TED Conversations

Rafael Perez

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?

as in the genome is found that all nature comes from the same organism (LUCA) is it possible that what is inside us may be acquired from other elements of nature, and it is disturbing that the neurones connectors have an important similitude in chemical composition of psilocybin, is it possible that generations of psilocibin use have generated these connections as we know them? is it consciousness a brain chemical reaction??


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 23 2011: The answer must be "Yes" for someone who rejects the existence of the supernatural. They must say that consciousnes is caused by chemical processes.
    For someone who believes natural law cannot explain life, being, consciousness, etc. the answer must be "No". They must say that chemical processes are an effect of a supernatural cause.
    • Jan 2 2012: A distinction like "supernatural" really has very little use in science. We all know a lot, and know that there still a vast number of things we DON'T know. That doesn't require that we have to assume Causality by chemical processes. In fact, its a very good bet that Consciousness is not caused by ANYTHING: would you say that Electricity is "caused" by something? I doubt you would. In other words, as a process, yes, but as to its existence, no.
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2012: Excuse me, but a distinction like "supernatural" does not have "very little use in science" as you say. . . .It has absolutely no use in science!
        Either consciousness is chemistry, or it is not. If it is not then either: 1) it is uncaused (violating the law of causality), or 2) it is an effect of a cause which is not observable in the natural realm.
        Is electricity caused you ask? Yes, The Law of Causality has not been repealed. Thanks Shawn.
        • Jan 3 2012: hi, edward, what i think is that if we can scatter seeds of life that be able to replicate to find an environment and have the ability to form a conscious being to replicate then we realized that we are eternal, the most probable is that we will not see as the salmon, but we will have fulfilled our passion... what you think ed??
        • Jan 5 2012: Edward : I agree with you that "supernatural" is a useless term , meaning, really, things we don't understand yet.
          But "Consciousness Is either Chemistry " or not? I have never heard of any Law of
          Causality" in the sense that you are using it, except in Theology , where it was used to attempt a proof of the existence of "God". As such, what it actually becomes is in the form of an Axiom : assumed as basic, but not having the ability, or the need, to be "proved" itself. Right out of Euclidean Geometry. Useful, but maybe not absolutely necessary.
          I'm assuming, as I believe sciences still do, the basic terms of the discussion are going to be energy, waves, cycles, and correlations. with a big helping of constructed Theories to make sense of it all. "Chemistry" is not basic at all, since the components of the Periodic Table are no longer the "atoms" they once were considered to be , and Causality is more a Rule of Thumb than a "Law". I'm merely assuming , for the sake of theorizing, that Consciousness is going to turn out to be a more basic element than Westerners usually do; we are still hung up on this idea of a Newtonian particle Universe, which leads to a lot of confusion.
        • thumb
          Jan 11 2012: Causality is a metaphysical theory which has not been proved or disproved. It ties in with the concept of determinism versus chaos theory. According to the standard model there is a range of certainty that can be achieved when making predictions due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal therefore stating the universe is less than deterministic but not completely chaotic on the average.
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2012: Edward, the most amazing thing is that people who believe in the supernatural are not willing to reconsider, while the majority of people who don't tend to continuously accept that they are learning something new. What makes someone believe that there is a supernatural phenomenon? As they experience that arrogance in their brain, it clearly is an illusion of that brain because without it they would not even be talking about it or communicating.

      Scientist talk about theory despite some plausibility, while supernaturalists who have not done anything to add to human knowledge are certain that they know it all. Absolutely amazing, or what else is the explanation?
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2012: Sorry Max, I am not familiar with the term "supernaturalist." If by it you mean someone who rejects,denies, and opposes natural science, I am not that, and I don't know anyone who would be so arrogant, as you say. Science has taught us everything we know about the observable world around us. The scientific method is one of man's most beneficial tools.
        Your logic has a Fallacy of Composition. You claim that what is true of some ("are unwilling to reconsider') is true of all (who believe in the supernatural). I believe in the supernatural and I spend much of my time reconsidering what I believe. If I discover an error in my treasury of truth, I discard it.
        I guess your questions about the supernatural are rhetorical, but if you do want answers you will need to look beyond the natural, observable world. Science cannot, and should not try to, explain the supernatural. Be cool, Max, allow for the possibility that you are wrong about the supernatural, be willing to reconsider. Thanks.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2012: Edward, thanks for the reply. I think it is quite obvious what is meant by a 'supernaturalist' and they come in many flavours. I have no problem with such opinion as long as they have no problem with mine.

          I have made no such assertion that something would apply to everyone but yes, I did not explicitly allow for it. But I think there is little point in splitting hairs. My question was quite clear about the supernatural it is not fundamental because the supernatural only means that we have not yet a scientific explanation for it. I find a lot of plausibility in timeless actions at a distance in quantum physics, allowing many natural explanations for the supernatural. But the phenomenon as such are at a level that might stay out of reach of our certainty. It seems in fact that the essence of thus universe is about uncertainty. Many scientists take those thoughts as esoteric rubbish. That is their choice.

          if science can not explain the supernatural I wonder what means you use to 'look beyond'. If it is a purely mental exercise that can't be replicated it is an illusion of our brain that produces a huge amount of practical illusions each day. You treasury of truth is such an illusion. We know nothing. Exactly my point.

          So In everything I think and do I leave room for having a perception that is purely mine and possible not real and possibly not true at all. The supernatural would be inaccessible in this universe and thus not explainable but utterly irrelevant at the same time.

          A belief in the supernatural that is 'beyond science' is just that and nothing else. If science shouldn't look it means you want it to be mystical and unexplained for some personal reason. It would be pity to find out it is not supernatural.

          This is not meant as something personal. Just a discussion ... I would love to be convinced. So give it a try.
        • Jan 13 2012: the supernatural is a characteristic implemented in the genetics that for that purpose the human being development in the search for a spreading and evolving into life, is bigger than us, but easier than we can understand in our complexity

          lo sobrenatural es una caracteristica implantada en la genetica para que con ese fin el humano se desarrolle en la busqueda de un porque y evolucione hacia esparcir la vida, es mas grande que nosotros, pero mas sencillo de lo que podemos entender en nuestra complejidad

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.