Hard Problem of Consciousness: Irreducible Mind (Part 2)

There is no greater problem for materialists and physicalists that trying to explain how the brain could create consciousness. This video argues the hard problem implies the mind cannot reduce to matter.

Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:

Sources:

Donald Hoffman - The Case Against Reality

David Chalmers - The Conscious Mind

Jaegwon Kim - Philosophy of Mind

Frank Jackson - From Metaphysics to Ethics

J. P. Moreland - "Substance Dualism and the Unity of Consciousness" in The Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology

Robert Koons & George Bealer - The Waning of Materialism

Sam Harris clip taken from:

Colin McGinn - The Mysterious Flame

Daniel Dennett - Consciousness Explained

Andrei Linde - Universe, Life, Consciousness

[ArmorofTruth]

The hard problem of consciousness seems only to be a "hard problem" for materialists. Materialism is on the ropes.

[Ninjaguy-kdyp]

Take a shot everytime IP says "consciousness."

[hermann]

I can't help but feel that IP will be a renowned author. I can't wait for that to happen.

[anniebodyhome]

IP, thanks for speaking a bit more slowly. It was easier to follow your train of thought.

[hllgudbye]

You're a lifesaver bruv. I didn't think I'd be able to get an essay done on this topic but you not only have helped me understand the topic of my essay, but you have actually made it enjoyable and interesting to write so thank you. I absolutely dreaded it beforehand (hence why I left my assignment so late).

[danhudson]

Inmarterial things that exist:

Feelings

Emotions

Morality

If the Materialist says "It's an illusion", then they imply they believe in illusions, but illusions are also inmaterial, so materialism, the belief that only the material world exist is logically impossible.

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.

Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Some clarifications.

The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.

Marco Biagini

[vibrantphilosophy]

All I’ve got to say is that your arguments are easily the most convincing! Not just arguments covering this topic but every topic!

[msvvero]

I’m glad to see some apologists working on this topic. This elucidation was well done.

[maximusatlas]

This somewhat reminds me of the book called "Philosophy of the Mind" by Edward Feser. Its a great book and I highly recommend. Its a great book for anyone interested in Neuroscience or Philosophy of Science. Cool video by the way. Always a fan of the Philosophy of Science. Your animations are always easy to follow and make great reference points to keep track.

[jameskirk]

Very glad the YouTubers sent this my way. My background is applied math and computational neuroscience. I am a closet dualist based on some very strong paranormal events in my life. I found that in the world I work in with theoretical physics guys this area is of great interest. It is the psych students that just seem to have the skeptic block and when I talk with them it is clear how little actual deep neuroscience they understand.

[MonisticIdealism]

It's not that mind is more than matter, it's that matter is nothing more than mind.

[theconspiracyterrorist]

Consciousness freaks me out sometimes

It keeps be entertained when no one is around

Think and talk and come up with ideas

Write lyrics
Keep words
Memory

Its wierd

[Jesse_Scoccimarra]

This looks cool, can't wait. God bless you Inspiring Philosophy😀💓💓

[kimlala]

you know, Doctor Ravi Zakarias once said "You dont have a Soul, you ARE a Soul, you have a body."

[mariembuenaventura]

I've recently watch Mr. Eric Hernandez about the soul and both your contents are really hard to process as a layman myself but love to see more of this.

[rudig]

„Mind over matter“ 😍this is actually such a powerful thought!

[stevemattero]

I love that you reference every major thinker in the field: Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers, etc. Definitely did a ton of research for this

[mcawesomeytyo]

I am not a christian myself, but I am a fellow idelist and I enjoy these scientific and philosophical videos. Thank you so much IP. Im a big fan of your videos

[johnbuckner]

"Like trying to construct an eye out of colors" great metaphor.

Awesome analysis; totally agree.