Consciousness Continued: A fresh start

This is a continuation of my previous topic concerning consciousness. I figured that I would start fresh with a new topic as to rekindle the debate from the very beginning. I basically want to talk about weather or not we have a soul that is a separate entity from the brain. Now, I want to use a discussion on consciousness in order to decide that because I think that consciousness is a component of the soul. Weather it is or not will be decided in the debate. If consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms a separate soul is most likely responsible for consciousness. The following is where I stand on the issue. It is my summarized theory of consciousness.Consciousness is the medium by which people experience sensations, thoughts and perceptions. Each person has a separate consciousness. The consciousness is in essence the person himself or herself. No two people share a common observer or one who feels. If it were so, then one observer could experience the experiences of two people. Consciousness is a component of a non-physical soul. The soul is not made up of any thing material and therefore has no physical properties. The soul consists of both consciousness and free will. Free will cannot be the result of physical interactions because if it were so it would cease to be free will considering that everything that happens physically is mathematically predictable and therefore engraved on stone. Quantum mechanics follows a purely mathematical pattern that is beyond the comprehension of modern day people.Consciousness does not occur in the physical world because consciousness is a component of a non-physical thing. Everything that happens naturally in the physical world is explainable by the interactions of material constructs or things made of energy. All interactions between material constructs are spatial changes. So everything that happens is the result of energy moving. The motion of energy cannot be responsible for consciousness thus consciousness cannot be an emergent property of any physical process. Emergent properties such as objects having certain forms or behaving certain ways are possible, easily grasped, and easily explainable by spatial changes such as the physical interactions of elementary particles based on the four known spatial forces. All physical interactions are unified by one physical mechanism that everything consists of. This mechanism is purely spatial and therefore cannot account for consciousness.The brain and the soul do not communicate. The soul merely affects and corresponds to the chemical and electrical activity in the brain. If there is a high concentration of electrical activity or excitation of nerves it is possible that the soul will become conscious of the sensations, thoughts, or perceptions pertaining to the corresponding faculties in the brain. The soul on its own cannot understand nor be conscious. It is the union between the soul and the brain that is responsible for conscious understanding, thought, perception, and sensation. Information does not enter the soul and decisions do not come out of it. Free will and consciousness are the result of the interactions between the soul and the brain.Everything processed by the brain is physical and in the end remains physical. Therefore it cannot become understood. It can however, be interpreted, but this interpretation is merely an alternative physical arrangement. Arrangements do not carry meaning. Arrangements carry representations of meaning, which are understood by the union of the soul and the brain. Therefore, physical arrangements on their own mean nothing but it is still technically correct to say that they convey meaning. They simply are not meaningful without something conscious to create meaning out of the representations of meaning. Meaning can only be extracted out of arrangements if conscious beings understand the language by which the arrangements are arranged.All physical theories concerning consciousness are nothing but surmises in that there is no actual proof that the physical interactions the theories describe cause consciousness because they rely on relationships between physical interactions and conscious states. Relationships do not proof direct cause. For instance, there is a relationship between four and one, which is subtract three but this does not proof that one is a direct result of four.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.Edited by Guidosoft, : Revision of theory.Edited by Guidosoft, : Revision of theory.

OK I did all that but I modified the first paragraph. Do you still want me to remove it entirely?

Ah, now this is a debate.

quote:

---

I just typed this message. The typing was a series of physical actions of my fingers on the keyboard of my computer. My brain controlled the movement of my fingers.

​

Yet the contents of the message is the same as the contents of my conscious thoughts a moment ago. Is it a coincidence that the message and my consciousness are in concord? Or has my consciousness made something happen in the physical world? If so, what does that mean for the nature of my consciousness? After all, you said that "everything that happens in the physical world is explainable by the interactions of material constructs or things made of energy". Is my consciousness therefore made of energy? Is it physical after all?

---

I did say that everything that happens in the physical world is the result of physical interaction. I've made a mistake when I say that. Perhaps I should revise the statement to say that everything that happens naturally in the physical world is the result of physical interaction. This will resolve the problem.As I debate, my views will change as your logic and mine clash. So expect me to revise my original statements in my old post.

quote:

---

If I accept that, I immediately run into problems with what you say next. Isn't that some form of communication?

---

No. The soul recieves information from the brain and the soul affects the brain but there is no active communication going on.For example, I might look through documents. I might write on those documents and read from those documents, but I am not communicating with those documents in order to interact with them.

quote:

---

Doesn't a union between the soul and the brain require some form of communication?

