Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??

Hey Parasomnium: Thanks for the reply in which you say: I honestly can't figure out if you are arguing for or against dualism. Your contention that the experience of pink in the mind is merely a perception would seem to indicate further to me that there are two realities: the mental perception and the actual physical properties that cause the perception. Why, if the brain is simply a physical entity, would it not simply perceive the physical and nothing more?But more interestingly, you seem to concede my ultimate point, which is that if physicalism is true, then we cannot truly "know" anything. Knowledge is what knowledge is to the individual. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me. There are no "ultimate truths" which can be known universally. You agree?Thanks for the UBB tip; also, where could I read up on this meta-monitoring concept? It seems pretty plausible and there ought to be some brain research somewhere that would provide some insight.Well, the tree is lit, the packages are set and the kids are going to be hitting the stairs any second. Thanks for the dialogue!DennisThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:43 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:44 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:46 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:47 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:48 AMThis message has been edited by dshortt, 12-25-2004 07:48 AM

dshortt,I'm going on a short skiing holiday, for a week or so. I may be able to reply from there, but I'm not sure. So I will get back to you, but don't hold your breath, ok?P.S. Nice one with the pink quote. Now I'm snowblind before I've even seen the slopes. Thanks a lot.See you.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You noted,

quote:

---

Knowledge is what knowledge is to the individual. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.

---

Does or might this imply then that "person'al'" identity can only be construed or defined rigorously to ""organism type individuals or rather humans, specifically (else aliens etc) or do you not also remit a possiblity that larger "individuals"(bound in space and time) might not posses (groups, demes...) what some philosopher's mean with the term 'personal identity' perhaps in a modified philosophy??

Hey Brad,So you are suggesting that society or "mankind" can "know" more or have more "knowledge" than a given individual at the same point in time, right?

I guess within the refines of your

quote:

---

the mental perception and the actual physical properties that cause the perception. Why, if the brain is simply a physical entity, would it not simply perceive the physical and nothing more?

---

and the current context that would have been what I meant. I had wanted to have had focus on the "perception" at least, as to not anything (nothing) less (more).

Well, it seems I have been able to secure regular access to the internet from Switzerland. Believe me, I am not arguing for dualism. Although each and every one of us is somehow seriously afflicted with dualistic thinking in our daily lives, to which I am no exception, on a rational level and based on my understanding of current scientific ideas, I don't subscribe to dualism. I think the mental perception is not another reality, it is a representation of a part of the only reality that exists, and the representation itself is also part of that same reality. But who is to say what the physical is really like? Take light, for example: we don't have an unequivoval description of it, it can be described as being a wavelike phenomenon, or as having properties of particles. Which of these description fits best at any one moment depends on what aspect of light we are looking at. However, both descriptions are just models, and reality is unlikely to conform exactly to either of them.Models are all we can ever have of reality, because the only medium we have to contain these models is our brain, coming with a physical reality of it own. The physical reality of our own brain is what limits the exactness of any mapping we can make between reality and a model of it. I am inclined to say that I agree. Since all we can have of reality are models, and since our models are dependent on the medium - our senses and our brain combined - we create these models with, and since we know other media are possible in principle - insect eyes, non-human brains, etc. - we must conclude that there are indeed no "ultimate truths". I am afraid I can't point you to any source material, because the term 'meta-monitoring' is something I came up with myself when I described my idea to you. I can point you to someone who inspired me to this idea though: Daniel Dennett. His "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", "Consciousness Explained" and "Kinds of Minds" contain some very powerful ideas.Another way of thinking about it is to realise that the brain is constantly using models of everything it has to deal with. (To say the brain "uses" a model is another way of saying that it monitors certain aspects of the object of the model.) To steer the body around in the world, the brain needs a model of that world. But it also needs a model of itself in that world. At some point, a model of a very peculiar situation may arise in the brain, namely that the object of a certain model is the same as the thing that uses the other models. I surmise that this last model is at the basis of the notion of 'self'.But again, these are just my private musings on the subject, not to be taken too seriously.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Hey Parsomnium, thank you for taking time from the slopes to reply,You wrote:

quote:

---

I am inclined to say that I agree. Since all we can have of reality are models, and since our models are dependent on the medium - our senses and our brain combined - we create these models with, and since we know other media are possible in principle - insect eyes, non-human brains, etc. - we must conclude that there are indeed no "ultimate truths".

---

Then you would, I assume have to agree that naturalism becomes a self-refuting proposition, in that when the scientist goes from the practical statement of "the natural is all we can study" to the ultimate truth statement "the natural is all there is" he has made an ultimate truth statement that cannot exist in a purely naturalistic worldview.Dennis

You assume wrong. When I conceded that there are no ultimate truths, I meant that we cannot say that reality is exactly the way we perceive it, so that we cannot proclaim our perception of reality to be the absolute truth about it. This is because we have a certain outlook on reality, biased by the limits of our own modelling medium - senses and brain combined - which I mentioned before.This does in no way mean that there has to be something beyond the natural, which I think is what you are trying to get me - and, I notice, some others - to concede. My answer is that anything you'd consider to be beyond the natural is either a figment of someone's imagination or something real, which then automatically becomes susceptible for investigation and thus part of the natural.I would like to turn the tables and say that it is the supernatural that becomes self-refuting. Merely by really existing, any so-called supernatural phenomenon becomes, by definition, part of the natural.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Hey Parsomnium,Thanks once again. This dialogue is a benefit to me as I hope it is to you. You say:

quote:

---

When I conceded that there are no ultimate truths, I meant that we cannot say that reality is exactly the way we perceive it, so that we cannot proclaim our perception of reality to be the absolute truth about it.

