Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 18135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #580 on: January 13, 2012, 04:47:57 PM »
That's a specific type of dualism,  substance dualism, which I do believe.  But, even without showing the mind/soul exists after death,  I think it's clear that my argument applies to property dualism,  which can be said the mind emerges from the brain, and is distinct from it, although needed the brain to emerge.

Yes it does emerge from the bran but the only time it is separate is when we are thinking to our self. To say that it separate from the brain after death is absurd and very much unprovable.
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #581 on: January 13, 2012, 04:55:27 PM »
But it's a contradiction claiming that your brain can exist, yet imagine it's own non-existence.   Therefore, the mind and brain are not the same thing.

^This is where you go off the rails.  In what way is it a contradiction for the the brain to imagine its own non-existence?  Go ahead, layout the argument.  You know, if A, then B, etc.  Because what you are saying just sounds preposterously stupid to me.

There has to be something which exists that is distinct from the thing being contemplated as not-existing.   For instance,  if I can contemplate my legs not existing, then there must be a part of me which still exists to do that contemplation.  I could go up my body parts.   Then,  my brain,  I can contemplate it not existing.   But what then is still existing to do that contemplation?  It must be a distinct thing from the brain itself.

Maybe that thing interacts with the brain,  and is affected by things in the brain,  but it cannot logically be the brain,  and can said to be the mind. 

Quote
It is hypothesized that one of the reasons people like you have a dualistic view is because people cannot actually contemplate their own non-existence.  And by that I do not mean, the non-existence of the body or brain, but of the self.  The mind cannot comprehend not existing.  Just as you have a difficult time wrapping your head around "what it was like" before you were born, you similarly have a hard time conceiving what it will be like after you are dead.  And because of that, they think the mind must be some separate thing, that goes on after the body and brain are obliterated.[1][2]

But that is primitive thinking, Gill.  It is allowing emotions and the limitations of imagination to make decisions for you.  You need to override those primitive urges and allow rational thinking and evidence make them.  For one thing, you will never experience your own non-existence.  It is impossible.  Your brain will be dead, and so the experience will be lost on you.  For another, you have a hard time imagining it because in the imagining, you are observing your own non-existence.  It is an oxymoron.

If the mind is the product of the brain - and only a product of the brain - then change to the brain will also affect changes to the mind.  This has been demonstrated to you already, I believe. 
You have Phineas GageWiki, brain trauma[3], and Alzheimers.  Yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge reality.  Why?
 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=never-say-die have to buy a subscription
 2. or read the copy of it here: http://www.monstrous.com/Religions_and_beliefs/Never_Say_Die_Why_We_Can_t_Imagine_Death.html
 3. http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/recovery-traumatic-brain-injury/personality-changes-tbi/index.html
http://www.caregiver.org/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=396

I don't refuse that the what happens in the brain can affect the mind or awareness in general.   But to say those effects necessitates that awareness is a product of the brain,  I don't agree with.     

Far as I'm concerned, all that can be said is that there's a definite interaction between the brain and mind,  awareness and the brain.   But,  it doesn't follow that they are then one in the same thing.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #582 on: January 13, 2012, 04:58:07 PM »
Both materialism and idealism are false, the only reasonable alternative is dualism. Substance dualism seems out of the question for a number of reasons. For example it cannot explain how these spiritual substances came into existence in the first place and it cannot explain how they relate to the physical world. So property dualism seems the only reasonable view of the mind-body problem. Consciousness really exists, but it is not a separate substance on its own, rather it is a property of the brain.

Unless your can provide evidence that it is true.
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #583 on: January 13, 2012, 05:03:13 PM »
Both materialism and idealism are false, the only reasonable alternative is dualism. Substance dualism seems out of the question for a number of reasons. For example it cannot explain how these spiritual substances came into existence in the first place and it cannot explain how they relate to the physical world. So property dualism seems the only reasonable view of the mind-body problem. Consciousness really exists, but it is not a separate substance on its own, rather it is a property of the brain.

Unless your can provide evidence that it is true.

What do you consider evidence?  How about people who are medically brain dead during surgery,  later recounting a conscious experience of verifiable events during that surgery.  http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

One example of many.....

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #584 on: January 13, 2012, 05:04:48 PM »
I didn't say I caused my brain to stop existing by contemplating that.
That's what it sounded like you were saying, but upon consideration it looks like I was mistaken.

