• s_s
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Consciousness fits most definitions of supernatural and it’s a profoundly human mistake to try to externalize it.

    • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If consciousness was supernatural (above or outside the natural world) then brain damage would not affect consciousness.

      This is not what we observe. Personalities drastically change due to strokes or dementia, with a common descriptor being that their loved ones “don’t recognize” them or that they “aren’t the same person”. The classic example of personality change is Phineas Gage, who became extremely hostile and impulsive after suffering severe brain damage.

      • s_s
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If consciousness was supernatural (above or outside the natural world) then brain damage would not affect consciousness.

        You’re doing a great job of consciously rationalizing this.

        • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no rationalization necessary. In my profession (neurology professor) I encounter this type of situation on a regular basis.

    • ThePac@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Consciousness fits most definitions of supernatural

      No. In fact it quite strongly fits within the definiton of natural as we can plainly see it in our natural world and be affected by natural processes.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only thing i can’t wrap my head around is how did a bunch of random inanimate materials manage to coalesce in such a way that eventually led to complex organisms that have a consciousness. Doesn’t mean I believe in god because there’s no evidence but it’s a very WTF thing to me that I don’t like thinking about too hard.

        • ThePac@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those are two things; evolution and abiogenesis. We have evolution well sorted, to the point where our entire understanding and implementation of biological science depends on it.

          Abiogenesis is not as well fleshed out, but we are miles ahead on it now than we were even 20 years ago. Do we have a strict, proven explanation and timeline? No, not yet. Do we have nothing? Not even close. Is it worth throwing our hands up and going “I don’t know, therefore god”? I don’t think so.

          I think you’ll find that most believers of intelligent design and a God being don’t think about it too hard. Obviously there are plenty of apologists in the world whos job it is to discuss and debate this stuff, but they are the faaaaar minority and most have a financial stake in the matter.

          For evolution take a look at Gutsick Gibbon on youtube and for abiogensis look up Forrest Valkai. They’re both incredible educators.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Abiogenesis is the part that stresses me out. It doesn’t make me believe in God though. Sorry if my comment came across that way. I’m just not smart enough or there’s not enough information available when I tried reading about it last time.