---

Which then this becomes a serious problem for education, because why should each new generation trust the old one to have perceived reality at all. Must each generation start from scratch then and rediscover or recarve out a reality of their own, pouring over the books and self-serving gurus to determine what is real. And then the ultimate conclusion that nothing is really trustworthy including your own perception so why bother.

quote:

---

This does in no way mean that there has to be something beyond the natural, which I think is what you are trying to get me - and, I notice, some others - to concede.

---

Oh yes, and you were so close. I still maintain that a naturalistic philosophy is unsustainable for the reasons I have outlined here as well as many others.

quote:

---

I would like to turn the tables and say that it is the supernatural that becomes self-refuting. Merely by really existing, any so-called supernatural phenomenon becomes, by definition, part of the natural.

---

You are equating "real" with "natural". Hypothetically, if there existed a universe-making machine, operating completely outside of our known universe, the time, space, matter and energy that make it up, but we were able to detect the occasional "nut" or "bolt" this machine had pieced our universe together with, is that machine part of the "natural real" world? Or if the laws of physics are temporarily suspended and something happens that is ordinarily "impossible", (just hypothetical now mind you), is that phenomena then part of the natural?Dennis

Dennis and Parsimonium,I've been following this debate, and I'm enjoying it. At the risk of making things messier by adding a new voice, I did want to add my voice here. I've argued on other threads about epistemology and ontology, and I think they are important for grounding science (and I can see that Dennis agrees).I'd take a slightly different approach to Parsimonium to Dennis' statements: I completely agree.BUUUUT... Scientists are not after this "ultimate truth." It's not attainable. We're simply looking for the best way to model the reality.The question of imploring God or not comes down to this--can we model reality simply based on what you call "the natural" ? If we can, then there's no need to postulate the existence of God. If we fail at the present... well that's a different story. That's closer to what I would call "self-defeating" than the line you're taking."Ultimate truth" is in principle unknowable. But like you say, it has nothing to do with science. On other threads I've argued, then, to simply drop the idea of "ultimate truth". It has no value.

Hey Ben,Jump on in, the water is fine, and like you I am enjoying this little thread.You say:

quote:

---

BUUUUT... Scientists are not after this "ultimate truth." It's not attainable. We're simply looking for the best way to model the reality.

---

For some scientists this may be true, but for many, it is exactly what is sought. SETI seeks to establish the "ultimate truth" that we are not alone in the universe and should consider ourselves thereby less "special". The hunt for life in our solar system takes on the same flavor for many. The search for the mechanism that brought life into existance is a search for an "ultimate truth", as is the attempts to theorize a mechanism that could have brought a universe out of nothing. And don't let the rhetoric of some scientists disuade you; origins is everything in terms of worldviews.

quote:

---

The question of imploring God or not comes down to this--can we model reality simply based on what you call "the natural" ? If we can, then there's no need to postulate the existence of God. If we fail at the present... well that's a different story. That's closer to what I would call "self-defeating" than the line you're taking.

---

But that is just the point: we can't model reality currently (as NosyNed and other scientists and scientific types will admit) simply based on the natural. This thread is only one evidence of that. So how long do we wait for science to come through on it's promissory notes? I would prefer to follow the more logical course.

quote:

---

"Ultimate truth" is in principle unknowable.

---

But at least let's stick to worldviews in which it is logically possible to even postulate an ultimate truth!Dennis

Aren't you bringing "ultimate truth" down to the rather mundane? If we find native bacteria on Mars why is that not simply another (and not completely surprising anymore) fact about the natural world?You are imposing your way of thinking on others. I'm rather sure that researchers are not doing it to shore up their world view. I am very curious about the discoveries of science just because I like learning and knowing not because it has a lot do to with my world view. You have read something into what I have said that I hadn't intended. My personal belief (and without evidence it is a belief or at least an extrapolation form what evidence we have) is that the reality is simply natural. This is a personal view. Many scientists have a different personal view.I gave examples of areas that can't currently be examined by the methods of science. If you think that there is something to reality that needs to be handled by some other methods please describe the method and the results. Please describe this world view. If you think it is that of a particular religion then you have to deal with multiple, conflicting "ultimate" truths. The track record of this kind of thing has been rather poor.

Normally, education is about teaching new generations practical knowledge for getting along in the world and maybe even making some progress, so I think there is no immediate need for concern. And even if, on occasion, education occupies itself with subjects as esoteric as the one we are discussing, then your 'ultimate conclusion' still means, for whomever reaches it, that something is learned after all. It seems I had a narrow escape there. You used "realities", "the physical" and "the natural", I just followed along. Yes, because if we can detect these things - the nuts and bolts - then apparently the machine doesn't operate "completely outside" of our universe. Besides, the word 'universe' means "everything that exists", so, if your machine exists, it must be part of it. In that case the "impossible" phenomenon you speak of is not the most interesting thing here. We should instead focus our attention on the cause of the suspension of the laws of physics. If it appears that we would find some sort of meta-law (there's that 'meta' again) that describes the suspension of the ordinary laws of physics, we would just have expanded our existing set of laws of nature. And if it appears that the suspension is a one time only event (we couldn't know that for sure, but let's suppose we could), then that's still nothing new. As far as we know the Big Bang is a one-timer also, but it poses no great problems for our current naturalistic view of things.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

If the word "Universe" means everything that exists, what about the collective imaginations of all creatures? DO Pink Elephants exists outside of the minds of those who imagine them?

No. But they're brains (which prevades the mind) does exist within the universe, and contained in this mind is the imagined pink elephants. But do the pink elephants exist? Yes they exist as imagined creatures in the mind of the imaginator.