Quote from: Gill
I'm saying,  how can something which exists, contemplate non-existence?  I can easily contemplate my legs not existing, because,  as you'd probably say, my brain is not my legs.   But, how can my brain itself contemplate it's own non-existence?  That's a contradiction to me.   There must be something which is distinct from the brain that remains to do so, the mind.
If you contemplate your legs not existing, it does not mean you actually know what not having legs would be like.  You can get an idea, but only a vague one.  By the same token, you can contemplate your mind not existing, but you can't actually know what not having a mind would be like.  This is because your imagination exists only in your mind; your mind must approximate concepts that it has no experience of.  So someone who has always had legs can imagine what it might be like to not have them, but they can only approximate it without the actual experience of not having legs.  Your mind can only approximate the experience of not having a brain, or the mind itself not existing, because it cannot have the experience of not having either.

Quote from: Gill
No, you can't measure the whole of consciousness.   What you just wrote would be included in the whole of it.  So whatever measurement or definition you made before would not be complete.    And since what people do , say, think,  experience,  just keeps continuing,  it is an indefinite process,  you can't define it wholly.
This is at least better than your previous statement.  However, it's still wrong.  Let's say you have someone who measures the consciousness.  So then they have to measure it again to account for the increase.  And again, and again, and again.  But they don't have to keep measuring it indefinitely.  If you measure something that's increasing enough times, you can then formulate how much the consciousness increases when you don't take measurements.  If your formula doesn't match the reality, you take more measurements and then come up with a revised formula.  Once you come up with an accurate formula, you no longer need to constantly measure to track the increase.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #585 on: January 13, 2012, 05:21:05 PM »
^^ Similarly, if we observe a falling object toward the moon's surface, we can check its velocity over and over and observe increases each time.  And changes in its position each time, as well.  But we don't need to keep doing this right up to when it hits the moon's surface, we only need to figure out the rate of increase in velocity and how that translates into changes in the object's location.

That's science.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #586 on: January 13, 2012, 05:37:02 PM »
Both materialism and idealism are false, the only reasonable alternative is dualism. Substance dualism seems out of the question for a number of reasons. For example it cannot explain how these spiritual substances came into existence in the first place and it cannot explain how they relate to the physical world. So property dualism seems the only reasonable view of the mind-body problem. Consciousness really exists, but it is not a separate substance on its own, rather it is a property of the brain.

Unless your can provide evidence that it is true.

What do you consider evidence?  How about people who are medically brain dead during surgery,  later recounting a conscious experience of verifiable events during that surgery.  http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

One example of many.....

If a person is dead, they do not "come back and report" anything. Dead is dead. When your brain is dead, you are dead. Without a brain, there is no "you" to come back from anywhere. Your awareness, your consciousness, your personality-- what you are calling "the mind" is produced by the brain.

What else would it be produced by? Do you have any alternative? Otherwise, drugs, brain damage, and diseases like schizophrenia would not change the personality. But we have concrete and irrefutable evidence that personality can change as a result of changes in the chemistry or physical structure of the brain.

We can see what kinds of changes in the brain cause memory loss and dementia in the elderly for example. Does the "mind" of that elderly person not have memory loss or dementia, then? Where has the intact undamaged "mind" of the elderly person gone?

Are you arguing that there is a ghostly "mind" floating around in some other realm before we are born, waiting for an empty newborn brain to slip into? what is the nature of this disembodied mind? does it have any knowledge? a sense of humor? any phobias or fears? a sense of curiosity?  Are these loose minds aware of anything before becoming embodied? Do they, for example, know that they will be Chinese?

This separate mind stuff all sounds like great fodder for a sci-fi story or matrix-type movie. But you don't have any evidence that any of it is true. Or do you?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #587 on: January 13, 2012, 05:43:55 PM »
....
This separate mind stuff all sounds like great fodder for a sci-fi story or matrix-type movie. But you don't have any evidence that any of it is true. Or do you?

Just because something is effected by something else, doesn't mean it is that thing.   So the brain damage can cause changes in the mind, vice versa.   So gravity from Earth can effect my body, does that mean gravity from Earth is my body?

