This is a continuation of my previous topic concerning consciousness. I figured that I would start fresh with a new topic as to rekindle the debate from the very beginning. I basically want to talk about weather or not we have a soul that is a separate entity from the brain. Now, I want to use a discussion on consciousness in order to decide that because I think that consciousness is a component of the soul. Weather it is or not will be decided in the debate. If consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms a separate soul is most likely responsible for consciousness. The following is where I stand on the issue. It is my summarized theory of consciousness.
Consciousness is the medium by which people experience sensations, thoughts and perceptions. Each person has a separate consciousness. The consciousness is in essence the person himself or herself. No two people share a common observer or one who feels. If it were so, then one observer could experience the experiences of two people. Consciousness is a component of a non-physical soul. The soul is not made up of any thing material and therefore has no physical properties. The soul consists of both consciousness and free will. Free will cannot be the result of physical interactions because if it were so it would cease to be free will considering that everything that happens physically is mathematically predictable and therefore engraved on stone. Quantum mechanics follows a purely mathematical pattern that is beyond the comprehension of modern day people.
Consciousness does not occur in the physical world because consciousness is a component of a non-physical thing. Everything that happens in the physical world is explainable by the interactions of material constructs or things made of energy. All interactions between material constructs are spatial changes. So everything that happens is the result of energy moving. The motion of energy cannot be responsible for consciousness thus consciousness cannot be an emergent property of any physical process. Emergent properties such as objects having certain forms or behaving certain ways are possible, easily grasped, and easily explainable by special changes such as the physical interactions of elementary particles based on the four known spatial forces. All physical interactions are unified by one physical mechanism that everything consists of. This mechanism is purely spatial and therefore cannot account for consciousness.
The brain and the soul do not communicate because if they did communicate physically the soul would be a physical thing, however, the soul is not. The soul merely responds according to the state of the brain. If there is a high concentration of electrical activity or excitation of nerves it is possible that the soul will become conscious of the sensations, thoughts, or perceptions pertaining to the corresponding faculties in the brain.
The soul on its own cannot understand nor be conscious. It is the union between the soul and the brain that is responsible for conscious understanding, thought, perception, and sensation.
Everything processed by the brain is physical and in the end remains physical. Therefore it cannot become understood. It can however, be interpreted, but this interpretation is merely an alternative physical arrangement. Arrangements do not carry meaning. Arrangements carry representations of meaning, which are understood by the union of the soul and the brain. Therefore, physical arrangements on their own mean nothing but it is still technically correct to say that they convey meaning. They simply are not meaningful without something conscious to create meaning out of the representations of meaning. Meaning can only be extracted out of arrangements if conscious beings understand the language by which the arrangements are arranged.
All physical theories concerning consciousness are nothing but surmises in that there is no actual proof that the physical interactions the theories describe cause consciousness because they rely on relationships between physical interactions and conscious states. Relationships do not proof direct cause. For instance, there is a relationship between four and one, which is subtract three but this does not proof that one is a direct result of four.
Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.
Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2