Who wants a soul?

[tillingborn]

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

Why's that then Chaz?

Blah blah - see above! Exaclty what I mean IF only there were some evidence!!!If only we had detectors strong enough we could find those fairies and jovian teapots!!

What would fairy and jovian teapot detectors look for?

It's fantasy,

Oh no it isn't!

not philosophy,

Would you describe Cartesian dualism or Berkelian idealism, for instance, as philosophy?

not science,

How about string theory or dark matter?

not reasonable.

Why ever not?

[chaz wyman]

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

Why's that then Chaz?

Blah blah - see above! Exaclty what I mean IF only there were some evidence!!!If only we had detectors strong enough we could find those fairies and jovian teapots!!

What would fairy and jovian teapot detectors look for?

It's fantasy,

Oh no it isn't!

not philosophy,

Would you describe Cartesian dualism or Berkelian idealism, for instance, as philosophy?

not science,

How about string theory or dark matter?

not reasonable.

Why ever not?

Cartesian dualism is widely discredited as problematic, based on a traditional assumption of the soul, and nothing whatever to do with 'brain waves' in any case. Idealism is not relevant here, Berkelean or otherwise.

Jovian Teapot detectors would detect things that don't exist, like you idea of a soul based on 'brain waves'.
What about string theory and dark matter - more shots in the dark?

And a staw man posits a position held by the interlocutor, easy to dismiss that the interlocutor does not hold, so as to dismiss his real argument. Your claim of a straw man was not of this kind.

[The Voice of Time]

The brain creates an electromagnetic field; it’s very weak, but nonetheless real. Like all electromagnetic fields it spreads out, influences and is influenced by everything it encounters. So there is a sphere of influence centred on our head as wide in light years as we are old, which will continue to be part of the universe long after we are dead. It doesn’t seem very likely, but what if that is our soul?

In Norwegian law we call patent-works "works of the soul/spirit". I think that what we can take from that is that our soul is our signature of creation, what makes it uniquely our creation, is our soul, and the body of our soul the sum of all such uniqueness.

When things no longer are our creations, they are neither part of our soul. It all makes sense when you think about how the soul has been used to refer to all this religious stuff about hell or heaven. Given that you have a conscience, it makes sense that you feel good when you know your own creations (the works of your soul) are good, whereas you feel bad if they are bad. Because you reflect your self-esteem and sense of self in what you make, and what you make makes you as something unique, in this sense your soul is also the sum of your actions, including those actions that further changes your body (like eating too much, growing fat, although when you first are fat it's not your fault the chair broke, it is your work that you grew fat, so you are responsible in this sense, and your self-hood and self-esteem is defined by such reflections upon what you do and what is the result of it).

In short: think about the soul as the sum of all your actions and their reactions.

[tillingborn]

Cartesian dualism is widely discredited as problematic, based on a traditional assumption of the soul, and nothing whatever to do with 'brain waves' in any case. Idealism is not relevant here, Berkelean or otherwise.

Cartesian dualism has been understood to be problematic pretty much since it's inception, but be serious Chaz, if you exclude from philosophy anything that is problematic you're not left with much. I don't know what you mean by 'a traditional assumption of the soul', apart from any religious context, how is it different from an assumption of consciousness? Thank you, The Voice of Time for your input on this issue, I suspect the Norwegian understanding is more 'traditional' than the christian version.

Jovian Teapot detectors would detect things that don't exist, like you idea of a soul based on 'brain waves'.

Well Chaz, I keep telling you that I don't actually believe in a soul based on brain waves, you keep insisting I do; you posit a position, easy to dismiss, that I do not hold, so as to dismiss my real argument. The electromagnetic fields that are generated by the activity of living brains is detectable by advances in technology that already exists, the same is not true of jovian teapots.

What about string theory and dark matter - more shots in the dark?

Personally, I would be surprised if string theory describes reality at a fundamental level. Dark matter is different, it is an admission that no one knows why stars aren't thrown into deep space by the spinning of the galaxies they are part of; there is an observable phenomenon that needs explaining.

And a staw man posits a position held by the interlocutor, easy to dismiss that the interlocutor does not hold, so as to dismiss his real argument. Your claim of a straw man was not of this kind.

Thanks for that Chaz; it's pretty much what I thought a straw man argument is. Why doesn't my claim fit?

[chaz wyman]

Cartesian dualism is widely discredited as problematic, based on a traditional assumption of the soul, and nothing whatever to do with 'brain waves' in any case. Idealism is not relevant here, Berkelean or otherwise.

Cartesian dualism has been understood to be problematic pretty much since it's inception, but be serious Chaz, if you exclude from philosophy anything that is problematic you're not left with much. I don't know what you mean by 'a traditional assumption of the soul', apart from any religious context, how is it different from an assumption of consciousness?

Easy. We experience consciousness, not the immaterial, incorporeal soul. I mean that Descartes was forced under pain of excommunication to assume that the immortal soul was the engine of the human body. That's why his philosophy on the matter is incoherent. He had to get approval from the church before he was permitted to publish.

Jovian Teapot detectors would detect things that don't exist, like you idea of a soul based on 'brain waves'.

Well Chaz, I keep telling you that I don't actually believe in a soul based on brain waves, you keep insisting I do; you posit a position, easy to dismiss, that I do not hold, so as to dismiss my real argument.