And no, I don't believe consciousness is 'produced' by the brain.  It is effected by the brain, yes.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #588 on: January 13, 2012, 05:47:02 PM »
nm, one thing at a time....
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 05:51:13 PM by Gill »

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #589 on: January 13, 2012, 05:52:09 PM »
the horse before 50 million years was not similar to the horse of today (improved version)

There is no such thing as a 50 million year old horse.  There is also no such thing as an 'improved' vs 'non-improved' version.  You don't know anything about evolutionary theory.  The same with 'hominid' evolution.  Evolution is not some kind of system that leads to perfection of some ideal quality.  The oldest ancestor is called a Hyracotherium and it was larger than a species that came later called Propalaeotherium, evolution does not necessarily evolve through singular qualities such as size nor does it necessarily evolve all functions for a given species.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #590 on: January 13, 2012, 05:54:40 PM »
Just because something is effected by something else, doesn't mean it is that thing.   So the brain damage can cause changes in the mind, vice versa.   So gravity from Earth can effect my body, does that mean gravity from Earth is my body?

And no, I don't believe consciousness is 'produced' by the brain.  It is effected by the brain, yes.

Memories, emotions, consciousness itself, cognitive function.. every single aspect of 'consciousness' is directly related to physical reactions in the brain.  Any change will necessarily change the function of how your conscious works, even if we assume that 'another' conscious exists not tied to your physical brain, once we remove the physical brain we remove everything that makes a consciousness.  Your imaginary supernatural 'conscious' has no observable impact on reality and thus is a blank slate.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #591 on: January 13, 2012, 05:59:51 PM »

What do you consider evidence?  How about people who are medically brain dead during surgery,  later recounting a conscious experience of verifiable events during that surgery.  http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

One example of many.....

OK, Now your grasping at straws using NDE's. Lets get to the bottom line no dualistic view would holds water. None, because if they did the ladies and gents on this forum would not argue about the non exist of the afterlife!!!
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #592 on: January 13, 2012, 06:00:35 PM »
And another thing,  if your mind is produced by your brain, as you say, and the brain is made of atoms;  that means your belief that 'the mind is produced by the brain' was produced by atoms. Correct? If so,  why then, do you believe that atoms produced a true belief here?
Atoms don't "produce" the brain.  Atoms make up the brain.  So the comparison is moot.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #593 on: January 13, 2012, 06:00:51 PM »
Both materialism and idealism are false, the only reasonable alternative is dualism. Substance dualism seems out of the question for a number of reasons. For example it cannot explain how these spiritual substances came into existence in the first place and it cannot explain how they relate to the physical world. So property dualism seems the only reasonable view of the mind-body problem. Consciousness really exists, but it is not a separate substance on its own, rather it is a property of the brain.

Unless your can provide evidence that it is true.

Makes sense.  Also sort of what I and some others have been proposing all along:  That consciousness is a property of the brain.  Or rather, that it is a manifestation of the brain's workings - which amounts to the same thing.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #594 on: January 13, 2012, 06:03:33 PM »
Both materialism and idealism are false, the only reasonable alternative is dualism. Substance dualism seems out of the question for a number of reasons. For example it cannot explain how these spiritual substances came into existence in the first place and it cannot explain how they relate to the physical world. So property dualism seems the only reasonable view of the mind-body problem. Consciousness really exists, but it is not a separate substance on its own, rather it is a property of the brain.

Unless your can provide evidence that it is true.

Makes sense.  Also sort of what I and some others have been proposing all along:  That consciousness is a property of the brain.  Or rather, that it is a manifestation of the brain's workings - which amounts to the same thing.

Sorry that it makes sense, it is because of this site that caused me to take time and read, read and read some more. No to mention use common sense.  :P
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #595 on: January 13, 2012, 06:04:34 PM »
Note: I smited the wrong person on accident.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #596 on: January 13, 2012, 06:21:53 PM »
Azd, I don't know whether you want to continue our conversation after such a long break, but I wrote this anyway.

Quote
No, not telling you to grow up, not at all!    I didn't mean anything like that.  What I meant was ...
Ah, OK, I get you. 
 
Quote
I thought I had replied to your posts in this thread, Gnu.  My bad.
I know that's a trivial example, but it makes me wonder; why would you feel bad about anything you do, and why would you apologize?
 
If you're not responsible for your actions, why would you feel bad or guilty about any of them? Aren't those the immature emotional reactions you're referring to, archaic hangovers from the age of illusory free will?
 
