2
   

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

 
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:26 am
@xris,
xris;82458 wrote:
The repitative scientific knowledge of the brains functions that you post is very interesting and concludes that certain functions of the brain are very well understood.What i dispute is the notion that everything is known.Consciousness by consensus of scientific knowledge has not been found to be in any one part of the brain.
You will not accept any circumstantial evidence that finds the individuals experiences relevant and however much you explain the workings of the brain, i can not accept i am just an electro chemical jelly.Now whose right?


Before moving on, I'd like to respond to your concern again, xris. We do have a history that some others may (or may not) be aware of, and for that reason I know exactly why you have written what you have written in this quote, above. Xris, I have answered to your concerns in the past, have you forgotten that? I will lay them out here again, just in case, however:

[indent]
xris wrote:
What i dispute is the notion that everything is known
I would likewise, equally dispute any such notion, if such were to be put forward.

xris wrote:
Consciousness by consensus of scientific knowledge has not been found to be in any one part of the brain.
This is very true (when meant as in a single structure holding the total of what can be termed consciousness), so I see no reason, really, to state it again. (and of course I have stated as much in the past, so . . . )

xris wrote:
You will not accept any circumstantial evidence that finds the individuals experiences relevant . . .
I am aware of the experience you have spoken of in the past, and assume, here, that you are pointing to the same one . . . the one which has led you to take a human as having a soul, which is the mental life (thus consciousness element), and which survives the decay of the physical body including the brain (as Alan McDougall had also been arguing).

Experiences of the individual brain, will be shown to need to that individual brain. Even though the H. sapien brain build is very largely similar in so many ways (and when I say build I am focusing on anatomy, and physiology in their largest terms), just as an average breed of Felis sylvestris catus brain build is very largely similar in so many ways (or any species (breed) for that matter), an individual cannot be another individual. In other words, if I have never had an OBE, I have never had one.

That said, xris, it is exactly for the same reason spelled out above about brain build similarity, that we can come to a quite fair understanding of what gives rise to experiences acknowleged (cognized) by a brain build. For that reason, the first level of inquiry will demand that we first look at the brain; because of the empirical knowledge that has been accumulated has set other explanations on the side, already. (this is to say that the total, averaged evidence points toward the brain as being as much of a biological entity as the rest of the body, as all animals (and so on), and, that what it does, as being because of its being an entity--therefore decomposition of the entity, leaves nothing of that intact entity's processing and build)

A woman experiencing pregnancy via a condition called pseudocyesis, will really, really experience as though she were pregnant, and some physical results caused by the brain will even be found. The woman, however, regardless of how 'real' the experience is, is never pregnante in such cases. A person presented with Capgras syndrome will experience a certain way towards certain people who they have otherwise always known (for example a spouse, a parent, etc.) as being a stranger, an imposter. Of course, that experience is simply in the brain--as all inner experiences are.

Therefore, as I have presented to you before, what you (and Alan) experienced, you experienced. . . internally. . . and it is clear enough that simply having had such an experience, like having had that dream, does not make that any external reality.

You may not accept (in the sense of 'agree with' or 'approve of')my response, xris, but at least I do hope you make an effort to fully understand it, keep it on record somewhere, and let it be (without having the emotion to raise these points again).[/indent]
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:33 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;82968 wrote:
... and I think that is as much a consequence of our lack of understanding of what experience is, as anything else ... if experience can be demystified (as life and intelligence have been before it), I don't expect that the issue of relating it back to the physical world will look nearly so unachievable ...
Has anyone actually decided what consciousness is yet? I understand emotions are not defined as consciousness, no more than hunger.Why does my memory switch of in my dreams?Why do those who are reported to be brain dead have conscious memories?Why cant my dog look at the stars?Till we understand what we are looking for we have no chance of finding it.It could be like the rainbow and the pot of gold.
Kj i have just read your post,thanks for the reply.I fully understand any ones point of view, on anothers experience.I to am reluctant to even consider others experiences as relevant to a debate.I cant ignore them as i beleve them to be significant.If they had happened once or twice i could be generous with dismissing them but over the years they have haunted my life.I dont expect you to believe them or accept them as relevant only to understand why i oppose the notion that consciousness is not ethereal.I am open to persuasion but i will defend my view for as long as it takes to prove otherwise.
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 10:56 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;82968 wrote:
... and I think that is as much a consequence of our lack of understanding of what experience is, as anything else ... if experience can be demystified (as life and intelligence have been before it), I don't expect that the issue of relating it back to the physical world will look nearly so unachievable ...


I don't think so. There is a difference between life and intelligence, which indeed have been explained in terms of physical processess, and experience. Life and intelligence can be approached objectively, 'from the outside' if you will. Experience is purely subjective.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 02:29 pm
@Kielicious,
Well idk fMRI and stuff might change that
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 03:58 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;83007 wrote:
I don't think so. There is a difference between life and intelligence, which indeed have been explained in terms of physical processess, and experience. Life and intelligence can be approached objectively, 'from the outside' if you will. Experience is purely subjective.