Good its just that in a thread titled "who wants a SOUL", you suggest that brain waves are indestructible - they are NOT.

The electromagnetic fields that are generated by the activity of living brains is detectable by advances in technology that already exists, the same is not true of jovian teapots.

And for reasons already pointed out again, and again, these brain-waves outside the body do not persist, and contain no relevant information about the personality; i.e. Nothing to do with a SOUL

What about string theory and dark matter - more shots in the dark?

Personally, I would be surprised if string theory describes reality at a fundamental level. Dark matter is different, it is an admission that no one knows why stars aren't thrown into deep space by the spinning of the galaxies they are part of; there is an observable phenomenon that needs explaining.
Okay, yes, more shots in the dark, then.

And a staw man posits a position held by the interlocutor, easy to dismiss that the interlocutor does not hold, so as to dismiss his real argument. Your claim of a straw man was not of this kind.

Thanks for that Chaz; it's pretty much what I thought a straw man argument is. Why doesn't my claim fit?

Maybe you have just forgotten what the THREAD title is?

[tillingborn]

I don't know what you mean by 'a traditional assumption of the soul', apart from any religious context, how is it different from an assumption of consciousness?

Easy. We experience consciousness, not the immaterial, incorporeal soul.

Should we infer from this that you believe consciousness is material and corporeal? I've already asked what would it mean to be conscious of nothing? I don't believe we do experience consciousness, we experience experience. I suspect that the empiricists were right, until we get some input we are tabula rasa. Saying we experience consciousness seems like arguing that a computer, fresh from the box and switched on for the first time is doing something simply by being plugged in. What would a human brain do without any input?

I mean that Descartes was forced under pain of excommunication to assume that the immortal soul was the engine of the human body. That's why his philosophy on the matter is incoherent.

Which part of his philosophy of matter is 'incoherent'?

He had to get approval from the church before he was permitted to publish.

I think that's a red herring Chaz, I can't remember all the details of his biography, but I know he spent some time in Holland, where he could have published what he liked. In the current context, the point Descartes was trying to make, if you strip away anything he tacked on to placate a belligerent popery, is that he was a rational being. As you appear to believe, he thought consciousness is primary. I don't wish to create my own straw man, but it seems to me that you and Descartes are committed to believing that a consciousness can be 'conscious' without any sense-data.

Well Chaz, I keep telling you that I don't actually believe in a soul based on brain waves, you keep insisting I do; you posit a position, easy to dismiss, that I do not hold, so as to dismiss my real argument.

Good its just that in a thread titled "who wants a SOUL", you suggest that brain waves are indestructible - they are NOT.

Brain waves are not the same thing as the EM field they generate, just as the ripples on a duck pond are not the same as the pebble that caused them. The universe is like a wopping great duck pond, every time a charged particle wiggles it creates a ripple, the exact mechanism is uncertain, quantum mechanics is tricky, but I think the analogy is sufficient for current purposes. If you have any evidence that ions and electrons within a human skull do things differently that is big news.

And for reasons already pointed out again, and again, these brain-waves outside the body do not persist, and contain no relevant information about the personality; i.e. Nothing to do with a SOUL

Remind me what those reasons are Chaz.

What about string theory and dark matter - more shots in the dark?

Personally, I would be surprised if string theory describes reality at a fundamental level. Dark matter is different, it is an admission that no one knows why stars aren't thrown into deep space by the spinning of the galaxies they are part of; there is an observable phenomenon that needs explaining.

Okay, yes, more shots in the dark, then.

But do you count them as science or not?

And a staw man posits a position held by the interlocutor, easy to dismiss that the interlocutor does not hold, so as to dismiss his real argument. Your claim of a straw man was not of this kind.

Thanks for that Chaz; it's pretty much what I thought a straw man argument is. Why doesn't my claim fit?

Maybe you have just forgotten what the THREAD title is?

And maybe if I started one called Who wants a dose of clap? you'd think I was offering.

[chaz wyman]

I don't know what you mean by 'a traditional assumption of the soul', apart from any religious context, how is it different from an assumption of consciousness?

Easy. We experience consciousness, not the immaterial, incorporeal soul.

Should we infer from this that you believe consciousness is material and corporeal?

We've been over this already

I've already asked what would it mean to be conscious of nothing? I don't believe we do experience consciousness, we experience experience.

You are just tripping over words. We call the ground of experience consciousness, if you prefer.
This is all just word play, and nothing of value is being gained with this discussion.



I suspect that the empiricists were right, until we get some input we are tabula rasa.
This is completely out of date. The tabula rasa is a dead duck. The brain comes complete with a range of structures, knowledge and capability.
Saying we experience consciousness seems like arguing that a computer, fresh from the box and switched on for the first time is doing something simply by being plugged in. What would a human brain do without any input?

Like I say , we've covered all this.

I mean that Descartes was forced under pain of excommunication to assume that the immortal soul was the engine of the human body. That's why his philosophy on the matter is incoherent.

Which part of his philosophy of matter is 'incoherent'?

In another thread? It's like you are sitting in for tillingborn - it was you that brought up dualism not me.

He had to get approval from the church before he was permitted to publish.

