Who wants a soul?

[chaz wyman]

]It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

er... no.
It's like you can't read.
Is that what you really think?? bizarre?!?!
I have no idea where you are getting this. It's like you have no understanding of basic physics.

The OP is tinkering with possibility that may be contained in the unknown (the infinite future), while it seems that you are stuck in the limited words of others (the past to presently finite). The only reason why any particular pattern can be sensed by a machine is because a man hypothesized there being such a pattern that he can sense with a machine and then builds one. This in and of itself does not preclude other patterns or sensors from being a possibility in reality.
In that case you should take it up with the OP, rather than use this as an opportunity to criticise what I have offered.
He has simply hypothesized something to explore.
Without the physics there is nothing to 'explore'.
Personally I quite liked it, as electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light and continually travels infinitely unless scattered, absorbed or reflected. In a sense it is life after death. At least in the sense of possibly affecting something.[/color]


Then that being the case you should offer some evidence to build up an argument.
However...
We'd all 'like" the idea of life after death (if that is not a contradiction).
Knowledge is not about choice, but about verification and evidence.

So where is it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

]It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

er... no.
It's like you can't read.
Is that what you really think?? bizarre?!?!
I have no idea where you are getting this. It's like you have no understanding of basic physics.
Thats exactly what you said and I quote:

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..

The OP is tinkering with possibility that may be contained in the unknown (the infinite future), while it seems that you are stuck in the limited words of others (the past to presently finite). The only reason why any particular pattern can be sensed by a machine is because a man hypothesized there being such a pattern that he can sense with a machine and then builds one. This in and of itself does not preclude other patterns or sensors from being a possibility in reality.
In that case you should take it up with the OP, rather than use this as an opportunity to criticise what I have offered.
You're the one that offers your argument as certain (absolute). Yet you say you are a skeptic and that all truth in argument is relative.

He has simply hypothesized something to explore.
Without the physics there is nothing to 'explore'.
I agree, but we are arguing the brain as it relates to mind/soul/consciousness which is yet unknown to science. Where's your physics as related to the topic?

Personally I quite liked it, as electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light and continually travels infinitely unless scattered, absorbed or reflected. In a sense it is life after death. At least in the sense of possibly affecting something.[/color]


Then that being the case you should offer some evidence to build up an argument.
However...
We'd all 'like" the idea of life after death (if that is not a contradiction).
Knowledge is not about choice, but about verification and evidence.

I referenced "life after death" only as to 'affecting' other things, I did not mention consciousness.

So where is it?
Isn't the point of the thread to figure that out?

[chaz wyman]

This...

]It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

... cannot be inferred from, and bears no relationship to this...

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..

Maybe, had you been following and contributing to the thread, then you would not have misunderstood, who knows?


Yeah - like I said it's like you don't understand how to read.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This...

]It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

... cannot be inferred from, and bears no relationship to this...

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..

Maybe, had you been following and contributing to the thread, then you would not have misunderstood, who knows?


Yeah - like I said it's like you don't understand how to read.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

No it's you that doesn't know how to read:

"A neuron is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals."

"EEG measures voltage fluctuations resulting from ionic current flows within the neurons of the brain." "Diagnostic applications generally focus on the spectral content of EEG, that is, the type of neural oscillations that can be observed in EEG signals."

Spectral content: "The frequency spectrum of a time-domain signal is a representation of that signal in the frequency domain. The frequency spectrum can be generated via a Fourier transform of the signal, and the resulting values are usually presented as amplitude and phase, both plotted versus frequency."

"Any signal that can be represented as an amplitude that varies with time has a corresponding frequency spectrum. This includes familiar concepts such as visible light (color), musical notes, radio/TV channels, and even the regular rotation of the earth. When these physical phenomena are represented in the form of a frequency spectrum, certain physical descriptions of their internal processes become much simpler. Often, the frequency spectrum clearly shows harmonics, visible as distinct spikes or lines, that provide insight into the mechanisms that generate the entire signal."

"Spectrum analysis, also referred to as frequency domain analysis or spectral density estimation, is the technical process of decomposing a complex signal into simpler parts. As described above, many physical processes are best described as a sum of many individual frequency components. Any process that quantifies the various amounts (e.g. amplitudes, powers, intensities, or phases), versus frequency can be called spectrum analysis."

