and I have been too broad in my description of 'areas'. I also agree that there is much more knowledge now about memory, hearing, language, vision and other aspects of brain function. Some neuroscientists and philosophers believe that eventually this will lead to actually working out how consciousness arises (they are probably a minority). However, my point is that up to now there is no sign of this at all. Understanding more about various functions of the brain and their connections has not shed any light (yet) on consciousness. It is worth reflecting on the fact that all these functions could theoretically work without consciousness.

I would welcome any comments in the forum about the way neuroscience is developing and whether you agree with me that understanding consciousness neurologically seems as far away as it did 100 years ago. The forum is not about persuading you of my opinions.

As for animals; at least the higher ones, I and others would be quite open to consciousness of sorts being present in them also. I do not think this undermines our own distinctiveness as being made uniquely in the image of God and able to have relationship with him. Do they also have souls? That is probably beyond this discussion but is interesting! Comments please.

Hello again Antony. The internet now provides access to a large amount of material about consciousness. What I have read of this persuades me that the nature or experience of consciousness is largely understood. What seems still to be beyond our grasp is how does the brain do it ? How can consciousness can be described and defined with reference to sensory management (hearing, vision, touch, etc.), memory management (distributed capture, recall, reconstruction etc.) and communication (internal, external); to say nothing of the complexities of language ! ? But the fact that I can express the situation (as I see it) in these terms does, I feel, suggest that our knowledge is not so lacking as you claim. My belief is that consciousness is entirely physical - that it is the result of all the brain functions working together (MIND ?). Natural, not supernatural.

Re animals, it does seem to me that the distinction between them and humans is less now than it was before Darwin ?

Re “soul”, I wonder if it would be fair to use an algebraic-type expression - [SOUL = BRAIN + MIND] - and is unique for each individual.

Many thanks Graeme for continuing this very important conversation. The terms you use concerning brain function are indeed being rather wonderfully researched and more and more is being discovered. However not one of those functions of the brain is a description, even remotely, of consciousness. This is not to say that sensory processing, memory and language are not linked to consciousness - but they are not consciousness, nor anything like consciousness. In fact all these functions could be part of an artificial intelligence or computer. Some advanced computers/robots are getting somewhere near reproducing many of these functions. That does not make them conscious - in fact they are not conscious.

If you look at any of the latest papers in neuroscientific literature, you will not find one sentence that begins to explain consciousness. I ask any of the observers and contributors on the forum to challenge that statement.

Yes, it is often believed, fervently, that the physical brain is the complete cause of consciousness; it seems somehow to follow the general scientific endeavor of finding out about our world; and science has been very successful. It seems reasonable! However belief is not enough.

This is not merely an argument from ignorance,(a God of the gaps sort of mysticism). There are good reasons why science can never discover how consciousness arises - reasons which have been discussed elsewhere and are to do with the very nature of conscious experience and free-will.

Hello Antony. First, I must refer to a bad failing on my part. I did not notice an error in the fifth sentence of my submission (Posting No. 8) - namely the incorrect inclusion of the word “can” (second occurrence) where it should not be. Unfortunately, this tends to give the sentence meaning opposite to that intended. My humble apologies. The sentence should read : -

“How can consciousness be described and defined with reference to sensory management . . . . . etc”

So, I do agree with you that none of the mentioned brain functions describes consciousness. Neither does any of these functions explain consciousness. Science just doesn’t figure how it’s done !

However, it remains that the nature and experience of consciousness is largely understood.

I have a feeling, from the strongly positive tone you convey, that I should now declare myself ‘out’. Although I am a member of the Christian Church, perhaps the nettles here are too well established to be grasped without getting stung !

Thank you for the conversation.

Dear Graeme. Many thanks for your gracious reply and forgive me for being too opinionated. I need to be chairing the discussion and not pontificating. I would be sad if you felt in any way excluded from the discussion. Your points are very valid and held by many Christians...all opinions are respected.