And likewise, one can only meaningfully apologize for what one is responsible for. So in your deterministic world, apologizing for anything at all seems somewhat meaningless. And insincere. Because if you really believe that your actions were inevitable, and you know they weren't your fault, an apology is inappropriate and irrelevant, so why offer it?
 
(This is from the other thread where we're discussing the same thing):
Quote
You've revealed that your belief in free will is a product of doublethink, not a genuine intellectual conclusion.

I'm not double thinking, Azd. Not yet, anyway. The fact is, the question of free will hasn't been settled yet. People have been investigating it for millennia, and it hasn't yet been established that free will is an illusion. In which case, it seems reasonable for neutral observers to be agnostic on the issue.
 
So (ironically) it seems that we can choose whether to believe in determinism or believe in freedom (or some compatibilist synthesis).
 
So I'm an agnostic free willist. I believe in free will, but I could be wrong.
 
There's no contradiction or doublethink there.
 
My argument is that if we are given the choice whether to believe in determinism or free will, It's a moral issue, it's a matter of doing the right thing, or not. As such, it is reasonable to use consequentialism to make the ethical decision. Which isn't the same as using an argumentum ad consequentiam to prove a point of logic.
 
Going back to Orwell though, I'm amused that you accuse me of (double)thinking along Party lines.That's ironic, as I'm the one advocating belief in freedom, and you're the one advocating abnegation of moral responsibility and submission to historic inevitability. If we were living in 1984, Azd, it would be me in the torture chair and you applying the electricity and the rats. 
 
I said before that under determinism there is no justice, no morality. Orwell describes the same world in 1984 (my bold):
 
Quote
Its [Newspeaks's] vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as " This dog is free from lice " or " This field is free from weeds ". It could not be used in its old sense of " politically free " or " intellectually free " since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. <snip>
 
As we have already seen in the case of the word free, words which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them.
I know Orwell wasn't talking about a deterministic world, merely a totalitarian one. But they appear to have similarities... you might want to consider the implications of that.
 
Another quote:
Quote
That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better.
Orwell asks us to choose between freedom and happiness; in this thread the choice is between freedom and truth. Tricky, eh? I'm still going with freedom...
 
And one more:
Quote
The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? 
Determinism also abolishes freedom.
 
(I re-read 1984 last week, by the way; I was looking at wiki to distinguish between doublethink and cognitve dissonance, and decided to go back to the source. It's still an awesome book).

Quote
I tacitly acknowledged all this when I said that we needed different concepts of "responsibility" that do function under determinism.  See the bolded word?  "Different"?  Yeah, that was key.
I don't understand your different concept of responsibility.

Quote
This brings me back to our meta-problem, Gnu.  I can't know at any point whether your not understanding something is due to a genuine failure of communication, or whether it's because you are deliberately deciding not to understand it.
Sorry, but I don't see how I can help you. Believe what you like; talk to me, or don't.

Quote
Quote
And I still don't know what you mean when you say that you "believe in free-will as a subjective, experiential truth".
I mean the same thing about free will as I do about morality when I say that it is subjective.
But you don't think your morality is an illusion, surely? So I don't get your analogy.

Quote
Quote
No choices, no responsibility, no morality - just bouncing down the hill... I choose not to believe that.
Given your belief that those ideas cannot be harmonized to physical fact, I can see why you might want to reject physical fact.  But such harmonization is the alternative I'm talking about.  The stuff I struck out does not necessarily follow from determinism, 
Whereas Jetson responded to my comment with a simple "Yup" - he thinks those do follow. 
 
Quote
Quote
And of course, by your argument, it is inevitable that I choose that. It is inevitable that on this issue I value freedom more than truth. How can I do otherwise?

It was inevitable. 
According to you, everything was inevitable, everything is inevitable, everything will be inevitable. So I stand by what I said there.

Happy New Year.

Gnu.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 06:28:34 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #597 on: January 13, 2012, 06:53:39 PM »
And another thing,  if your mind is produced by your brain, as you say, and the brain is made of atoms;  that means your belief that 'the mind is produced by the brain' was produced by atoms. Correct? If so,  why then, do you believe that atoms produced a true belief here?
Atoms don't "produce" the brain.  Atoms make up the brain.  So the comparison is moot.

Then what does produce consciousness, the brain?   What is the basis for this belief?

The fact that altering the brain can effect consciousness, means the brain IS consciousness?   There's plenty of things which can effects other things, without being that thing.