I think that's a red herring Chaz, I can't remember all the details of his biography, but I know he spent some time in Holland, where he could have published what he liked. In the curreman,

The point I am making is that his addition of a soul to what was otherwise mathematical philosophy was a nod to the church and is not coherent or relevant to the main thrust of his work on maths. All that stuff on the soul and the existence of god was cheap second hand stuff from Aquinas.

but it seems to me that you and Descartes are committed to believing that a consciousness can be 'conscious' without any sense-data

Where the hell did you get that impression?
When you are in the dark with your eyes closed, in a sound proof room you still have your heartbeat, and a long list of other sensory inputs. Otherwise you are dead. Descartes thinks that you still are conscious when you are dead - I do not.


.

Well Chaz, I keep telling you that I don't actually believe in a soul based on brain waves, you keep insisting I do; you posit a position, easy to dismiss, that I do not hold, so as to dismiss my real argument.

Good its just that in a thread titled "who wants a SOUL", you suggest that brain waves are indestructible - they are NOT.

§§§

And for reasons already pointed out again, and again, these brain-waves outside the body do not persist, and contain no relevant information about the personality; i.e. Nothing to do with a SOUL

Remind me what those reasons are Chaz.

It's like I am talking to another person. Either you are not paying attention, or have not read my posts, or your computer has been taken over by an alien force. Do you have memory problems?

What about string theory and dark matter - more shots in the dark?

Personally, I would be surprised if string theory describes reality at a fundamental level. Dark matter is different, it is an admission that no one knows why stars aren't thrown into deep space by the spinning of the galaxies they are part of; there is an observable phenomenon that needs explaining.

Okay, yes, more shots in the dark, then.

But do you count them as science or not?

I have a great respect for Feyman, so string theory, though still theoretical, is science. Feynman would have been horrified to see 'string theory' in a thread about SOULS.
Dark matter is a black box into which the scientists put all the shit that does not add up, in their mass equations, they now also have 'vacuum energy' which does the same job for energy. It's just proof that the current cosmology still does not work properly.

And a staw man posits a position held by the interlocutor, easy to dismiss that the interlocutor does not hold, so as to dismiss his real argument. Your claim of a straw man was not of this kind.

Thanks for that Chaz; it's pretty much what I thought a straw man argument is. Why doesn't my claim fit?

Maybe you have just forgotten what the THREAD title is?

And maybe if I started one called Who wants a dose of clap? you'd think I was offering.

Where are you been putting your willy?

[tillingborn]

You are just tripping over words.We call the ground of experience consciousness, if you prefer.

Not really, I don’t know what you mean by the ground of experience.

This is all just word play, and nothing of value is being gained with this discussion.

I don’t think so. It seems to me there is a very big difference between the view that experience is something that happens to a consciousness or that consciousness simply is those experiences. You seem to be affirming the former; I see no reason to believe more than the latter.

This is completely out of date. The tabula rasa is a dead duck. The brain comes complete with a range of structures, knowledge and capability.

Absolutely a brain comes with a range of structures and capability, is your point that consciousness is one of them? What is this knowledge a brain comes with? Sounds a bit Platonic.

It seems to me that you and Descartes are committed to believing that a consciousness can be 'conscious' without any sense-data.

Where the hell did you get that impression?

Well if, as you say, consciousness is primary it is presumably something that can exist before it starts experiencing.

When you are in the dark with your eyes closed, in a sound proof room you still have your heartbeat, and a long list of other sensory inputs.

I don’t think it’s a long list Chaz.

Otherwise you are dead.

Of course it’s true that brains do not exist in isolation and that to be alive a brain has to be plumbed in and wired up to at least a minimally functional body from which it is receiving information, but what has happened to consciousness during sleep or coma? If you ask me consciousness is simply a series of physical events. They are affected by and affect the immediate physical world, the electromagnetic, gravitational, maybe weak and strong nuclear, even Higgs; all the fields and all the particles, real and virtual, associated with them. I suppose it is possible that there is some hitherto unknown to science ‘consciousness field’ and I suspect some people have claimed just that, but until all known possibilities are exhausted, it makes sense to carry on looking where there is at least some light; you know, doing what Kuhn calls normal science, which is more or less what Dark matter and vacuum energy, at least as far as it relates to dark energy, is all about. Consciousness, in my view, is a state of affairs in a little bit of the universe. It comes about by a sequence of events and it changes the nature and matter of the universe in a teensy-weensy way that will never, ever be undone. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t think it is very likely, but the chances of ‘consciousness’ persisting in the effects it creates are not zero. You seem intent on proving they are:

Remind me what those reasons are Chaz.

It's like I am talking to another person. Either you are not paying attention, or have not read my posts, or your computer has been taken over by an alien force. Do you have memory problems?

Here are some examples from some of your posts:

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.

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.

Yet you are wrong about there being difficult to destroy. Outside the brain they are nothing but waste heat. COnsciousness is a property of living grey matter.

Thoughts and experience are not solely electromagnetic. All thoughts soon turn to waste heat, they self destroy. They are only preserved by changing neuronal connections

What did you think at 4:30 23rd March 2003? Can't remember? That thought has self destructed. If you remember anything from that year, or have learned something then that is remembered by a change is the physicality of neuronal connections.
Neurones make connections, this is the basis of a theory of memory.