---

Communication is not required because the soul is responsible for both input and output, thus forming a union between the brain and the soul where only one end activly affects and recieves to and from the other.

quote:

---

I think this spells grave danger for your theory of consciousness. If physical theories are but surmises for lack of actual proof, then surely there's no hope at all for a non-physical theory - your theory - for which actual proof is principly an impossibility.

---

There is actually equal hope for both theories, because there is no proof, only speculation combined with logic.

quote:

---

I am a physical thing with consciousness.

---

No, you are a soul with consciousness recieving input and directing output from and to a physical construct that is your body and brain.

quote:

---

Why not? You haven't demonstrated this point anywhere in your post.

---

How can things moving around account for consciosuness. That would be a mighty big leap. For such a thing you would have to believe in magic.

quote:

---

I disagree with this.

​

First, I don’t agree that everything that happens physically is mathematically predictable. I brought up the example of random walks.

​

Second, if I do accept that as a premise, my conclusion would not be that free will cannot be the result of physical interactions. My conclusion would be that free will doesn’t exist . determinism.

---

There is most likley an highly complex pattern that humans are not yet able to fathem as to the actions of quantam particles. I do not believe they are just random. Eienstien said that God does not play dice. Of course, that is if you believe in God. lol.

quote:

---

I don’t agree with this because here I am in the physical world and I am conscious. My consciousness IS occurring in the physical world.

---

No, your not looking at it right. You are not in the physical world. Your body is. You are just recieving input from your body and directing output to it. So you experience and influence the physical world. You actually being present in the physical world is just an illusion.

quote:

---

I think that the brain and the soul do communicate. This is where my view on consciousness comes into play. I think that consciousness is the medium by which the brain and the soul communicate.

​

I think that consciousness is a result of the brain. It is a non-physical thing that comes from a physical thing, what you claim is impossible. But this impossibility is what allows for the soul, a non-physical thing, to interact with the brain, a physical thing. The interaction between the physical and non-physical is something that others who have posted have had a problem with. Our consciousness is not short of a miracle, or ”magical’, and it is how physical and non-physical things can interact, because it is a non-physical thing that is the result of a physical thing.

​

I think its important for our souls to interact with our brains because then people can interact with each other with their brains and allow for the interaction between their souls. This is how the soul develops into what You Are. By interacting with other people and growing through ideas.

---

I believe in interaction without communication. Though I see no problem with a non-physical construct interacting with a physical construct.

quote:

---

I haven't seen any reason to believe so.

​

People seem entirely physical to me.

​

I feel like I exist between my ears and behind my eyes, right where my brain is located.

---

In a sense you sort of do exist there (physical existance) but in a sense you don't (non-physical existance) becayse the combination of your soul and your brain creates your functioning mind. But I believe the actual US itself is the soul.

quote:

---

More of a leap than proposing an entirely new type of immeasurable substance? You're the one who is resorting to magical explanations, I am perfectly comfortable admitting that consciousness does not have a sufficient explanaion (magical or not). It does seem to end when your physical body quits functioning, however. I'm not saying that it does end, but I haven't seen a good reason to believe it continues to exist in any way.

---

Its not a bigger leap because it is an alternative explanation to what already seems unreasonable. I don't think that an immesurable substance is magical. It simply doesn't have physical properties. Why can't such a substance exist? Our concept of space is just an illusion anyway. And what is space made out of? Physical things can't exist out side of space? So what is space itself. How can space be physical? Maybe it is, I don't know. All I know, is that I THINK that space cannot be made out of any spatial material because it is the very medium by which physical things are manifested. But of course I could be wrong there.

Let me add this to my theory:I do not believe that perceptions are inputed into the soul neither do I believe that decisions are outputed into the brain. I believe that the souls affects and corresponds to the electrical and chemical activity in the brain. It is the combination of the soul and the brain that create free will and conscious thought, perception, and sensatioanl experience.Edit: I've revised my OP to include that but not in those words.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's unreasonable to admit that we do not understand how consciousness arises? By your reasoning, wouldn't any alternative explanation be equally valid to the soul hypothesis?

---

No because I explained that consciousness can't arise from physical matter alone. All physical interactions are just changes in position in energy.

quote:

---

I don't think immeasurable substances exist in any useful sense. There could be an infinite amount of undetectable spew all over the place, no reason to posit that any of it exists until we have some evidence for it.