The Earths gravity effects my body, doesn't mean gravity IS my body.   

So then , why would it be a logical necessity that the mind, consciousness, IS the brain,  just because it can be affected by the brain?

As far as the whole argument which has been made by a couple, of removing a person's brain,  that is moot also, since no one can know if that person's consciousness is still existing somewhere....
 

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #598 on: January 13, 2012, 07:05:09 PM »
   So then , why would it be a logical necessity that the mind, consciousness, IS the brain,  just because it can be affected by the brain?

You stepping back to the Mind/Body dualism. Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain.

The fact that altering the brain can effect consciousness, means the brain IS consciousness? 

No, it is because of the variable rates of neuron firings in different neuronal architectures or at least that is how i understand it.
“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #599 on: January 13, 2012, 07:19:11 PM »
   So then , why would it be a logical necessity that the mind, consciousness, IS the brain,  just because it can be affected by the brain?

You stepping back to the Mind/Body dualism. Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain.

The fact that altering the brain can effect consciousness, means the brain IS consciousness? 

No, it is because of the variable rates of neuron firings in different neuronal architectures or at least that is how i understand it.

Ok.  Do you believe that this 'higher level' process is free from the 'lower level' processes deterministic nature?  In other words, free-will.

Offline Babdah

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • Darwins +4/-3
  • “We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #600 on: January 13, 2012, 07:29:17 PM »

Ok.  Do you believe that this 'higher level' process is free from the 'lower level' processes deterministic nature?  In other words, free-will.

No!!! Brain processes cause consciousness but the consciousness they cause is not some extra substance or entity. It is just a higher level feature of the whole system.

May I suggest that you take time and read Euclidian geometry...

“We live in an age disturbed, confused, bewildered, afraid of its own forces, in search not merely of its road but even of its direction

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #601 on: January 13, 2012, 07:31:53 PM »
Quote
Sorry, but I don't see how I can help you. Believe what you like; talk to me, or don't.

Sorry, Gnu, but this isn't good enough.  You're the one who's declared that retaining your present beliefs on this topic is more important to you than having true beliefs on this topic.  So the normal standards of intellectual honesty to which I'd hold myself and others in a discussion or debate, simply don't hold with you.  By stating that you would continue to believe in free will even if it were demonstrated to you beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no free will, you've effectively declared that those standards don't hold with you.

That's your choice.[1]  It's your attitude and actions that preclude reasoned discussion, not mine.  That reflects on you, not on me.  Don't push it off on me with your "talk to me, or don't" cop-out.
 1. Please, no disingenuous "oh but you don't believe in choice!" strawman-jokes here, Gnu.  I'm serious.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #602 on: January 13, 2012, 08:12:42 PM »
Then what does produce consciousness, the brain?   What is the basis for this belief?
Among other things, the fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies (disregarding near-death experiences; the brain obviously wasn't actually dead if the person was able to come back to life).  The fact that damaging the brain affects consciousness.  The fact that altering the brain alters one's consciousness.

Quote from: Gill
The fact that altering the brain can effect consciousness, means the brain IS consciousness?
Nope.  The brain produces consciousness.  This is like how an car engine produces movement.  But that does not mean that the engine is movement, as you are claiming here.  Or, how lightning produces thunder, but is not thunder itself.

Quote from: Gill
There's plenty of things which can effects other things, without being that thing.
There are also plenty of things that can produce other things, without being those other things.

Quote from: Gill
The Earths gravity effects my body, doesn't mean gravity IS my body.
Gravity is a product of mass.  That does not mean that gravity is mass.  But you need mass to produce gravity.

Quote from: Gill
So then , why would it be a logical necessity that the mind, consciousness, IS the brain,  just because it can be affected by the brain?
The brain produces the mind and the consciousness.  And if the brain stops working, it stops producing the mind and the consciousness.  So no, it is not a logical necessity that the brain is the mind and the consciousness, but then again, I wasn't arguing that it was in the first place.

Quote from: Gill
As far as the whole argument which has been made by a couple, of removing a person's brain,  that is moot also, since no one can know if that person's consciousness is still existing somewhere....
You have to prove that there is a somewhere else that the mind and consciousness can exist after the brain stops working for this to matter.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #603 on: January 13, 2012, 08:36:00 PM »
The Earths gravity effects my body, doesn't mean gravity IS my body.