There's also carrier frequency, pulse width and pulse repetition frequency to consider when trying to make sense of the data.

"Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles, which exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space. EMR has both electric and magnetic field components, which stand in a fixed ratio of intensity to each other, and which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation. In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation propagates at a characteristic speed, the speed of light."

"Electromagnetic radiation is a particular form of the more general electromagnetic field (EM field), which is produced by moving charges."

In summary, it would seem that much more could be gleaned from brain electrical activity, just not by history teachers, please leave electromagnetic energy to those that understand it.

[chaz wyman]

This...

]It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

... cannot be inferred from, and bears no relationship to this...

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..

Maybe, had you been following and contributing to the thread, then you would not have misunderstood, who knows?


Yeah - like I said it's like you don't understand how to read.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

No ....

I refer the poster to the answer I made in my last post.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This...

It sounds to me as though you believe that nothing has meaning unless it's understood. That meaning is only to be found in the sensing and not the radiating. If you are deaf, while another hears, are my words not meaningful. I would say that content is contained in the radiation whether or not anyone senses it.

... cannot be inferred from, and bears no relationship to this...

Okay - only in a de facto way. I'm saying that brain waves are the superfluous consequence of brain cells exchanging electrical pulses. When apart from the body they are not organised to render information. Such information as they may contain related only to the fact that with machines we can detect the brain areas from which the emerge, and such inferences as to their thoughts and feelings are consistent with our knowledge of how those areas' functions.
That is not the same as saying that 'information' in a general sense cannot be gleaned from unintentional sources: pulsars, and quasars come to mind..

Maybe, had you been following and contributing to the thread, then you would not have misunderstood, who knows?
Yeah - like I said it's like you don't understand how to read.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

No it's you...

I refer the poster to the answer I made in my last post.

And I refer the OP to dig into the knowledge base of humanity, and then think for yourself, but to surely NEVER necessarily put your eggs in the basket of one whom posts here on PNF. Remember to believe half of what you see and none of what your hear/read. Well at least see it all as that which should be acknowledged only with a grain of salt. Never meet any bit of mans knowledge necessarily with certainty, as in the universe there is no necessary certainty. We only truly know, that we do not know!

[chaz wyman]

And I refer the OP to dig into the knowledge base of humanity, and then think for yourself, but to surely NEVER necessarily put your eggs in the basket of one whom posts here on PNF. Remember to believe half of what you see and none of what your hear/read. Well at least see it all as that which should be acknowledged only with a grain of salt. Never meet any bit of mans knowledge necessarily with certainty, as in the universe there is no necessary certainty. We only truly know, that we do not know!

So what you sound like is boo hoo he won't argue with me.
Well, go and tell your mummy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

And I refer the OP to dig into the knowledge base of humanity, and then think for yourself, but to surely NEVER necessarily put your eggs in the basket of one whom posts here on PNF. Remember to believe half of what you see and none of what your hear/read. Well at least see it all as that which should be acknowledged only with a grain of salt. Never meet any bit of mans knowledge necessarily with certainty, as in the universe there is no necessary certainty. We only truly know, that we do not know!

So what you sound like is boo hoo he won't argue with me.
Well, go and tell your mummy.

Thanks for your acknowledgement Chaz. It seems that I can always count on you to answer, well usually. And I have to admit, not that you'll appreciate it, but I respect you for your answers and your new, more cordial, way of proceeding, as it lends to your credibility.

Peace my friend,

Now I think I'll go and cry to my mummy.

[chaz wyman]

And I refer the OP to dig into the knowledge base of humanity, and then think for yourself, but to surely NEVER necessarily put your eggs in the basket of one whom posts here on PNF. Remember to believe half of what you see and none of what your hear/read. Well at least see it all as that which should be acknowledged only with a grain of salt. Never meet any bit of mans knowledge necessarily with certainty, as in the universe there is no necessary certainty. We only truly know, that we do not know!

So what you sound like is boo hoo he won't argue with me.
Well, go and tell your mummy.

Thanks for your acknowledgement Chaz. It seems that I can always count on you to answer, well usually. And I have to admit, not that you'll appreciate it, but I respect you for your answers and your new, more cordial, way of proceeding, as it lends to your credibility.

