Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?

[Alzael]

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.

Still not even remotely an argument for anything, or even a valid point. Nor does it do anything to make your case, whatever that is supposed to be.

JUST SAYING YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR IT, NOR DOES IT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

You have to actually make a case for why it's a problem, and why your ideas should be given merit.

Just saying you have a problem with this does nothing but make you look like an imbecile who can't engage in a proper discussion. Your statement above has no value.  It is functionally worthless.

[Gnu Ordure]

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.

That's all I've got.

I spent at least an hour and a half writing that last post to you. Either reply to it, or don't. It's up to you. I'm not interested in whatever problems you're having in deciding whether to reply. Just do it. Or not. As you wish.

[Gill]

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.

Still not even remotely an argument for anything, or even a valid point. Nor does it do anything to make your case, whatever that is supposed to be.

JUST SAYING YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR IT, NOR DOES IT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

You have to actually make a case for why it's a problem, and why your ideas should be given merit.

Just saying you have a problem with this does nothing but make you look like an imbecile who can't engage in a proper discussion. Your statement above has no value.  It is functionally worthless.

Well I've probably already stated all these ideas in more details and posts here before.  I'm not going to write out an entire new essay on every supporting point every time I re-state an idea. 

[Azdgari]

Gnu, it's not my fault that you stacked your post full of gratuitous strawmen, nor that you've declared yourself not to be an honest interlocutor on this topic.

If you can't at least think of a solution to the latter problem, then it is you who've decided to avoid a meaningful dialogue, not me.

[Gnu Ordure]

So my long post to you goes unanswered.

In the absense of a reply, I am not inclined to devote any more time to this.

Thank you and so long.

[Azdgari]

You knew the problem before writing your long post.  You decided not to address it, and instead ignored all I'd written before in favor of misrepresentation of my position.  What can I say?

[Anfauglir]

Hence my question as to what you believe intervenes in these physical reactions to produce an outcome that is not determined by physics/chemistry/etc.

Nothing intervenes in it.  I just don't think you can determine the single outcome that will happen in advance.  The possible outcomes are still inherently limited by physics/chemistry/etc, and you can not get an outcome that falls outside of those limits.

Okay, good.  So we have one point of agreement.  But then....

I think that you can have multiple outcomes from the same starting parameters in a system that is sufficiently complex.  What I'm not certain of is whether that complexity requires those quantum fluctuations or not.

Also agreed....to a point.  RANDOM interventions will certainly cause multiple possible outcomes.

But here's the rub: since those random interventions are by nature random, they are clearly not a deliberate decision - not part of any "free will" process that involves considered and deliberate choice.  So we can, effectively, exclude them.

So we have a scenario where the rules fo physics and chemistry apply, and where there is no random interventions.  And THAT is the point at which you need to explain how identical situations, following identical physical rules, can come to different outcomes.  Absolutely identical setups, remember - not just "pretty close", but identical all the way up and down. 

By what process can different results be obtained?  "Large systems" is not an answer, because every part of that system was set up the same, and every small process is governed by the same laws - so if every small reaction/part cannot change, nor then can the large outputs.

But remember - if the SGU, every element is reloaded exactly the same.  So this neurone has this particular charge, that axon is in that particular state....if each one obeys the laws of physics and changes its state from moment to moment according to the (identical, remember) stimuli affecting it.....how do you end up with a different result?

I'm saying that all the jigsaw pieces are the same, and will - can - produce only one picture.  You seem to be saying that - somehow - the same pieces can make 2 or more pictures.  I'm just asking you how.

Imagine you made a save state of someone making a jigsaw puzzle.  Let's say that the state was made before they'd decided on the picture to use for the puzzle.  You're basically saying that, from the point at which things were saved, they'll always pick the same picture and cut the pieces the same way.  I'm saying they might not.  They might have two or three pictures which they like, and have to decide which one to use.  So they might be more likely to pick one over the others, but it's not impossible that they'll choose one of the other two finalists instead.

But again....how?  At the point the save was made, they had the same thoughts, preferences, experiences, loves, likes...and so on.  But depite all those preferences, you are saying that the outcome can change, without being either stochastic or random.

I see a lot of "it can happen", but very little why or how it can happen. 

I think that the processes that let us make decisions can interact in such a way that they will not automatically come up with the same decision, based on the same starting data. 

I get that you do.  But HOW?

[screwtape]

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.

How does contemplation of a thing's nonexistence matter?  Contemplation of nonexistence is not actual nonexistence.  You have imagined it and reasoned it, but it is something that can, no, must be empirically tested in order to say "it is thus".  This was my point in an earlier post, to which you replied, "Did I ever say imagining something was real? No. "  It seems to me the answer is "yes".  Whether you can imagine it or not is completely irrelevant.  I can imagine phlogiston, but so what?  What matters is what happens when it actually does not exist.

