Home Discussion Forum Is consciousness nothing more than a series of complicated chemical reactions?

Is consciousness nothing more than a series of complicated chemical reactions?

can we create consciousness where there is none?


  1. probably, but then so is everything else, just saying ‘complicated chemical reaction’ is like saying, ‘we really don’t have a clue’

  2. I think the possibility can not be ruled out, although I prefer to believe that I am much more than the result of mere chemical reactions or merely a complex combination of matter and energy. If it is proved that the saying “we have risen from dust to return to dust” is literally true, my self-esteem will take such a knock that I would perhaps commit suicide!!

  3. Consciousness means having sensory perception and reception and a body or organ with which to insert those observances and experiences.
    So sure, it’s a bunch of chemical and organic interactions, but I don’t think it’s complicated.

  4. No.
    Consciousness is our SUBJECTIVE view of the RESULT of chemical reactions.
    The meat computer’s calculations about itself, to put it another way.

  5. The reason this is a difficult question is because consciousness in itself is the precondition for us knowing about the biochemical reactions. Everything takes place within consciousness, so it creates a puzzle for us to believe that one tiny little aspect of the infinite material world is responsible for us knowing all the rest, including itself.
    The materialist would say that this is in fact the case: of all the physical formations that we can experience, these particular biochemical reactions are the key to the rest. We could, however, also claim with as much justification that there is the possibility of a pure content-free awareness which exists independent of the chemistry. Those particular reactions are then the precondition and cause for the content of consciousness – the world looking like *this* rather than like *that* – and that altering the molecules changes the plot or colour of the movie, but cannot switch off the projector.
    I suspect that whichever of these two accounts is favoured, is a matter of personal and emotional opinion rather than something which can be conclusively decided by thought. Certainly, we are nowhere near creating consciousness yet – both accounts remain at the hypothetical stage.

  6. It is a series of complicated bio-physical (including chemical) reactions====about which we are conscious, and through reason have control of.
    It’s not supernatural. It dies with the body. It is just bio-physical. It can’t exist without a body that has at least the sense of touch, and it would be best to lose the other 4 after it becomes fully conscious. If born with no senses, it would die because it couldn’t eat.
    We cannot create consciousness where there is none, but to understand why I would refer you to Objectivist epistemology.

  7. if consciousness was the result of a chemical reaction, does that mean you could “brew” it in a petri dish or test tube?
    my theory is that a person’s spirit is what causes consciousness, and a spirit is not composed of energy, rather, it is composed of matter. not the kind of matter that is made of protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, and negatrons. this kind of matter is a unique combination of quarks, that compose a different kind of subatomic particle, which interacts with different types of common matter to create consciousness and even memory.
    in other words, “spirit matter.”
    when you take away a person’s physical body, they are left with a spirit composed of a type of matter that is so fine that it can easily move through the empty space of atoms.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here