---

It wouldn't be all over the place. It wouldn't be there, but it would exist.

quote:

---

Where is outside of space?

​

I don't even know that spacetime "exists," from my understanding (and I'm probably wrong, physics is not my fort) it's just a description of gravitational forces.

---

When I used outside I meant, not within space. I didn't actually mean outside of it. Another words, I am saying that physical things must be in space. If they are not in space, they don't exist.

quote:

---

Are you just making a statement of faith, or are you going to tell us why you believe such things?

​

You said the soul and brain do not communicate. How, then, does it effect the brain?

​

How does the soul/brain combo give rise to consciousness?

​

Do pretty much all animals with brains have souls?

​

Do drugs have an effect on the soul? (Alcohol is known to affect judgement)

​

Just a few questions to keep this train chug-a-luggin' along.

---

For example, it has been shown that a high concentration of electrical activity in the brain is related to the level of consciousness in those areas (correct me if I am wrong.)So, the soul, would correspond with the electrical activity in the brain by being conscious of those areas. There need no be any communication. There is no SABCP (Soul and Brain Communication Protocol).And, the soul could alter the electrical activity of the brain to affect it based on your decisions. But those decisions would be aided by the activity in your brain. The union of the brain and soul makeup the mind.Just because you have a brain though, doesn't mean you have a soul. Without the soul you lose to things: free will, and consciousness.I cannot say weather animals have a soul or not.Now, drugs to not effect the soul but the mind, which is the result of the interaction between the soul and the brain.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.

It is not directly responsible for consciosness. The soul is. So there.

quote:

---

Since electrical activity is responsible for consciousness how does a soul manage to be conscious if it does not partake of electrical activity that we have established to be necessary for consciousness?

---

My mistake: I meant that there is a relationship between electrical activity in the brain and consciousness. I will go correct that now.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should define 'natural', because it isn't clear what you mean by it. What other ways are there, besides natural, for things to happen in the physical world? Is consciousness, in your view, a non-natural phenomenon?

---

By natural I mean by physical nature.Everything that happens naturally is the result of physical interactions. The soul would be supernatural according to scientists because they don't want to call the soul natural since they don't believe in it. So we will call physical things natural, and non-physical things SUCH AS the soul supernatural.

quote:

---

So the soul 'reads' and 'writes' the brain? How does it do that? There must be some form of physical interaction. How does the non-physical soul accomplish that?

​

And what is the meaning of the status of the brain that the soul 'reads'? Suppose the soul reads: "I want to debate with Guido", then where does that desire come from? Who is this 'I'? And how does the brain know about the existence of Guido?

---

I never said that the soul did that. That only happens in my analogy. The soul corresponds to and affects the chemical and electrical activity in the brain. The concept of I is not of consciousness though, it is of self-awareness. Self-awareness need not be something conscious. A computer could SIMULATE it. Self-awareness comes from the brain though it is aided by consciousness.The desire to debate with me comes from the union of the activity of your brain and your soul. You soul is the real you. Your brain holds your memories, and your desires and it is a faculty for thinking. Your soul also holds desires, but these desires are different from your brains desires. I am trying not to be too religious so I won't go into that. This is mostly supposed to be theoretical.Its very difficult for me to explain. Your brain does play a big role in your desires, your pleasures, etc. And it probably works exactly the way that scientists say it does in the brain except that it requires something extra to aid it. This is the soul. So yes, chemical reactions do appear to cause feeling. But it is the syncornization of these chemical reactions and the soul that actually make you experience the feeling.I apologize for my lack of clarity. Keep asking questions if you wish me to elaborate more or if I seem to contradict myself.

quote:

---

Then what does the brain do exactly? What is the nature of the input? And of the output? If the brain simply processes the input and produces output, and if the brain is just a physical 'machine', then isn't the soul dependent on an automaton, and hence, by extension, itself an automaton? If not, then what does the soul need the brain for?

---

The soul is not fed input and it does not give output. It merely affects the brain and corresponds to it. Information from your senses are inputed into your brain. Your brain then processes it. Your soul syncronizes with this process and becomes conscious of the information based on the activity in the brain. The process is also affected by your free will. So when you want to make a choice, the chemical and electrical activity in the brain is affected.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.

quote:

---

We have four terms that we often seem to use interchangeably; consciousness, mind, spirit and soul. I frankly don't know how to differentiate between them.