This entire thread is based on a misconception, that a thought is the same as an EM wave, or that those waves are indestructible.
EM waves are not thoughts and em waves are ephemeral.

I’ve tried to be fair, but if you think I’ve been selective and that you have anything better, throw it back to me. The thing is I can’t find any real content in anything you have posted in this thread. You’ve made your disdain quite clear, but there is little sign of understanding the mechanisms involved; for instance it is not clear that you understand the difference between brain waves and EM. The only reasons you give are strongly held opinions; why should I believe you?

I have a great respect for Feyman, so string theory, though still theoretical, is science. Feynman would have been horrified to see 'string theory' in a thread about SOULS.

Feynman was very critical of string theory, I suspect he would have laughed.

[chaz wyman]

A football field enables a football game. It is the ground of football. Consciousness is the ground of experience.
If, as you say, consciousness is simply those experiences then you are effectively saying that experience=consciousness= experience=consciousness. This negates the need for two words.
Now either the two words do a different job or they can be employed to different functions.

Actually it was a throw away comment. On reflection, it would be better to say that we have experience, and consciousness is how we know we have experience. Consciousness is a reflection on experience. And awareness lies between the two things.

On the point of the tabula rasa. Locke was interested in equalising humans, by emphasising the role of education and human improvement. I was a laudable aim but is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There is no doubt that humans are the blankest animals and are more able to adapt and learn through their lives. However, we all share a range of structures and capabilities.
From birth a baby knows to seek the nourishment of a nipple; knows up from down; knows the danger of falling; is able to grasp. None of these innate features are learned anew with each child, but do have to be integrated into their behaviour.
They also know what a face is, in the sense that there are areas of the brain which is, in every person, pre-organised to accept and recognise the basic configuration of a face. This tendency is what allows us to see a face in the clouds or in the leaves, in the bark of a tree, or in the dark in a 'haunted house'. And it is why Prosopagnosia is a disease at all.
No one learns how to be conscious, this is also an innate skill.
None of this is remotely Platonic in any sense.

I don't think I need to comment on the pre-existence of consciousness or Descartes.
Long list of sensory inputs in the dark; hearing your own breathing and heart, proprioperception - the knowledge of the position of body parts in relationship to others, sense of direction, smell and taste; touch of the surfaces around you; sense of gravity; sense of balance; sense of heat and cold; the body also has a range of senses of an autonomic nature which monitor and regulate the heart and breathing from carbon dioxide levels; it also is sensible of a range of chemicals in the blood such as water, sugar and a list of hormones; and though I may have omitted some, last but not least; self of self- i.e. consciousness.

Of course it’s true that brains do not exist in isolation and that to be alive a brain has to be plumbed in and wired up to at least a minimally functional body from which it is receiving information, but what has happened to consciousness during sleep or coma? If you ask me consciousness is simply a series of physical events. They are affected by and affect the immediate physical world, the electromagnetic, gravitational, maybe weak and strong nuclear, even Higgs; all the fields and all the particles, real and virtual, associated with them. I suppose it is possible that there is some hitherto unknown to science ‘consciousness field’ and I suspect some people have claimed just that, but until all known possibilities are exhausted, it makes sense to carry on looking where there is at least some light; you know, doing what Kuhn calls normal science, which is more or less what Dark matter and vacuum energy, at least as far as it relates to dark energy, is all about. Consciousness, in my view, is a state of affairs in a little bit of the universe. It comes about by a sequence of events and it changes the nature and matter of the universe in a teensy-weensy way that will never, ever be undone. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t think it is very likely, but the chances of ‘consciousness’ persisting in the effects it creates are not zero. You seem intent on proving they are:

So what you are trying to say here is that consciousness is a series of events; "They" affect and are effect by the physical world, and changes reality a 'teesy weensy bit'. Prove it!
How do you explain a coma, or sleep?

Then you finish with this:

I’ve tried to be fair, but if you think I’ve been selective and that you have anything better, throw it back to me. The thing is I can’t find any real content in anything you have posted in this thread. You’ve made your disdain quite clear, but there is little sign of understanding the mechanisms involved; for instance it is not clear that you understand the difference between brain waves and EM. The only reasons you give are strongly held opinions; why should I believe you?

Little understanding of mechanisms that you have invented.
Let's talk about "Brain Waves" if you like.
First thing to learn is that there is NO SUCH THING. The brain does not send out a BRAIN_WAVE. There is nothing distinct from the EM spectrum that makes what the brain does unique, special or significant. The concept of the Wave or Ray is a science-fiction term. There is no Gravitic Ray or Wave, distinct from others. Energy is measured by wave and frequency and this defines it position on the EM spectrum. Light, sound, microwaves all inhabit a different place on that spectrum and their nature is defined by how that energy is found to interact with matter in specific ways in nature.

The brain, at very close range emits very low level voltage fluctuations as an epi-phenomenon of its primary function.
This can be measured by electroencephalography ECG, this is commonly and incorrectly known as brain waves.
Further investigation of the brain can be made by MRI, which detects the magnetic resonance by bombarding the brain with a massive amount of magnetic energy.

