Christianity

[phyllo]

Nope, I'm just observing that electromagnetic effects are due to electromagnetic properties - and that in that sense, electromagnetic effects are not the generation of anything new, which is what would be required for consciousness to "emerge" out of pure physicality.

Well I'm not making any claims either way, but I don't see how anyone can say, with any authority, that consciousness could not emerge from physicality. The matter could only be settled empirically, you can't reason your way to the answer.

No, it's exactly the opposite: that question can only be resolved with reference to what the terms "mind", "consciousness", "physical", and "matter" actually mean. Whether mind/consciousness can emerge from physicality/matter is a philosophical question (based on the definition of those terms), not an empirical one.

So this is some kind of word game?

[Harbal]

No, it's exactly the opposite: that question can only be resolved with reference to what the terms "mind", "consciousness", "physical", and "matter" actually mean. Whether mind/consciousness can emerge from physicality/matter is a philosophical question (based on the definition of those terms), not an empirical one.

Okay, we' completely disagree on that, but good luck with it.

[attofishpi]

What do you mean by "the human body is not required for conscious experience" - are you implying that this is a conscious experience that differs from having the qualia of the 5 senses?

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

I'm not far off retiring for the night, so, if you respond, you might have to wait for a response in turn.

No worries Harry. I'll see you in lucid electric dreams, as I am about to nod off too.

However, if you believe in the two different conscious experiences, one while within the body, then on that account you are admitting that those experiences ARE dependent in some way upon the material body. The one, 'out of body'...well I'd be interested in picking your brain regarding what qualia conscious experience is maintained then...for example...sight most definitely?

And on that 'out of body' concept, then surely you have some level of spiritual belief, God?

[phyllo]

What do you mean by "the human body is not required for conscious experience" - are you implying that this is a conscious experience that differs from having the qualia of the 5 senses?

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

I'm not far off retiring for the night, so, if you respond, you might have to wait for a response in turn.

Some kind of spirit or soul which exists without a physical form?

[Harbal]

Some kind of spirit or soul which exists without a physical form?

Well you can see why he favours a philosophical approach to support that idea, rather than an empirical one.

[henry quirk]

I mean that we have a non-physical form which interfaces with our physical form. When we permanently drop or temporarily detach from our physical form, our non-physical form has its own sensory experiences according its own non-physical means.

This is where we part company, Harry.

I believe man is a composite being. Mind & flesh (or, spirit & substance), two very different things melded together irrevocably. Neither worth spit without the other. Man isn't an embodied spirit bidin' his time till he can cast off his meat suit. Man is both mind and meat, together. Man is an amalgam, an alloy.

[Immanuel Can]

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Although communication through written text sent via the internet might seem very different in quality to face to face communication with another human being, when you really think about it, there is no difference in the quality of those two instances of interaction. Both are purely physical phenomena, and can be explained as such.

That, of course, tells us nothing about the nature of the mind.

Right. That’s the problem.

A character on the screen, though it is composed of no more than pixels, is at least a physical entity. But it’s a signifier.

And signification is not a physical thing. It’s a cognitive one.

That a letter “T” is in front of you now is a physical fact: but that it is the commencement of the word “Thus,” and that it makes you think of a consequence-utterance to follow, those are seemings in a mind, not mere electrons in a brain. For electrons, qua electrons, do not “mean” things. It takes a mind on the other end of the email to cause the pixels to “mean” things to me, and my mind to decide what they “mean.”

So there really is no explaining that on purely physical terms. We can account for the existence of the “T” shape that way, but not for the fact that it precipitates a word or idea in a human consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

I think that a purely physical reality can potentially explain consciousness, understanding, meaning, etc. I don't see any advantage to adding non-physical elements.

Interesting. I can see no explanation of these things at all, possible from Physicalism. And most Mind-Brain philosophers today would agree with me on that, I think.

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Or have you really got an explanation nobody’s heard before?

You're focused on the message and you forgot that there is a physical body on the other end which is producing the message?

No.

For in the first place, I have no way of knowing anything about that physical body being there to produce the message. You could be man or woman, boy or girl…or bot, for all I know. But that’s not even the real problem.

The problem is that a set of black pixels on a white background is not a “message,” by definition, unless a mind intends a “message” and a mind receives it. There is nothing about the physical existence of the shape “Y” at the beginning of your answer that conveys any information to me at all. It takes your knowing, and my knowing, that “Y” can signify the start of the word “You’re,” and our mutual understanding of what that signifier signifies, for it to become a message at all. Otherwise, it’s just black pixels in a particular row.

Consider these concepts from simple physics ... 'distance' and 'speed' are not physical in themselves but they depend entirely on a separation and relative motion of physical objects.

I don’t see how that observation addresses the problem above at all, I’m afraid. Physical objects or even their adjectival properties, don’t have anything to do with explaining cognitive content.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such something as a non-material material.

That’s just a contradiction in terms, no more.

The question is, is there something non-material that is real?

And if there’s not, then you are not a mind, and I am not a mind, and there is no other mind, and we aren’t having this conversation anyway.

It's just a fact IC... there is no such idea as a non-material material.

That’s a silly, self-contradictory objection, though. Your adjective stipulates a term your noun denies. As you yourself say, it’s just “a non-tree tree” you’re trying to posit there.

It doesn’t even get to the question of whether or not non-material entities exist…and as you write, you’re actually demonstrating that they do, ironically.

[phyllo]

No.

For in the first place, I have no way of knowing anything about that physical body being there to produce the message. You could be man or woman, boy or girl…or bot, for all I know. But that’s not even the real problem.