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. 

The mind is the product of the brain.  It is the emergent illusion the brain has of itself.  If your point is the brain is not equal to the mind, well, then that is something we can agree on.  But to say the mind is a separate, entity that exists independent of the brain, and continues on after the brain has died, that is a different idea altogether and the one I am arguing against.  And I am not sure which you are saying.  It seems to me the latter.

The mind is not an actual thing.  It is to the brain as waves are to the water.  Waves are not water, nor is the water waves.  Waves are a thing that happens, an emergent property of water.  You may have water without waves, but you cannot have waves without water[1].  Take away the water, you take away the waves. Take away the brain, you take away the mind.  It is silly to ask where the waves go.  It is similarly silly to ask where the mind goes.  Nowhere.

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.

As I said above, I am not sure what you are saying.

1.	liquids of the appropriate density and viscosity, I should say, to be technically correct

[jaimehlers]

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

Well, that begs the question of how you know that consciousness doesn't cease to exist when the brain dies.  Because you don't; all you have said on the subject is that you're satisfied with "reasoning" it out, which is to say, starting from the premise that you're correct and then coming up with a marginal rationalization in order to "prove" your premise.  You've even admitted that you're only interested in coming up with enough of a justification to support your belief in your own mind, rather than making any effort to actually test your reasoning to see if it actually works out in reality.

Nobody has ever detected any kind of radiation incoming to the brain that would support your belief of the mind being based elsewhere.  Nobody has ever detected anything that would represent the mind leaving the body after death.  And nobody has ever come back from the dead in some other form to confirm that there is an external housing for the mind or consciousness.  Until you can show evidence to back up what you say, you're dead in the water as far as convincing people.

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?

Because consciousness doesn't exist before the brain develops sufficiently to produce it.  Can you remember anything that happened before you were born?  Surely, if the mind were elsewhere and simply transmitted its orders to the brain like a puppet, it could transmit past memories as well.  For that matter, surely the transmissions between the mind and the brain could be detected somehow.  It is not unreasonable to expect you to give evidence to support what you believe; that does not mean to substitute half-baked "reasoning" which you admit isn't likely to convince people.

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've said before that consciousness is not indefinite.  You can define the limits of it, and define the rate at which it grows.  The fact that you are continuing to make the "indefinite" claim even though I've rebutted it does not make it true.  And you can be quite sure that whatever the threshold is for consciousness, the human brain far surpasses that critical number.  As far as what would happen if you went below that critical number, the person would probably be brain dead.  Their body would still operate, but they wouldn't be capable of doing much beyond breathing and keeping the heart beating, maybe chewing food that's put in their mouth, stuff like that.

[screwtape]

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

What reason do we have to believe otherwise, other than the traditions of primitive cultures and wishful thinking?  If you could provide a good reason to think disembodied "minds" or personalities are floating around the universe, then fess up.  But then you would want to also explain where they come from, how they function, etc.  Otherwise, you just introduced more questions than answers.

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?

Exactly when does milk go bad?  What happened between that moment and one second later that made good milk into bad milk?

Consciousness, like bad milk, is a sliding scale. Clams have none.  Turtles have very little.  Dogs and cats have more.  Chimps have a lot.  Humans seem to have the most.  You are splitting hairs with that question.

[Dante]

Gill,

Do other animals have consciousness? Apes, elephants, dogs, dolphins?

If not, why not?

If so, do you suppose that their's isn't bound by physical laws too?

[Babdah]

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

You dont have to look at amnesia patents. Brain damage or a traumatic even causes them to lose their consciousness, for a time. So again how can it be separate. 

[jaimehlers]

Also agreed....to a point.  RANDOM interventions will certainly cause multiple possible outcomes.

But here's the rub: since those random interventions are by nature random, they are clearly not a deliberate decision - not part of any "free will" process that involves considered and deliberate choice.  So we can, effectively, exclude them.

No, you can't.  It would be like saying that you can effectively exclude a random number generation function that's extensively used in the background of a computer program.  Yes, you can exclude it (comment it out, or whatever), but the resulting computer program would not bear much resemblance to the one that incorporates the random number generator.  You can't ignore the effects of something just because it doesn't seem like it's a particularly large part of that something.

So we have a scenario where the rules fo physics and chemistry apply, and where there is no random interventions.  And THAT is the point at which you need to explain how identical situations, following identical physical rules, can come to different outcomes.  Absolutely identical setups, remember - not just "pretty close", but identical all the way up and down.