There is also the PET scan which detects a radioactive marker (contrast) injected into the body to reveal the activity of cellular action. Particularly good at the analysis of cancer. This process emits positron radiation, and accompanied by CT X-Ray scan in which the body is bombarded with X-Rays photographically detected and brought together with the PET images.

So what are BRAIN WAVES exactly?

[tillingborn]

A football field enables a football game. It is the ground of football. Consciousness is the ground of experience.
If, as you say, consciousness is simply those experiences then you are effectively saying that experience=consciousness= experience=consciousness. This negates the need for two words.
Now either the two words do a different job or they can be employed to different functions.

So two words can do a different job or they can be employed differently; is there a difference?

Actually it was a throw away comment.

Fair enough.

On reflection, it would be better to say that we have experience, and consciousness is how we know we have experience. Consciousness is a reflection on experience. And awareness lies between the two things.

I see. So there is in fact some experiential sandwich with awareness in the middle. Are there any other layers? I think we really do see things differently Chaz; when you say ‘we know we have experience’, I think you can be a bit more brutal with it and reduce it to something like ‘the experience of consciousness is itself an experience’. I would say the same about reflection and awareness and I would add that everything we experience is the result of some physical change in the state of our brains.

On the point of the tabula rasa. Locke was interested in equalising humans, by emphasising the role of education and human improvement. I was a laudable aim but is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There is no doubt that humans are the blankest animals and are more able to adapt and learn through their lives. However, we all share a range of structures and capabilities.
From birth a baby knows to seek the nourishment of a nipple; knows up from down; knows the danger of falling; is able to grasp. None of these innate features are learned anew with each child, but do have to be integrated into their behaviour.
They also know what a face is, in the sense that there are areas of the brain which is, in every person, pre-organised to accept and recognise the basic configuration of a face. This tendency is what allows us to see a face in the clouds or in the leaves, in the bark of a tree, or in the dark in a 'haunted house'. And it is why Prosopagnosia is a disease at all.
No one learns how to be conscious, this is also an innate skill.
None of this is remotely Platonic in any sense.

Well Platonic was a throwaway comment, but any claim that neo-natals know anything in the sense that they are conscious, reflective or aware is a bold claim.

I don't think I need to comment on the pre-existence of consciousness or Descartes.

If you say so.

Long list of sensory inputs in the dark; hearing your own breathing and heart, proprioperception - the knowledge of the position of body parts in relationship to others, sense of direction, smell and taste; touch of the surfaces around you; sense of gravity; sense of balance; sense of heat and cold; the body also has a range of senses of an autonomic nature which monitor and regulate the heart and breathing from carbon dioxide levels; it also is sensible of a range of chemicals in the blood such as water, sugar and a list of hormones; and though I may have omitted some, last but not least; self of self- i.e. consciousness.

Call that long? To tell the truth Chaz I thought the point you were making about the dark, sound proof room was that there are lots of other senses than the commonly recognized five, but in fairness the only one that would be missing is vision. So there are four plus:
• proprioperception, can’t argue with that.
• Gravity/balance. Same sense really, the whotsit canals of the ear inner tell you which way the greatest gravitational attractor is (in all but a few cases this has been the planet Earth), the brain then works out what to do to remain vertical with respect to it.
Hot and cold is essentially touch and the rest have nothing to do with consciousness.

Of course it’s true that brains do not exist in isolation and that to be alive a brain has to be plumbed in and wired up to at least a minimally functional body from which it is receiving information, but what has happened to consciousness during sleep or coma? If you ask me consciousness is simply a series of physical events. They are affected by and affect the immediate physical world, the electromagnetic, gravitational, maybe weak and strong nuclear, even Higgs; all the fields and all the particles, real and virtual, associated with them. I suppose it is possible that there is some hitherto unknown to science ‘consciousness field’ and I suspect some people have claimed just that, but until all known possibilities are exhausted, it makes sense to carry on looking where there is at least some light; you know, doing what Kuhn calls normal science, which is more or less what Dark matter and vacuum energy, at least as far as it relates to dark energy, is all about. Consciousness, in my view, is a state of affairs in a little bit of the universe. It comes about by a sequence of events and it changes the nature and matter of the universe in a teensy-weensy way that will never, ever be undone. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t think it is very likely, but the chances of ‘consciousness’ persisting in the effects it creates are not zero. You seem intent on proving they are:

So what you are trying to say here is that consciousness is a series of events; "They" affect and are effect by the physical world, and changes reality a 'teesy weensy bit'. Prove it!

Oh yeah? Or what? Actually Chaz, that’s not quite what I’m saying, rather that the experiences we have, déjà vu, ennui, peevishness and so on, are the product of a series of physical events; photons and electrons mostly, swishing about and clattering into atoms and each other, obviously not in a wholly deterministic billiard ball style, that would be counter to quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, every single interaction of matter, however small, has an effect on it’s environment; in the case of fundamental particles, this is the entire universe according to some interpretations. You’re quite right Chaz, I can’t prove that consciousness is a product of the matter we are familiar with, if you believe it is made of something different it is for you to demonstrate and not me.

How do you explain a coma, or sleep?

Dunno; it’s a blooming mystery, but if you refer back to my last post you will see that it is a question I asked you. If I thought it was a problem for my case, I would try and resolve it before serving it up on a plate. If you were a bit more on the ball you might ask, given that high energy Sci-Fi (see below) X-rays fail to penetrate bone, how is it that I think low energy EM waves manage?