All of those are physical forms.

Do you expect a forum message from pure spirit?

The problem is that a set of black pixels on a white background is not a “message,” by definition, unless a mind intends a “message” and a mind receives it. There is nothing about the physical existence of the shape “Y” at the beginning of your answer that conveys any information to me at all. It takes your knowing, and my knowing, that “Y” can signify the start of the word “You’re,” and our mutual understanding of what that signifier signifies, for it to become a message at all. Otherwise, it’s just black pixels in a particular row.

You have an electro-chemical memory of what the shape represents. Match them and off you go. No match and you don't know what the symbol means.

[Harbal]

Right. That’s the problem.

A character on the screen, though it is composed of no more than pixels, is at least a physical entity. But it’s a signifier.

And signification is not a physical thing. It’s a cognitive one.

That a letter “T” is in front of you now is a physical fact: but that it is the commencement of the word “Thus,” and that it makes you think of a consequence-utterance to follow, those are seemings in a mind, not mere electrons in a brain. For electrons, qua electrons, do not “mean” things. It takes a mind on the other end of the email to cause the pixels to “mean” things to me, and my mind to decide what they “mean.”

So there really is no explaining that on purely physical terms. We can account for the existence of the “T” shape that way, but not for the fact that it precipitates a word or idea in a human consciousness.

Two people speaking to each other are communicating with sounds, or audible symbols, that represent ideas, and they can see one another. But what if they were both deaf, and communicating with sign language? What if they were blind and could only hear each other? Does it make a difference if they are in seperate rooms? Maybe it's a telephone conversation, where they might be 100 yards apart, or 100 miles apart, and communicating only with audible symbols that represent their thoughts. What is the difference in principle between a letter and an email?

In every case the communication is conducted purely by physical means. The only real difference is the varying proximity of the participants. And if you say that a visible word on a screen is only a signifier, and signification is not a physical thing, why do you regard a spoken word to be a signifier with a signification that is a physical thing?

[Nick_A]

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Although communication through written text sent via the internet might seem very different in quality to face to face communication with another human being, when you really think about it, there is no difference in the quality of those two instances of interaction. Both are purely physical phenomena, and can be explained as such.

That, of course, tells us nothing about the nature of the mind.

Which makes more sense to you:

"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla

Does organic life including man create consciousness or do we receive it?

[Immanuel Can]

Right. That’s the problem.

A character on the screen, though it is composed of no more than pixels, is at least a physical entity. But it’s a signifier.

And signification is not a physical thing. It’s a cognitive one.

That a letter “T” is in front of you now is a physical fact: but that it is the commencement of the word “Thus,” and that it makes you think of a consequence-utterance to follow, those are seemings in a mind, not mere electrons in a brain. For electrons, qua electrons, do not “mean” things. It takes a mind on the other end of the email to cause the pixels to “mean” things to me, and my mind to decide what they “mean.”

So there really is no explaining that on purely physical terms. We can account for the existence of the “T” shape that way, but not for the fact that it precipitates a word or idea in a human consciousness.

Two people speaking to each other are communicating with sounds, or audible symbols, that represent ideas, and they can see one another. But what if they were both deaf, and communicating with sign language? What if they were blind and could only hear each other? Does it make a difference if they are in seperate rooms? Maybe it's a telephone conversation, where they might be 100 yards apart, or 100 miles apart, and communicating only with audible symbols that represent their thoughts. What is the difference in principle between a letter and an email?

No important difference, for this discussion. But the word “communicating” implies an action that physical things cannot do. Rocks do not “communicate.” Nor do electrons. Nor do the atoms in a human body.

It takes the presence of minds for anything called “communication” to happen.

In every case the communication is conducted purely by physical means. The only real difference is the varying proximity of the participants. And if you say that a visible word on a screen is only a signifier, and signification is not a physical thing, why do you regard a spoken word to be a signifier with a signification that is a physical thing?

Again, you use the word “communication.” But it is not “conducted purely by physical means.” Rather, it’s a cognitive action performed through the tools of physical writing. But the primary action you’re identifying, “communication” is not itself physical. It’s cognitive.

We must not mistake the tool used for the substance of the communicating. To illustrate, one could fold up a piece of paper and mail it to a friend. In such a case, “mailing” would have take place, but no “communication.” On the other hand, you could use smoke signals; and if he knew how to “read” them, then communication would be taking place, though the physical means would be no more substantial than smoke. And usually, smoke does not mean anything more than that random combustion is taking place. So the tools and the message are not the same thing at all. The former is the means; the latter is the message.

[Harbal]

And since right now, you are not, to me, a physical “body” at all, and neither am I one to you, since we are corresponding by way of thought-through-symbols, pure Physicalism can’t even explain what we are up to at the present moment.

Although communication through written text sent via the internet might seem very different in quality to face to face communication with another human being, when you really think about it, there is no difference in the quality of those two instances of interaction. Both are purely physical phenomena, and can be explained as such.

That, of course, tells us nothing about the nature of the mind.

Which makes more sense to you:

"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla

Does organic life including man create consciousness or do we receive it?

I am aware of no reason to think that the source of human consciousness is anything other than the human brain. That isn't an assertion, but in the absence of any evidenceto the contrary, I have to assume that human beings produce their own consciousness from within themselves. I don't see any reason to think of that as a mundane concept.

[Harbal]

It takes the presence of minds for anything called “communication” to happen.

Well, I can think of communication that doesn't involve minds, but we can stick to the type that does only occur between minds; whether they be human minds or the minds of any other animals.

So, where does this get us?