Peace my friend,

Now I think I'll go and cry to my mummy.

When you are ready to discuss something, then I'll happily join in.

[tillingborn]

When you are ready to discuss something, then I'll happily join in.

I presume you are talking to Spheresofbalance, but out of curiosity (and mischief to be honest), what do think consciousness is?
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of any consciousness that is not associated with a physical structure, to date, exclusively brains. But what is the evidence that consciousness is any more than a sequence of physical events?

[chaz wyman]

When you are ready to discuss something, then I'll happily join in.

I presume you are talking to Spheresofbalance, but out of curiosity (and mischief to be honest), what do think consciousness is?
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of any consciousness that is not associated with a physical structure, to date, exclusively brains. But what is the evidence that consciousness is any more than a sequence of physical events?

It's tricky. Consciousness is a thing experienced. It is what the brain does.
I don't think we will ever be able to do more than that.
When we reduce 'energy' or 'matter' to the same rigorous question, we are also stumped, and can only describe it, usually with some inappropriate metaphor.
I think the main reason why we find consciousness a more puzzling thing to describe is for no better reason than the history of religious mumbo-jumbo with which it has become associated. But like absolutely anything else in the universe we tend to think about, consciousness is not more odd.

[tillingborn]

It's tricky. Consciousness is a thing experienced.

Isn't that more or less Descartes' point, consciousness being something that happens to an experiencer, a consciousness or mind? Personally, I wouldn't commit to any such thing, but if minds exist, they are apparently something other than the raw physical material that constitutes the brain. One option is a supernatural 'soul' that interacts with the material world essentially by magic; bit of a long shot. Any other option involves physics that we either don't understand, or we are currently unable to detect. In either case we get into the where's the physics, positivist, wovon Wittgenstein stance you have perfectly legitimately taken, but to be consistent, you shouldn't talk about consciousness at all.
But as we're doing it anyway the idea that any 'mind' is a product of physics we basically understand, but are ill equipped to detect seems fair game. It is at least verifiable in principle. That being so, the information encoded by states of matter, in fields, is actually very difficult to destroy, there is speculation that even bunging it in a black hole won't get rid of it. If mind is more than the immediate state of brain matter, at least some aspect is effectively immortal.

When we reduce 'energy' or 'matter' to the same rigorous question, we are also stumped, and can only describe it, usually with some inappropriate metaphor.

Personally, I think 'energy' and 'matter' are a doddle compared to consciousness; frankly it's bleeding obvious that matter is twists and knots in a field that started expanding 13 odd billion years ago, all the energy comes from the fact that it hasn't stopped. Granted my analogy of bunny rabbits is a bit daft, but the logic is sound.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's tricky. Consciousness is a thing experienced.

Isn't that more or less Descartes' point, consciousness being something that happens to an experiencer, a consciousness or mind? Personally, I wouldn't commit to any such thing, but if minds exist, they are apparently something other than the raw physical material that constitutes the brain. One option is a supernatural 'soul' that interacts with the material world essentially by magic; bit of a long shot. Any other option involves physics that we either don't understand, or we are currently unable to detect. In either case we get into the where's the physics, positivist, wovon Wittgenstein stance you have perfectly legitimately taken, but to be consistent, you shouldn't talk about consciousness at all.
But as we're doing it anyway the idea that any 'mind' is a product of physics we basically understand, but are ill equipped to detect seems fair game. It is at least verifiable in principle. That being so, the information encoded by states of matter, in fields, is actually very difficult to destroy, there is speculation that even bunging it in a black hole won't get rid of it. If mind is more than the immediate state of brain matter, at least some aspect is effectively immortal.

When we reduce 'energy' or 'matter' to the same rigorous question, we are also stumped, and can only describe it, usually with some inappropriate metaphor.

Personally, I think 'energy' and 'matter' are a doddle compared to consciousness; frankly it's bleeding obvious that matter is twists and knots in a field that started expanding 13 odd billion years ago, all the energy comes from the fact that it hasn't stopped. Granted my analogy of bunny rabbits is a bit daft, but the logic is sound.

I believe that the secret (magic) lies in electromagnetism (EM).

'According to the present understanding, there are four fundamental interactions or forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction. Modern physics attempts to explain every observed physical phenomenon by these fundamental interactions.'