Then you finish with this:

I’ve tried to be fair, but if you think I’ve been selective and that you have anything better, throw it back to me. The thing is I can’t find any real content in anything you have posted in this thread. You’ve made your disdain quite clear, but there is little sign of understanding the mechanisms involved; for instance it is not clear that you understand the difference between brain waves and EM. The only reasons you give are strongly held opinions; why should I believe you?

Little understanding of mechanisms that you have invented.

What mechanisms do you think I have invented?

Let's talk about "Brain Waves" if you like.
First thing to learn is that there is NO SUCH THING. The brain does not send out a BRAIN_WAVE. There is nothing distinct from the EM spectrum that makes what the brain does unique, special or significant.

Which is precisely my point. Well, one of them.

The concept of the Wave or Ray is a science-fiction term. There is no Gravitic Ray or Wave, distinct from others. Energy is measured by wave

Is this science-fiction or do you mean amplitude? Do you mean gravity waves? Predicted by General Relativity, they are proving elusive, but if you have a sound reason to dismiss them altogether you could have saved the people at LIGO all that effort and money.

and frequency and this defines it position on the EM spectrum. Light, sound,

I’ll put that one down to a typo, but if you really mean that sound is on the EM spectrum you have no idea what you are talking about.

microwaves

Micro-whats?

all inhabit a different place on that spectrum and their nature is defined by how that energy is found to interact with matter in specific ways in nature.
The brain, at very close range emits very low level voltage fluctuations as an epi-phenomenon of its primary function.

Uh-huh. And what do you suppose it’s ‘primary function’ is?

This can be measured by electroencephalography ECG, this is commonly and incorrectly known as brain waves.

Richard Feynman used to tell a story about walking in the woods with his dad, the gist of which is that his dad would point out that knowing the names of trees and stuff didn’t tell you anything about them. Have it your way Chaz, if there is something you would rather call alpha, beta, gamma, delta, theta brainwaves I’m happy to indulge you. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, as Shakespeare said.

Further investigation of the brain can be made by MRI, which detects the magnetic resonance by bombarding the brain with a massive amount of magnetic energy.

There is also the PET scan which detects a radioactive marker (contrast) injected into the body to reveal the activity of cellular action. Particularly good at the analysis of cancer. This process emits positron radiation, and accompanied by CT X-Ray scan in which the body is bombarded with X-Rays photographically detected and brought together with the PET images.

Indeed, real physical events inside the brain can be investigated by the effect they have on real physical machinery.

So what are BRAIN WAVES exactly?

You’ve already answered that one yourself Chaz.

[chaz wyman]

How many senses do you have?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2ZAUvOe_xQ

Aristotle was wrong and pretty unimaginative.

[chaz wyman]

A football field enables a football game. It is the ground of football. Consciousness is the ground of experience.
If, as you say, consciousness is simply those experiences then you are effectively saying that experience=consciousness= experience=consciousness. This negates the need for two words.
Now either the two words do a different job or they can be employed to different functions.

So two words can do a different job or they can be employed differently; is there a difference?
It's a matter of evidence, and getting the definitions to match the experience.

Actually it was a throw away comment.

Fair enough.

On reflection, it would be better to say that we have experience, and consciousness is how we know we have experience. Consciousness is a reflection on experience. And awareness lies between the two things.

I see. So there is in fact some experiential sandwich with awareness in the middle. Are there any other layers?
It's not just layers, the definitions have to be more nuanced that that.
I think we really do see things differently Chaz; when you say ‘we know we have experience’, I think you can be a bit more brutal with it and reduce it to something like ‘the experience of consciousness is itself an experience’. I would say the same about reflection and awareness and I would add that everything we experience is the result of some physical change in the state of our brains.
I already added that several posts ago.

On the point of the tabula rasa. Locke was interested in equalising humans, by emphasising the role of education and human improvement. I was a laudable aim but is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There is no doubt that humans are the blankest animals and are more able to adapt and learn through their lives. However, we all share a range of structures and capabilities.
From birth a baby knows to seek the nourishment of a nipple; knows up from down; knows the danger of falling; is able to grasp. None of these innate features are learned anew with each child, but do have to be integrated into their behaviour.
They also know what a face is, in the sense that there are areas of the brain which is, in every person, pre-organised to accept and recognise the basic configuration of a face. This tendency is what allows us to see a face in the clouds or in the leaves, in the bark of a tree, or in the dark in a 'haunted house'. And it is why Prosopagnosia is a disease at all.
No one learns how to be conscious, this is also an innate skill.
None of this is remotely Platonic in any sense.

Well Platonic was a throwaway comment, but any claim that neo-natals know anything in the sense that they are conscious, reflective or aware is a bold claim.

Not at all. Many consider prenatal children to be conscious; one reason why late abortion is such a hot issue.

I don't think I need to comment on the pre-existence of consciousness or Descartes.

If you say so.
As it is completely irrelevant i say so. If you think otherwise you need to take it up with someone else.