... in mathematics, there are several kind of proof ... one is a direct proof, where you begin with a set of axioms and definitions and push symbols around until you have proved what it is you set out to prove - e.g., "1 + red = good" or "1 + chess = smart" ... there is another kind of proof though: proof by construction ... where you go out and construct what it is you set out to prove ... the advance in the understanding of intelligence has largely been an analog of the mathematical proof by construction - most of the initial constructions were abject failures; more recent ones have been more successful and have made us reconsider what intelligence really is (it ain't chess!) ... I can see your point that a traditional reductive science that tries to capture experience in an equation has little chance of success here - understanding what emerges when things go together is simply not what reductive science is good at ... I would argue that the more recent constructive dynamics-oriented sciences stand a much better chance of advancing our understanding of experience (even if it's nothing more than a series of flops that tell us what experience isn't Smile) ...
0 Replies
 
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 04:58 pm
@Kielicious,
The main difference between the mind and the brain is of course the fact that the mind is not a physical thing of matter.

The mind is thought process which can by choice deliberately act contrary to what the brain is telling us. Where do you think the female comes from?
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:40 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;83494 wrote:
Where do you think the female comes from?


... hmmmm - that ought'a take this conversation in a whole new direction! :bigsmile:
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 05:34 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;83513 wrote:
... hmmmm - that ought'a take this conversation in a whole new direction! :bigsmile:


lol I am counting on it!
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 06:59 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;83494 wrote:
The mind is thought process which can by choice deliberately act contrary to what the brain is telling us


How do you know?

There's quite some evidence that suggests free will is illusory

Pathfinder;83494 wrote:
Where do you think the female comes from?


Not everyone is hardwired to sell themselves into slavery

Off-topic anyway
0 Replies
 
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 09:59 am
@Kielicious,
oden,

u ever see a guy stick his hand into a flame and hold it there even though the brain is screaming run, pain, idiot
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 10:08 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;83578 wrote:
oden,

u ever see a guy stick his hand into a flame and hold it there even though the brain is screaming run, pain, idiot


http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/USPics2/71756.jpg

People are stupid

I don't see what any of this has to do with our apparent lack of free will
0 Replies
 
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 05:14 am
@Kielicious,
You said in your previous post that you viewed free will as ILLUSORY which was your response to my having said that we do not always do what the brain is telling us to do which gives me reason to believe that the brain and the mind are separate entities.

I responded to your illusory statement with the hand in the fire scenario.

What don't you see about this that relates to what you said about free will being illusory.

Is a man applying free will when he acts contrary to normal pain reaction? Im pretty sure that the guy in your picture isnt having a BBQ mishap!
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 06:01 am
@Kielicious,
According to Madame Nhu he was

But that's not the point

There is no such thing as "not listening to what your brain is telling you to do"

It's ALL your brain

Hence what I said about free will being illusory
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 06:27 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;83724 wrote:
According to Madame Nhu he was

But that's not the point

There is no such thing as "not listening to what your brain is telling you to do"

It's ALL your brain

Hence what I said about free will being illusory
Sorry but that appears a little strange. Your free will, your brain are both the same thing. You are actually saying your brain stops you having free will,so no brain allows free will..:perplexed: thats making a lot of assumptions.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 06:57 am
@xris,
xris;83726 wrote:
Sorry but that appears a little strange. Your free will, your brain are both the same thing. You are actually saying your brain stops you having free will,so no brain allows free will..:perplexed: thats making a lot of assumptions.


No that is not what I'm saying

I'm saying that free will probably does not exist

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html

I don't get all these people who think their arguments are more brilliant than the collected findings of neuroscience. If they really were, they'd presumably be preparing their Nobel prize acceptance speech rather than holding a pissing match with me over it on an Internet forum
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 07:06 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;83735 wrote:
No that is not what I'm saying

I'm saying that free will probably does not exist

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html

I don't get all these people who think their arguments are more brilliant than the collected findings of neuroscience. If they really were, they'd presumably be preparing their Nobel prize acceptance speech rather than holding a pissing match with me over it on an Internet forum
I know all the arguments all the proposed objections and in reality it comes down to the one fact again, we dont know. One debate follows another and we are all entrenched in our points of view, unable to convince the other. Just give up and admit im right..
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 07:17 am
@Kielicious,
Nah I don't think so

The growing consensus (among knowledgeable persons) is that we probably really don't have free will
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 07:30 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;83741 wrote:
Nah I don't think so

The growing consensus (among knowledgeable persons) is that we probably really don't have free will
Knowledge is more than education and less than belief. Growing, indicates its not yet formed.
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 07:33 am
@Kielicious,
But yeah anyway regardless we probably don't have free will because the processes of the mind are deterministic
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 07:37 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;83745 wrote:
But yeah anyway regardless we probably don't have free will because the processes of the mind are deterministic
Probably aint determined enough.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 02:07:40