'Electromagnetism is the interaction responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life.'

'Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction.'

'Within the QED framework physicists were then able to calculate to a high degree of accuracy some of the properties of electrons, such as the anomalous magnetic dipole moment. However, as Feynman points out, it fails totally to explain why particles such as the electron have the masses they do. "There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we don't understand them – what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem."'

'Photons and electrons do, somehow, move from point to point and electrons, somehow, emit and absorb photons. We do not know how these things happen, but the theory tells us about the probabilities of these things happening.'

Yes I believe that the mystery of consciousness, mind and soul, if you will, lie in the understanding of the fundamental force known as electromagnetism. And is that which is responsible for all the universe.

[chaz wyman]

It's tricky. Consciousness is a thing experienced.

Isn't that more or less Descartes' point, consciousness being something that happens to an experiencer, a consciousness or mind? Personally, I wouldn't commit to any such thing, but if minds exist, they are apparently something other than the raw physical material that constitutes the brain. One option is a supernatural 'soul' that interacts with the material world essentially by magic; bit of a long shot. Any other option involves physics that we either don't understand, or we are currently unable to detect. In either case we get into the where's the physics, positivist, wovon Wittgenstein stance you have perfectly legitimately taken, but to be consistent, you shouldn't talk about consciousness at all.
But as we're doing it anyway the idea that any 'mind' is a product of physics we basically understand, but are ill equipped to detect seems fair game. It is at least verifiable in principle. That being so, the information encoded by states of matter, in fields, is actually very difficult to destroy, there is speculation that even bunging it in a black hole won't get rid of it. If mind is more than the immediate state of brain matter, at least some aspect is effectively immortal.

No, Descartes' point was that there had to be a substance outside the material. I'm not making that point.
You are utterly wrong about the code of consciousness being difficult to destroy. A thought is nothing is not based on it the organisation of the physicality of the brain - this is plug easy to destroy. A poke in the arm is enough to change it utterly and a bullet in the brain is enough to disorganise it thoroughly. Nothing of what makes us , is is remotely immortal. Any electo-magnetic wave from the brain does not contain any information about the quality or content of thinking, and is soon dissipated as heat.

When we reduce 'energy' or 'matter' to the same rigorous question, we are also stumped, and can only describe it, usually with some inappropriate metaphor.

Personally, I think 'energy' and 'matter' are a doddle compared to consciousness; frankly it's bleeding obvious that matter is twists and knots in a field that started expanding 13 odd billion years ago, all the energy comes from the fact that it hasn't stopped. Granted my analogy of bunny rabbits is a bit daft, but the logic is sound.

If you think matter is a doddle then tell me what it is like to have matter!
Twists and knots!! You are kidding!
What rabbits?

[tillingborn]

No, Descartes' point was that there had to be a substance outside the material. I'm not making that point.

Well, that's the conclusion he drew. Before that he made the point that he was thinking.
You claim that 'consciousness is thing experienced'. I'm not sure that's true; in proper Humean style, all we can be certain of is that there are experiences, that does not imply a 'consciousness' to which they are happening. Any claim that there is such a thing as consciousness is metaphysical.

You are utterly wrong about the code of consciousness being difficult to destroy.

I've no idea what you mean by the code of consciousness. I was just referring to the states of fields engendered by states of matter.

A thought is nothing is not based on it the organisation of the physicality of the brain

You may be right, but where's the physics? Can you cite a law, rule, theory or hypothesis other than your personal gut feeling that says so?

- this is plug easy to destroy. A poke in the arm is enough to change it utterly and a bullet in the brain is enough to disorganise it thoroughly.Nothing of what makes us , is is remotely immortal. Any electo-magnetic wave from the brain does not contain any information about the quality or content of thinking, and is soon dissipated as heat.

Information (states of fields) reguarding states of matter that have changed is available way beyond the duration of the state of matter. For example; Betelgeuse is going to go nova, for all we know it already has, but for now, to us, it is Orion's right shoulder.

If you think matter is a doddle then tell me what it is like to have matter!

Look around, Chaz; what can you see that isn't matter?

Twists and knots!! You are kidding!

No, I'm quite serious.

What rabbits?

The bunniverse is one of my threads; it's something I'm working on.