Long list of sensory inputs in the dark; hearing your own breathing and heart, proprioperception - the knowledge of the position of body parts in relationship to others, sense of direction, smell and taste; touch of the surfaces around you; sense of gravity; sense of balance; sense of heat and cold; the body also has a range of senses of an autonomic nature which monitor and regulate the heart and breathing from carbon dioxide levels; it also is sensible of a range of chemicals in the blood such as water, sugar and a list of hormones; and though I may have omitted some, last but not least; self of self- i.e. consciousness.

Call that long?
Yes, as most idiots would only admit to five senses - as they have never thought it through and just repeat the crap they learn in school then I would call 10 + a range of autonomic ones a long list. Did I mention a sense of hunger?
To tell the truth Chaz I thought the point you were making about the dark, sound proof room was that there are lots of other senses than the commonly recognized five, but in fairness the only one that would be missing is vision. So there are four plus:
• proprioperception, can’t argue with that.
• Gravity/balance. Same sense really, the whotsit canals of the ear inner tell you which way the greatest gravitational attractor is (in all but a few cases this has been the planet Earth), the brain then works out what to do to remain vertical with respect to it.
No its not. We feel our wait when at rest, The semi-circular canals only respond to motion.
Hot and cold is essentially touch and the rest have nothing to do with consciousness.
Hot and cold are not anything like the tactile sense and require different of other receptors. All sensation has everything to do with consciousness.

Of course it’s true that brains do not exist in isolation a... persisting in the effects it creates are not zero. You seem intent on proving they are:

So what you are trying to say here is that consciousness is a series of events; "They" affect and are effect by the physical world, and changes reality a 'teesy weensy bit'. Prove it!

Oh yeah? Or what? Actually Chaz, that’s not quite what I’m saying, rather that the experiences we have, déjà vu, ennui, peevishness and so on, are the product of a series of physical events; photons and electrons mostly, swishing about and clattering into atoms and each other, obviously not in a wholly deterministic billiard ball style, that would be counter to quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, every single interaction of matter, however small, has an effect on it’s environment; in the case of fundamental particles, this is the entire universe according to some interpretations. You’re quite right Chaz, I can’t prove that consciousness is a product of the matter we are familiar with, if you believe it is made of something different it is for you to demonstrate and not me.
That is not what you were saying. I'm not sure you really know what you are trying to say.

How do you explain a coma, or sleep?

Dunno; it’s a blooming mystery, but if you refer back to my last post you will see that it is a question I asked you. If I thought it was a problem for my case, I would try and resolve it before serving it up on a plate. If you were a bit more on the ball you might ask, given that high energy Sci-Fi (see below) X-rays fail to penetrate bone, how is it that I think low energy EM waves manage?
The same way that light can penetrate some substances whilst other things cannot, and vice versa- try to keep up. Its about frequency and wavelength.

Then you finish with this:

I’ve tried to be fair, but if you think I’ve been selective and that you have anything better, throw it back to me. The thing is I can’t find any real content in anything you have posted in this thread. You’ve made your disdain quite clear, but there is little sign of understanding the mechanisms involved; for instance it is not clear that you understand the difference between brain waves and EM. The only reasons you give are strongly held opinions; why should I believe you?

Little understanding of mechanisms that you have invented.

What mechanisms do you think I have invented?

Let's talk about "Brain Waves" if you like.
First thing to learn is that there is NO SUCH THING. The brain does not send out a BRAIN_WAVE. There is nothing distinct from the EM spectrum that makes what the brain does unique, special or significant.

Which is precisely my point. Well, one of them.

The concept of the Wave or Ray is a science-fiction term. There is no Gravitic Ray or Wave, distinct from others. Energy is measured by wave

Is this science-fiction or do you mean amplitude? Do you mean gravity waves? Predicted by General Relativity, they are proving elusive, but if you have a sound reason to dismiss them altogether you could have saved the people at LIGO all that effort and money.

and frequency and this defines it position on the EM spectrum. Light, sound,

I’ll put that one down to a typo, but if you really mean that sound is on the EM spectrum you have no idea what you are talking about.

microwaves

Micro-whats?

all inhabit a different place on that spectrum and their nature is defined by how that energy is found to interact with matter in specific ways in nature.
The brain, at very close range emits very low level voltage fluctuations as an epi-phenomenon of its primary function.

Uh-huh. And what do you suppose it’s ‘primary function’ is?
Oh for fuck's sake! Neurones communicate with one another by sending electrical signals. If you place electrodes directly on the skull you can detect the activity inside. BUT NOT THE CONTENT.

This can be measured by electroencephalography ECG, this is commonly and incorrectly known as brain waves.

Richard Feynman used to tell a story about walking in the woods with his dad, the gist of which is that his dad would point out that knowing the names of trees and stuff didn’t tell you anything about them.

I know I heard him say it. You have a lots of words but little understanding. Several posts ago I said something like we are done here - I should have meant it.
Have it your way Chaz, if there is something you would rather call alpha, beta, gamma, delta, theta brainwaves I’m happy to indulge you. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, as Shakespeare said.

I've seen Romeo and Juliet on stage already.

Further investigation of the brain can be made by MRI, which detects the magnetic resonance by bombarding the brain with a massive amount of magnetic energy.

There is also the PET scan which detects a radioactive marker (contrast) injected into the body to reveal the activity of cellular action. Particularly good at the analysis of cancer. This process emits positron radiation, and accompanied by CT X-Ray scan in which the body is bombarded with X-Rays photographically detected and brought together with the PET images.

