Consciousness is a Biological Problem

I remember dropping my TV set. Totally destroyed it and I was no longer able to see the picture. Now, if the picture was not rooted in the TV, then I would not expect these changes to happen.

But, of course, we all know that the picture is rooted in the TV studio, not the TV picture receiver. It is all a matter of finding the source by not assuming that the receiver is the source.

Let us look at the brain/spine nervous system. It sure looks like a receiving antenna to me. Without the nail of course.

I believe that the mechanics of the brain determine the content of thoughts. Do you believe it is the other way round, i.e. that thoughts influence the physical activity in the brain? Or do you believe that thoughts are independent of such activity?

well with the TV you can find either electromagnetic radiation or a cable causing it to present images and sounds

if there were such a thing as a metaphysical mind, why do neural cultures from embryonic rats work so well

Plenty of electromagnetic stuff going on in the human body not to mention all of that light and other electromagnetic stuff entering via our nervous system. And out comes sound. And those of us who are artists or writers project pictures/symbols. Just like a TV! It is marvelous.

Yes, symmetry in the Universe. We all evolved from the same thing.

Sorry, I am not an expert on rat neural cultures or rat souls. But my guess is that their life system is not that much different from humans.

then your account of consciousness is no different from that of the empiricist

more "electrochemical" than "electromagnetic" btw

my point was that the resemblance of the hippocampus to a seahorse, or a ram (hence names like hippocampal area CA3, from cornu ammonis, "ram's horn") is fanciful

it's like seeing a ladle, bear, cart, court bureaucrat, or sickle in the same configuration of stars

so, anyway, why would a neural network made of rat brain cells culled from an embryo and fed on artificial cerebrospinal fluid function in the absence of its "soul"?

would human brain cells be much different in this context? I think not

Exactly. What is physical is physical. I don't run away from the obvious. And what is not physical is not physical. For me, one has to recognize the entire picture. There are no illusions. Any hypothesis should take into account everything, which mine does.

My point is that similar shapes occur everywhere because everything has evolved from the same source

I have not really thought much about a rat's soul. But it is a point of discussion for anyone who wishes to discuss whether souls may be evolving into all of the different living species. Itzhak Bentov believes that is what is happening as each species evolves into higher intelligence

because everything has evolved from the same source.

I think you are claiming knowledge of the unknowable

I gave up on pretending to know I had the answer to the question of qualia a long time ago. I don't. no one does

in some sense this is true but the evolutionary pressures that made the hippocampus look like a ram or seahorse were much different from those that made rams and seahorses look a certain way, and those two sets of pressures themselves are doubtlessly very different

one could point out that, for instance, branching structures of many kinds occur in many kinds of life, and posit theories as to why this happens, but pointing to seven stars which would look hugely different from another perspective and saying "that's Ursa Major" is sheer fancy

I agree, in principle, so why are you so opposed to the ideas I have then

I look for clues. Instincts and innate skills as well as inherited characteristics are different for each person and species. I posit possibilities. It is a detective game.

I am not opposed to any idea. They all have merit and they all add to the bucket of clues that we can collect. I think that the exploration is much more fun and exciting when everyone is open to all possibilities

detectives, like other empiricists, have a quality control mechanism built into their method yours does not

so you're not opposed to artificial life.

This detective uses all aspects of life given skills to search for clues, and I practice using all of them.

Life is life

so you wouldn't be opposed to something like the (admittedly fictional) Tyrell Corporation, the likes of which could actually become a reality in this century given how rapidly NBIC technologies are forging ahead

I've never known a (good) detective who appeared to believe reality warps itself around his personal biases

so, yes, anyway, if you found out that it had become possible to produce artificial persons essentially indistinct from humans in terms of behavior you wouldn't be even remotely upset

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying; I think that comes out very strongly if you read KJ's post #743. We may think that we arrived at a particular thought by "consideration", when in fact it can be shown to have originated by some other means.

I believe that the mechanics of the brain determine the content of thoughts. Do you believe it is the other way round, i.e. that thoughts influence the physical activity in the brain? Or do you believe that thoughts are independent of such activity?

I am trying to use the simplest language I can.

I've never known a (good) detective who appeared to believe reality warps itself around his personal biases

What if, what if it was possible to produce a human that was seriously influenced by an electromagnetic field transmitted from mars and could not be detected by scientific methods?

The first actual action of the brain is more than likely biological function, like the movement of body parts as the develop in the fetus. But who knows when that fetus reaches a point of awareness of its environment and begins to think about its attachment? There is not a scientist that exists or existed that can say when a fetus realizes the existence of its mother or can sense the embryonic fluid that surrounds it or taste the nourishment it is receiving in the womb, let alone crave for it

Do I believe that thought is the activator of first brain function? Or the other way around? That is like asking if a good book is its first chapter or the last

Could a man think without brain function? Is there a way to measure that?

Does the brain need its host to be thinking in order for it to function? Again no way to measure.

What I suggest is that we look closer at the degree of activity and how that relates to the host, rather than trying to decipher the 'chicken before the egg' dilemma. Biologists cannot solve that puzzle in origin queries, and they will not solve it here either.

It doesn't matter which came first after all, but instead what matters is what came after. Are we trying to prove the origin of the universe here or are we trying to understand the human mind and its capabilities?

You reveal more of yourself.

What hidden influences can be detected by mans feeble instruments

Why is it every generation of scientists have this overwhelming confidence that they are the masters of the universe and that everything that could be known is within their magnificent grasp

The certainty with which they strut is impressive but it appears more like the army that parades but never ventures outside of its barrack square

I have no idea how it could be possible for an ethereal entity to be in control of a flesh and blood living creature, but Im not convinced by the best scientific brains, that it is impossible.

You could be walking around with a carrot up your butt but i wont ask you disprove it

why always these imaginative images of dragons or pink elephants? it serves no purpose

Why belittle a belief built on another's logical conclusions ?

science can not disprove the idea of the dual, perspective, admit it?