Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 2:52 PM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,075 Year: 5,112/19,786 Month: 1,234/873 Week: 130/460 Day: 72/58 Hour: 5/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Consciousness Continued: A fresh start
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 1 of 84 (312448)
05-16-2006 1:12 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 05-16-2006 4:03 PM Guido Arbia has responded
 Message 5 by Chronos, posted 05-16-2006 5:06 PM Guido Arbia has responded
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 05-16-2006 5:20 PM Guido Arbia has responded
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2006 5:27 PM Guido Arbia has responded
 Message 22 by ohnhai, posted 05-17-2006 11:08 AM Guido Arbia has responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 84 (312508)
05-16-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Guido Arbia
05-16-2006 1:12 PM


Suggestions
1: Remove the first paragraph, which is mostly editorializing.

2: Remove the last paragraph, which is mostly bragging.

3: Change "restart" to "start" in the title.

If you make those changes, I will promote it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 1:12 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 4:09 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 3 of 84 (312513)
05-16-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNWR
05-16-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Suggestions
OK I did all that but I modified the first paragraph. Do you still want me to remove it entirely?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 05-16-2006 4:03 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 84 (312525)
05-16-2006 4:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Chronos
Member (Idle past 4333 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 5 of 84 (312532)
05-16-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Guido Arbia
05-16-2006 1:12 PM


Consciousness does not occur in the physical world because consciousness is a component of a non-physical thing.

I am a physical thing with consciousness.

The motion of energy cannot be responsible for consciousness...

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 1:12 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 6:09 PM Chronos has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 804 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 84 (312536)
05-16-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Guido Arbia
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 Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 1:12 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 6:05 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 84 (312537)
05-16-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Guido Arbia
05-16-2006 1:12 PM


my opinions on your opinions
We have similar views on the soul but there are some differences that I will explain to you here.

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.

I agree with this.

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.

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.

Consciousness does not occur in the physical world because consciousness is a component of a non-physical thing.

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.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 1:12 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 05-16-2006 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 11 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 6:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 05-17-2006 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 804 days)
Posts: 2191
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 responded

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

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 9 of 84 (312543)
05-16-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Parasomnium
05-16-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Some weaknesses in your theory
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 05-16-2006 5:20 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Parasomnium, posted 05-17-2006 3:06 PM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 10 of 84 (312544)
05-16-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chronos
05-16-2006 5:06 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chronos, posted 05-16-2006 5:06 PM Chronos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chronos, posted 05-16-2006 6:22 PM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 11 of 84 (312545)
05-16-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
05-16-2006 5:27 PM


Re: my opinions on your opinions
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.


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2006 10:59 AM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Chronos
Member (Idle past 4333 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 12 of 84 (312546)
05-16-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Guido Arbia
05-16-2006 6:09 PM


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

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.

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 6:09 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 7:43 PM Chronos has responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 13 of 84 (312576)
05-16-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Chronos
05-16-2006 6:22 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Chronos, posted 05-16-2006 6:22 PM Chronos has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chronos, posted 05-16-2006 11:39 PM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 14 of 84 (312577)
05-16-2006 7:45 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chronos, posted 05-16-2006 11:48 PM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Chronos
Member (Idle past 4333 days)
Posts: 102
From: Macomb, Mi, USA
Joined: 10-23-2005


Message 15 of 84 (312638)
05-16-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Guido Arbia
05-16-2006 7:43 PM


Its not a bigger leap because it is an alternative explanation to what already seems unreasonable.

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?

I don't think that an immesurable substance is magical. It simply doesn't have physical properties. Why can't such a substance exist?

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.

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.

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 fortè) it's just a description of gravitational forces.

Edited by Chronos, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-16-2006 7:43 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-17-2006 7:59 AM Chronos has responded

  
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019