Your physical mass exerts the same gravity causing curve upon spacetime.  You can't even get gravity right.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #604 on: January 13, 2012, 09:13:38 PM »
The Earths gravity effects my body, doesn't mean gravity IS my body.

Your physical mass exerts the same gravity causing curve upon spacetime.  You can't even get gravity right.

Yeah, I know my mass exerts gravity.  Has nothing to do with my point.   I was talking about how things which I wouldn't consider to be my body, can effect my body.   

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #605 on: January 13, 2012, 09:29:02 PM »
Then what does produce consciousness, the brain?   What is the basis for this belief?
Among other things, the fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies (disregarding near-death experiences; the brain obviously wasn't actually dead if the person was able to come back to life).  The fact that damaging the brain affects consciousness.  The fact that altering the brain alters one's consciousness....
Nope.  The brain produces consciousness.  This is like how an car engine produces movement.  But that does not mean that the engine is movement, as you are claiming here.  Or, how lightning produces thunder, but is not thunder itself....There are also plenty of things that can produce other things, without being those other things....Gravity is a product of mass.  That does not mean that gravity is mass.  But you need mass to produce gravity....The brain produces the mind and the consciousness.  And if the brain stops working, it stops producing the mind and the consciousness.  So no, it is not a logical necessity that the brain is the mind and the consciousness, but then again, I wasn't arguing that it was in the first place.

It's a fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies?  How do you know, ever die before? 

As far as the brain producing consciousness;   in other words, the brain is the creator of consciousness;   I just don't see that to necessarily be the absolute case.   Certainly we can all agree that what happens in the brain can effect consciousness, and can be related to consciousness.   But the creator of it?  Why?

One problem I have with that premise is that consciousness is indefinite.   So then,  how many neurons does it take exactly to create consciousness?   And if you have one less neuron, does consciousness cease to exist?

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #606 on: January 13, 2012, 09:30:56 PM »
The Earths gravity effects my body, doesn't mean gravity IS my body.

Your physical mass exerts the same gravity causing curve upon spacetime.  You can't even get gravity right.

Yeah, I know my mass exerts gravity.  Has nothing to do with my point.   I was talking about how things which I wouldn't consider to be my body, can effect my body.

Which has absolutely nothing to in analogy to what others are claiming as conscious
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #607 on: January 13, 2012, 09:38:01 PM »
It's a fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies?  How do you know, ever die before? 

As far as the brain producing consciousness;   in other words, the brain is the creator of consciousness;  I just don't see that to necessarily be the absolute case.   Certainly we can all agree that what happens in the brain can effect consciousness, and can be related to consciousness.   But the creator of it?  Why?

One problem I have with that premise is that consciousness is indefinite.   So then,  how many neurons does it take exactly to create consciousness?   And if you have one less neuron, does consciousness cease to exist?

I'm just curious as to what point you're actually going to get around to making an argument to support your position. This is a very noticeable trend throughout all of the threads that you post in. You spend all of your time asserting a position, and precious little of it actually attempting to make a case for why it has any merit.

Note the bold above. You do this constantly, claiming that you have a problem with the other set of ideas, or that you don't see it to be the case. However you can't present a credible or coherent alternative idea.

Perhaps you should focus on that. It might help.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #608 on: January 13, 2012, 09:47:00 PM »
It's a fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies?  How do you know, ever die before? 

As far as the brain producing consciousness;   in other words, the brain is the creator of consciousness;  I just don't see that to necessarily be the absolute case.   Certainly we can all agree that what happens in the brain can effect consciousness, and can be related to consciousness.   But the creator of it?  Why?

One problem I have with that premise is that consciousness is indefinite.   So then,  how many neurons does it take exactly to create consciousness?   And if you have one less neuron, does consciousness cease to exist?

I'm just curious as to what point you're actually going to get around to making an argument to support your position. This is a very noticeable trend throughout all of the threads that you post in. You spend all of your time asserting a position, and precious little of it actually attempting to make a case for why it has any merit.

Note the bold above. You do this constantly, claiming that you have a problem with the other set of ideas, or that you don't see it to be the case. However you can't present a credible or coherent alternative idea.

Perhaps you should focus on that. It might help.

Well there's a lot of topics on the thread so yeah, it can get a little less coherent as to the main topic.

But, to try and be more precise; the point of consciousness being indefinite, is one reason I don't see it a being produced by the brain.