Consciousness is a Biological Problem

That's right, identity isn't reducible to a structure or a side. Also keep in mind that the corpus callosum isn't the only commisure between the hemispheres -- the thalamus also serves to connect the two sides.

So what does that indicate? Its not as well defined as you would like it to be. If you cant point to a specific area then it might just be ethereal.

Well, if you think that it is ethereal, you certainly have to concede that it has some interface with the corporeal. What does ethereal mean to you? Non physical? What does that mean? Merriam Webster defines Physical thusly:2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance - Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things, would you agree that this is the opposite of what you meant when you said ethereal?

If so, the mind is not of or relating to material things, it thus requires us to conjure up a medium of interaction between the 'ethereal' and the physical; but certainly what you would call a mind relates to material things? Otherwise it has no agency and you have to resort to epiphenomena, which are not very parsimonious. Do you agree that the 'mind' has no bearing on the body, or do you think that there is some substance that facilitates the connection between mind and body? Is there a third option here that you wish to express?

If not, please clarify what you mean by ethereal.

These thoughts have been expressed on many occassions. Do thoughts originate withing the living brain or are they expressions of an entity that uses the body as its medium. Men of science look intently at the brain and believe they can fathom its workings but all they see is a reflection of themselves.

Can we dismiss the possibility that we are only transient beings occupying a body for its life span and then moving on to new pastures.I have no proof but lets make it clear science has no more proof of its claims than my musing.

Can we dismiss the possibility that we are only transient beings occupying a body for its life span and then moving on to new pastures.I have no proof but lets make it clear science has no more proof of its claims than my musing.

are we wheeling out the ad hominem now

These thoughts have been expressed on many occassions. Do thoughts originate withing the living brain or are they expressions of an entity that uses the body as its medium. Men of science look intently at the brain and believe they can fathom its workings but all they see is a reflection of themselves.

Can we dismiss the possibility that we are only transient beings occupying a body for its life span and then moving on to new pastures.I have no proof but lets make it clear science has no more proof of its claims than my musing.

The 'hard' Sciences looks at physical evidence making Hypthosesis which can then be tested through empirical observation and either confirmed or refuted. Science depends on evidence, it's what makes it Science and not metaphysics. You make a massive misrepresentation of Science.

There can obviously be disagreements within Science, especially in a field such as the Human mind which also requires conceptual analysis, but researchers go on to look for more evidence which will either confirm or refute the hypothesis they set out.

'the possibility that we are only transient beings occupying a body for its life span and then moving on to new pastures.' Is a statement which can not be falisfied in anyway, which is what Popper proposed as the demarcation between Science & Metaphysics

Well its more imaginative than your electrochemical somewhere existance that you propose with little regard to proof.I have the circumstantial evidence of millions of souls who can confirm by personal experience that we are more than flesh and blood.

Let us not also forget that the hard problem of consciousness is not settled. It may or may not ever be fully settled. It seems to me likely that it could be, but the issue still remains.

I have the circumstantial evidence of millions of souls who can confirm by personal experience that we are more than flesh and blood.

The question is whether or not you think that this origin of thought is physical. If it is physical, then you have a legitimate and testable scientific theory that can tell us something about how consciousness works, if not, your position cannot ever gain any support from the empirical and thus would necessarily be on less firm ground than the scientific attempts. It could be that there is a 'medium of thought' and the brain 'picks it up'; that seems as though it could potentially be verifiable, so it is valid until the situation is shown to be otherwise. You might like to look at Chalmer's assertions.

Let us not also forget that the hard problem of consciousness is not settled. It may or may not ever be fully settled. It seems to me likely that it could be, but the issue still remains.

There are millions of people that have asserted that we are no more than flesh and blood! Just as you have asserted that your more than flesh and blood! It's not going to get us anywhere!

Take for example when many believed the World were certain that the world was flat. This believe was taken very seriously by people. Sailors were even concerned that they might fall of the edge of the world. And personal experience seems to confirm that the world is indeed the spherical nature of the world is only observable over considerable distances. But the believe that the 'World was flat' (a believe that was held almost universally in some communites) had no bearing on the fact of the matter.

yeah

no one is claiming that science knows everything

otherwise it would stop

So whats your claim and what is your proof. Science observes it does not conclude, unlike you.

I'm pretty sure science figured out that the Earth isn't perfectly round too

what with the acceleration from gravity differing over the Earth

as well as the fact that it is basically round (thanks to Eratosthenes)

it has a better track record than "*POOF* goddidit" at any rate

---------- Post added 08-17-2009 at 04:47 PM ----------



yes it does

its conclusions are called "theories"

I don't think the soul is going to become a cornerstone of science now or any time in the future buddy

unless you can test for it somehow