Even assuming such a scenario were possible, it would bear no resemblance to the universe we actually live in.  For example, we can have a universe where all of the rules of physics and chemistry hold as they do here except the strong force - say it's weaker than electromagnetism once you get enough protons in the nucleus.  Do you think that what you discover in that universe would have much bearing on ours?  Those random fluctuations you dismiss may well be incorporated into whatever gives sentient life the ability to make decisions that don't always fall out the same way.

By what process can different results be obtained?  "Large systems" is not an answer, because every part of that system was set up the same, and every small process is governed by the same laws - so if every small reaction/part cannot change, nor then can the large outputs.

I didn't say large systems, I said complex systems.  Complexity is not the same thing as size.  Also, it appears I should have been saying chaotic systems instead of complex systems, to be unambiguous.

But again....how?  At the point the save was made, they had the same thoughts, preferences, experiences, loves, likes...and so on.  But depite all those preferences, you are saying that the outcome can change, without being either stochastic or random.

I see a lot of "it can happen", but very little why or how it can happen.

I'm basing it at least in part off of chaos theory.  I think each part of the psyche is an example of a chaotic (what I was calling complicated) system in its own right, and if so they could combine in an unpredictable way, with no guarantee that they'll always combine in the same way even without random chance involved.  I could be wrong here, I'll admit.  But I think it's at least reasonable.

[pianodwarf]

It's a fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies?

Science is as certain of this as it is of anything, so much so that in the fields of both science and philosophy, it's just taken as a given.  (There's a very small handful of holdouts like yourself, but no one takes them seriously.)  The only place that other theories of mind are really even discussed at all is in texts aimed at non-professionals, and even there, they're given only a brief treatment to explain why no one accepts them anymore.  In Dennett's groundbreaking book Consciousness Explained, for example, he spends perhaps ten pages (out of 528 pages total) explaining the concept of substance dualism, then one paragraph explaining why everyone rejects it.  The refutation of substance dualism is so simple and straightforward that everyone has been discussing it since Descartes codified it, and it is considered to be the fatal flaw with the concept.  (Even Descartes himself was aware of the main problem with substance dualism; in fact, he helped codify the law of physics that substance dualism violates!)

How do you know, ever die before?

Oh, come on.  How do you know Bouvet Island exists?  Ever seen it?   

[Brakeman]

Oh, come on.  How do you know Bouvet Island exists?  Ever seen it?   

I believe the island exists because Pianodwarf said it and that settles it! I have faith in Pianodwarf and so I have faith that everything he says is true and perfect, and if "it appears" to contradict with reality, then I will know that the fault lies within me and my faulty interpretations of Pianodwarf's words.

[Gill]

Well, that begs the question of how you know that consciousness doesn't cease to exist when the brain dies. ...Nobody has ever detected any kind of radiation incoming to the brain that would support your belief of the mind being based elsewhere. Nobody has ever detected anything that would represent the mind leaving the body after death...

There's plenty of cases I've read where people have been clinically brain dead, no measurable brain waves,  either during a special neurosurgery or on their deathbed; who then had been revived and later account for having conscious experiences during the time, and such experiences containing information of things happening around them, verifiabe by the doctors. I'm sure the argument may be that those people must not of been brain dead.  Well, they had no measurable brain waves, so then even if not 'brain dead' to your standards, consciousness would seem to not be totally dependant on brain waves being detected to exist.

I've said before that consciousness is not indefinite. You can define the limits of it, and define the rate at which it grows....

Yes, you can define limits of consciousness.  But I'm talking about the conscousness itself, the substance, is not definite.  If it's definite, then you should be able to quantify it, well then how would you do so?  I don't see such a possible way myself.  For instance, I have X amount of consciousness?

The mind is the product of the brain. It is the emergent illusion the brain has of itself. If your point is the brain is not equal to the mind, well, then that is something we can agree on. But to say the mind is a separate, entity that exists independent of the brain, and continues on after the brain has died, that is a different idea altogether and the one I am arguing against. And I am not sure which you are saying. It seems to me the latter.

You dont have to look at amnesia patents. Brain damage or a traumatic even causes them to lose their consciousness, for a time. So again how can it be separate.

It's not separate in the sense that it cannot be affected by brain states; I think it's separate in that it is a distinct substance from any measurable quantity in the brain.

Gill,

Do other animals have consciousness? Apes, elephants, dogs, dolphins? If not, why not?

If so, do you suppose that their's isn't bound by physical laws too?

Yeah, I think they do to a degree.  As far as being bound by physical laws; as long as they can make a decision at times based on what they think may happen, and not what they know will happen for sure, then they would have a degree of freedom from such laws.

[Gill]

It's a fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies?

Science is as certain of this as it is of anything, so much so that in the fields of both science and philosophy, it's just taken as a given.....

