Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Consciousness Continued: A fresh start
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 84 (312536)
05-16-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian7
05-16-2006 1:12 PM


Some weaknesses in your theory
Guidosoft writes:
Everything that happens 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.
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?
The brain and the soul do not communicate because if they did communicate physically the soul would be a physical thing, however, the soul is not.
If I accept that, I immediately run into problems with what you say next:
The soul merely responds according to the state of 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.
Isn't that some form of communication?
It is the union between the soul and the brain that is responsible for conscious understanding, thought, perception, and sensation.
Doesn't a union between the soul and the brain require some form of communication?
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.
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.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian7, posted 05-16-2006 1:12 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Christian7, posted 05-16-2006 6:05 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 8 of 84 (312540)
05-16-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
05-16-2006 5:27 PM


My questions on your opinions
Although I don't believe a soul exists, could you nevertheless tell me what the soul is exactly, according to you? And why do the soul and the brain need to communicate? What do they communicate about? What reason do you have to pose the existence of the soul? Isn't consciousness alone enough of a conundrum?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2006 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2006 10:55 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 30 of 84 (312899)
05-17-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Christian7
05-16-2006 6:05 PM


Re: Some weaknesses in your theory
Guidosoft writes:
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.
Perfect.
Guidosoft writes:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Christian7, posted 05-16-2006 6:05 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Christian7, posted 05-17-2006 4:43 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 31 of 84 (312919)
05-17-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2006 10:55 AM


Re: My questions on your opinions
Parasomnium writes:
could you nevertheless tell me what the soul is exactly, according to you?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Exactly!? Sheesh . .I dunno.
Ah. Fair enough.
The soul is the immortal component of your existence that moves on to the afterlife after you die. Its what makes you, You. Its the ”image of god’ that makes us his children.
Hmmm... that's a rather exact description of the soul, wouldn't you agree? I thought you said you didn't know. You confuse me.
I think of this life as a proving ground for the afterlife. Kindof a place for your soul to develop in preparation for the afterlife. It allows you to figure out what it is to exist and what you need to be happy, in this life and the next.
Please tell me, where was your soul before you were born? Is there a "beforelife" in your opinion?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2006 10:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2006 4:14 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 38 of 84 (312958)
05-17-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Christian7
05-17-2006 4:43 PM


Re: Some weaknesses in your theory
Guido, first something about the fact that you alter your opening post after you come to realize that something should be formulated differently for some reason, like clarity for instance, or you changing your mind about something. In principle, it's a good thing that you are willing to do this as a result of discussions with others, but you might want to use a different method.
I think it would better if you left your original post intact and just added amendments at the end. That way, other people's quotes of your original post will keep making sense. If someone quotes you, and you change your text, then the quotes won't be accurate anymore, and that muddles the discussion.
I hope you still have the original text of your opening post and would be willing to restore it and add a sort of "editing history" at the end.
---
Guidosoft writes:
Your brain holds your memories, and your desires and it is a faculty for thinking.
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...
Your soul also holds desires, but these desires are different from your brains desires.
My brain has desires of its own?! Well, have you ever...
This is mostly supposed to be theoretical.
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?
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.
Where does this requirement come from? Can you make it clear somehow that it wouldn't work without this "something extra"?
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.
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 utterly incomprehensible.
I apologize for my lack of clarity.
No need to apologize, that's what we are having this conversation for.
Keep asking questions [...]
I will.
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?
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Christian7, posted 05-17-2006 4:43 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Christian7, posted 05-17-2006 6:02 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 40 of 84 (312960)
05-17-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2006 5:35 PM


Re: my opinions on your opinions
Catholic Scientist writes:
it solves, for me, the problem of something non-physical interacting with something physical because the consciousness, to me, is somewhere in-between in the first place.
I think you are just pushing the problem away. Instead of something non-physical interacting with something physical, now you have something non-physical interacting with something half-physical, and something half-physical interacting with something physical. Actually, now you have two problems.
A better way to solve the problem would be, in my opinion, to conclude that there is no non-physical component.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2006 5:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024