Indeed, real physical events inside the brain can be investigated by the effect they have on real physical machinery.
And yet have no real information about the contents in detail. And nothing of any significance outside the brain is detectable.

So what are BRAIN WAVES exactly?

You’ve already answered that one yourself Chaz.

Shame you aren't listening.

[chaz wyman]

Let's re-cap.

The brain creates an electromagnetic field; it’s very weak, but nonetheless real. Like all electromagnetic fields it spreads out, influences and is influenced by everything it encounters. So there is a sphere of influence centred on our head as wide in light years as we are old, which will continue to be part of the universe long after we are dead. It doesn’t seem very likely, but what if that is our soul?

This is rubbish, it was rubbish at the start of the thread and painstaking investigation reveals that it remains rubbish.
Especially the bit in bold.
The fact is the moment it encounters so much as a baseball cap it is undetectable. So the idea that is affects "everything" it encounters is ridiculous.
It is also ridiculous that it 'spreads out'. It is only detectable with a number of electrodes which only respond to temporary potential differences in tiny voltage fluctuations.
The idea that it is as wide in light years as we are old is banal and poetically silly.

I suppose if I had said that at the top, we might have saved some time.

[Godfree]

For some life is about what they want , and not about embracing reality .
For me the most addictive alluring prize is to know that reality .
a Godfree poem ,,
Fantasies are easy but the truth is hard to bare
Or why would we delude ourselves
That god is really there .
What we want , and what is real , are two entirely different propositions ,
I hear you all want heaven , eternal life , a heavenly father to look after you , to be able to see your past loved ones again , pretty little fantasies ,
But Whats It Got To Do With Reality ,,,????
The world is full of books that are based on fantasy , we have the bible the koran etc
The book called reality is the one that I am interested in , and in that book we have been able to find zero proof for a soul , god , heaven , life after death , a devil ,
zero proof for these things , and yet most of the world accepts these as real
Who wants a fantasy ,,?? not me , who knows reality , not many at all ,,!!!

[tillingborn]

Let's re-cap.

Okay then.

The brain creates an electromagnetic field; it’s very weak, but nonetheless real. Like all electromagnetic fields it spreads out, influences and is influenced by everything it encounters. So there is a sphere of influence centred on our head as wide in light years as we are old, which will continue to be part of the universe long after we are dead. It doesn’t seem very likely, but what if that is our soul?

This is rubbish, it was rubbish at the start of the thread and painstaking investigation reveals that it remains rubbish. Especially the bit in bold.

Presumably it is your painstaking investigation which led you to believe that the concept of waves is confined to science fiction, but that nonetheless sound is somewhere in the spectrum of electromagnetic waves.

Let's recap anyway:

The brain creates an electromagnetic field;

Part of the way the brain works is by moving charged particles. Any moving charged particle creates an EM field, that how the world works.

it’s very weak,

Try denying that!

but nonetheless real.

Well, you know, even piddly little things are real.

Like all electromagnetic fields it spreads out, influences and is influenced by everything it encounters.

Ah! The especially rubbish bit. I'm not sure why you think that Chaz, it's generally accepted that that is what EM fields do. Have you heard differently?

So there is a sphere of influence centred on our head as wide in light years as we are old,

You call this banal and poetically silly; well maybe, but, again, it is generally accepted that EM spreads at 300 000km per second.

which will continue to be part of the universe long after we are dead.

There's a funny thing, once EM waves get going there really is no stopping them, bits and pieces will be mopped up here and there, being absorbed by matter, but space is very big and very empty.
None of the foregoing is particularly controversial. As for the punchline:

It doesn’t seem very likely, but what if that is our soul?

The only thing to argue about is whether it would qualify as a soul as it is not metaphysical. Note that there is no claim of post mortem consciousness. I thought I was making it all up, but painstaking research (a quick Wikipedia search if you must know), reveals that there are electromagnetic theories of consciousness. Didn't spend too much time looking, because I don't think it's very likely, but you never know.

Anyway, on to your comments Chaz.

The fact is the moment it encounters so much as a baseball cap it is undetectable.

Where in your painstaking research did you uncover that nugget?

So the idea that is affects "everything" it encounters is ridiculous.

It's what EM does.

It is also ridiculous that it 'spreads out'. It is only detectable with a number of electrodes which only respond to temporary potential differences in tiny voltage fluctuations.

No one's saying it's not tiny, but I think you're mixing up brainwaves and EM again. As far as I know the brainwaves measured by ECG are cascading electrical charges that originate somewhere in the brain. I'm not sure what the exact mechanism is, but as I understand it, some brain activity causes a neuron or ganglia or something to become charged;that creates a potential difference with it's neighbour which thereby becomes charged, creating a potential difference with it's neighbour and so on. Of course, all these moving charges will generate an EM field, but that is something different. The brainwave behaves like a mechanical wave, it needs a medium to propagate; not so electromagnetic waves, there really is no stopping them.

The idea that it is as wide in light years as we are old is banal and poetically silly.

You don't like it then?

I suppose if I had said that at the top, we might have saved some time.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Chaz; you have been a model of consistency, you have never said it is anything but a load of cobblers. Oh well.