First off Skinwalker let me say you've raised some good points I haven't seen other atheists raise. My refutations below.
All evidence points to the notion that consciousness is dependent upon the brain.
I have never said that there is no connection between mind and brain. BUt how do we know the inverse of the above equation is not the actual case: the brain is dependent upon consciousness. Consciousness certainly doesn't seem to me to be a physical thing - it has no physical characteristics and can't be measured. How do we know that the consciousness isn't a phenomenon similar to energy?
Nearly every other part in the human body has been transplanted, removed, or rendered irrelevant at some point, however temporarily, and the consciousness of the individual remains.
Yes, there is a definite undeniable connection between mind and brain. What that connection is is anything but clear. To further complicate this people claim to have consciousness after death. We currently have no way of scientifically validating or falsifying this experience since it is part of subjective experience which has proven itself to be more or less resistant to direct scientific investigation (i.e., we don't have a consciousness-o-meter which can state whether a brain is conscious or not). The only way we know people dream is because we've all had that experience. I'm pointing out that there are subjective reports of consciousness after death.
Not to mention that there are data that support this which indicate that by stimulating or 'turning off' parts of the brain, consciousness is altered or impeded. Its very likely that the definition of "consciousness" is one that will need considerable refinement and revision as neuroscience increases its understanding of the human brain.
If science ever shows conclusively that consciousness is solely an emergent phenomenon of wholly physical properties I will believe it. As it stands now, the only way we know consciousness exists as a phenomenon in the universe is because we have direct experience of it and it appears not to have physical characteristics.
You might try reading some of the literature:
Tonon, Giulio (2004). . BMC Neuroscience, 5(42).
Seth,Anil K.; et al (2006). Theories and measures of consciousness: An extended framework Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(28): 10799–10804.
Both of these papers and many others go through and discuss a lot of evidence that consciousness is an emergent process of the brain. The latter is critical of the former, but they both acknowledge that evidence exists that demonstrates that the complexity of consciousness is a result of brain activity. If not the brain, what? The big toe? The heart which gets transplanted from time to time? The tonsils?
Here is the conclusion of the first paper:
"Undoubtedly, a full understanding of how the brain generates human consciousness remains a formidable task. However, if experimental investigations can be complemented by a principled theoretical approach, it may not lay beyond the reach of science." There is actually no evidence here. They are trying to point in the direction of how to begin doing actual testing that may produce evidence. But, there is no actual evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. Remember, I'm not arguing that its absolutely impossible that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, I'm pointing out that when people believe that it is they are believing something that has no actual evidence backing it up. They are believing it on faith. Materialism of the gaps.
This is an argument from ignorance. Not a single biologist or neuroscientist has ever argued that magic is involved in either abiogenesis or consciousness. Rational hypotheses do exist, whether or not you choose to acknowledge or educate yourself on them.
Without actual evidence when a scientist positively asserts that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that sounds alot like them saying "it just happens." Thats not how science works. Your right that the first paper does have a theory of how this might happen but there is no actual evidence or any idea at this time how to actually test it. At best its in the camp with string theory.
Might explain alot, but without an actual way of testing the theory it isn't science.
No. It isn't. Evidence is improving for both of these fields and the researchers within them each acknowledge that their favorite hypotheses may, indeed, be wrong.
THere is no actual evidence. They have hypotheses which are actually at this time untestable.
Some of them, in fact, hope they're wrong and that others will provide new data.
If at some time in the future they produce actual evidence I will of course not argue this point. But, one of my points is that it is a form of dogmatism for scientists to assert things as accepted facts without evidence.
This is not the case with those deluded by the superstitions of religion. There are no priests that acknowledge their god may not exist. There are no archbishops hoping that a theologian will come along to disprove their doctrines. The doctrines and mythically established dogma of religion is not open to debate, revision or improvement with new data. The hypocrisy, therefore, resides primarily with the religiously deluded who want the benefits of scientific discovery so long as it doesn't criticize or bring into question their own delusions. They want medical science to advance, but ignore the very facts of evolution that are smacking them in the face to obtain that advancement.
You will hear no argument from me on this concerning religous Fundamentalism. However, it is hypocritical for someone to believe that they are coming from a scientific stance when they say that consciuosness is an emergent phenomenon. Science is based on actual evidence. A hypothesis that can be and has been tested.
A statement which I've refuted above. Moreover, for "something to be science," it must be potentially falsifiable. Not just a testable hypothesis. Just because you are ignorant to the neuroscientific work being conducted on the concept of consciousness doesn't imply that science has nothing to say about it that is worthwhile. Nor does the fact that there is a very promising amount of neuroscience being done in the field of consciousness imply that science has it figured out. It doesn't. But scientists aren't dismayed by that (quite the opposite) and don't resort to arguments from ignorance by settling for: this can't be explained; thus it is explained by that. Saying, "I don't know" is not the same as saying "god did it."
I wouldn't be arguing my point at all if what I was actually hearing from scientists is "we don't know." Instead I seem to be hearing alot of positive assertions for that which there is no evidence.
The difference is monumental! With Attenborough, one at least has the option to test his word. With a priest, how is one to test the supernatural? With every objection, the goalpost will surely move.
I agree with you here. But, I find it very questionable that Attenborough has any actual evidence that Ants don't feel love. This sounds like pure dogma. And if Attenborough indeed has no actual evidence than are his positve assertions all that different from a priests?
Just out of curiosity, what is the ratio of the elephant brain to body mass? Is it higher or lower than that of the human brain? I honestly don't know the answer off the top of my head, but the answer may be important to your assumption here.
You would have to look at the point I was arguing. Kenny stated something to the effect that ants can't have emotions because their brains are too small.
. and theory now means fact supported by proof.