---

This is my perspective on those four. I use none of them interchangably.Consciousness - The medium by which sensation, thoughts, and perceptions are experienced.Spirit - In Christianity, the spirit is not the soul. The spirit is something that is dead when we are born. The spirit is the part of us that communicates with God. When we recieve the holy spirit by accepting Christ, we are then enabled to have a direct connection with God. Now this of course, is a religious perspective on the spirit. Most people just interchange this with soul.Soul - The real us. The part of us that consists of are Consciousness and Free Will. Different souls will chose different paths. They have different core tendencies. Now, souls are not naturaly conscious. They have the potential for consciousness that is, by default they are unconscious but when they are conscious it will always be the same consciousness because it is the same person.Mind - The mind is that which concieves. This is not the consciousness. The mind is the combination of the soul and the activity of thinking, recollecting, imagining, etc in the brain. The mind can make decisions, it can numbers together. It can do lots of stuff, but it is not interchangable with consciousness.

quote:

---

course, that is if you believe in God. lol.

​

Liek I said, if I believed this I would be a determinist and believe that free will doesn't exist.

---

Let's just assume for a moment that quantam particles take random walks.(Maybe they do) The random actions of particles are on to small of a scale to fit in with the grand system of the brain. Free will would be an emergent property of a complex system in the brain. How would the random actions of particles on such a small scale fit in. Besides, they are random. Free will is not random. Free will is intentional and deliberate. You mine as well believe in determinism.

quote:

---

I don't think the physical world is an illusion. This is probably where our opinions begin to differ. At least you know where I stand on the situation now. Our opinions on the soul aren't too far apart.

---

I never said that the physical world was an illusion. I said that our presence here is an illusion because we are the soul not the brain.

Sorry, I can't restore the original, but I won't change it any more. Instead I will just use the gen reply button to ammend it.

quote:

---

So, when my soul is on its own - after my brain died - I remember nothing? And I can't think anymore? If that's what the afterlife is like, then I think I'll give it a pass. Come to think of it, that kind of afterlife is rather like oblivion, which I think is what really awaits me. So maybe we agree after all...

---

You would be correct if it were not for Christ.He gives us a new body in heaven. That includes a new brain where we remember only the good things that happened to us on earth. So Christ takes our soul once we die and gives us a glorified body. That is only if you accepted Christ. If you did not accept Christ then unfortianitly your fate is eternal hell.

quote:

---

My brain has desires of its own?! Well, have you ever...

---

What I mean is some desires are developed from your life experiences. So these are based on memory and thus stored in the brain. They are fine tuned by a combination of the real you (the soul) and your enviorment. The desires of your soul are just what you are. Will you ultimatley chose God or Evil, Christ or no Christ.

quote:

---

Could you think of a way your theory could be falsified? What experiment can we do that could possibly rule out the existence of the soul?

---

Conduct an experiment in which two machines share the same consciousness (this machine could be a human being if you like). Then watch how they respond. Obviously this requires technology that awaits us in the future. If there is no soul then you should be able to connect brains together somehow and make them share the same consciousness.

quote:

---

Where does this requirement come from? Can you make it clear somehow that it wouldn't work without this "something extra"?

---

Well, your desires come from a combination of what you are (your soul) ,your enviorment and genetics. So you would see a big difference in the development of your desires if you removed the soul from the equation.Also, they aren't real desires enless they are conscious ones. They would just be simulated ones. You know why I believe physical processes cannot create consciousness.

quote:

---

That seems like a very strange dichotomy to me. What is a feeling? Or, more to the point, what is a feeling other than an experience? To me, the two are synonymous. But if I read you correctly, you would allow for the possibility of unexperienced feelings, a concept I find uttely incomprehensible.

---

What you say is 100% correct. Without the soul there would be no feeling. It is the the union of the activity and the soul that cause feeling. But you can see evidence of how the brain is aiding in causing feeling. You won't see a communication between the brain and the soul however because that is not how it works.

quote:

---

So when you want to make a choice, the chemical and electrical activity in the brain is affected.

​

Could you tell me a little about the mechanism your theory proposes for this?

---

I'll figure that out when I get my phd. But seriouslly, uh. I still have to think about exactly how that would work. I have a pretty good concept already but since I don't have a 100% thorough understanding of the brain I can't develop that part of it yet. But I will think about it.