Yeah, taken as a given, in other words, an assumption.    Can't fit it into a materialistic paradigm, so it's not even considered.   As far as it being a given in all philosophy,  of course, if you only pay attention to what strict materialists write.   But there's plenty of people out there who aren't strict materialists.   It's not like I just make up all these ideas myself,  I've gotten many of them from reading and listening to people's philosophies.

[Azdgari]

Pianodwarf goes on to explain how it's not an assumption.  But you didn't read that far, did you?

[Gill]

Pianodwarf goes on to explain how it's not an assumption.  But you didn't read that far, did you?

Yeah, I did. And I disagree.   You can't know for sure consciousness ceases to exist after death, unless you've actually died.   So then anyone who thinks it's a fact, is clearly making an overstatement.

[Azdgari]

Substance dualism doesn't exist - not an assumption, but a requirement of reality.  Therefore consciousness that depends on substance dualism doesn't exist.

That's not an assumption.  It's an observation.

[Gill]

Substance dualism doesn't exist - not an assumption, but a requirement of reality.  Therefore consciousness that depends on substance dualism doesn't exist.

That's not an assumption.  It's an observation.

Observation of what?  Substance dualism is a stance that the mind cannot be measured and observed.   

[Azdgari]

If it cannot be measured or observed then it necessarily has no effect on physical reality, and everything everyone actually does (in their brains, with their bodies - everything) is independent of this "mind" thing.

That's one problem with substance dualism:  If you say that its effects can't be detected, then you're saying that it doesn't affect reality.

[Gill]

If it cannot be measured or observed then it necessarily has no effect on physical reality, and everything everyone actually does (in their brains, with their bodies - everything) is independent of this "mind" thing.

That's one problem with substance dualism:  If you say that its effects can't be detected, then you're saying that it doesn't affect reality.

No, the effects can be detected.   Measuring brain waves would be detecting the effects.    But by measuring brain waves are you aren't measuring the mind, you're measuring brain waves.   

[Azdgari]

Then you don't know what "observe" and "measure" mean.

We only know about anything by its effects.  Effects are how we observe things.

[Gill]

Then you don't know what "observe" and "measure" mean.

We only know about anything by its effects.  Effects are how we observe things.

Measure, to quantify something.   Can anyone here quantify mind?

I don't think so, so then it's something usually disregarded  in physics, but there's plenty of things which aren't quantifiable,  doesn't mean they don't exist,  people just disregard them in a field which can't incorporate them mathematically.

[Azdgari]

Sure, the mind's workings can be measured.  Not in great detail, yet, but so what?

What you're doing is akin to saying that since we can't be observing all of the particles of a car engine, then the car engine's workings are unmeasurable.

[Gill]

Sure, the mind's workings can be measured.  Not in great detail, yet, but so what?

What you're doing is akin to saying that since we can't be observing all of the particles of a car engine, then the car engine's workings are unmeasurable.

I agree, the workings, the effects could be measured.   But the thing itself,  the substance,  mind, is not quantifiable.   I couldn't talk meaningfully about some sort of 'amount of mind', you know, so that's what I mean.

[Azdgari]

You also couldn't talk meaningfully about the car engine itself, its basic substance, the thing about it that's not quantifiable.

This is the same thing, re: the mind.

[pianodwarf]

It's a fact that consciousness ceases to exist when the brain dies?

Science is as certain of this as it is of anything, so much so that in the fields of both science and philosophy, it's just taken as a given.....

Yeah, taken as a given, in other words, an assumption.

It's not an assumption.  There's this thing in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and substance dualism violates that law.  The problem has been discussed by both physicists and philosophers for, literally, centuries, and no one has ever been able to figure out a way around it.  (Well, except Leibniz, but his solution is just bizarre.)  There are many reasons that substance dualism is in disfavor today, but this one is arguably the biggest.

Can't fit it into a materialistic paradigm, so it's not even considered.

Au contraire, as I said, it's been "considered" for centuries.  Considered and rejected.

As far as it being a given in all philosophy,  of course, if you only pay attention to what strict materialists write.   But there's plenty of people out there who aren't strict materialists.

True, but most of them are dilettantes at best and ignoramuses at worst.  Experts, and even informed amateurs, are almost all materialists.  I majored in philosophy and my thesis topic was philosophy of mind, so I happen to know a thing or two about this.  All of the major contemporary philosophers of mind are materialists of one stripe or another: Dennett, Penrose, Flanagan, the Churchlands, Nagel, Searle, Ryle, Edelman, Hofstadter... all of them.  The only exception I know of is Vendler.  (Just out of curiosity, by the way -- how much material by any of those individuals have you read?)

It's not like I just make up all these ideas myself,  I've gotten many of them from reading and listening to people's philosophies.

Oh, I don't dispute that.  Lots of people have all kinds of ideas about all kinds of things.  That doesn't mean that the ideas have merit.