Christianity

[Dontaskme]

one never expects to see a computer program running with no computer.

Just as one never expects to see a story living a separate existence apart from the book.

Just as one never expects to see a brain function running without a brain.

But it’s interesting that, unlike with a computer program, there is no physical materials that can be identified as “thought-material,” and yet we use thinking so routinely. That’s one of the things that makes pure Physicalism so utterly implausible, and also keeps the question of how that can happen so lively.

Computers do not think. Computers are thought, by a brain. The brain is running the programme that knows each and every thought thing...including the computer, the computer has no reality outside of the brain function that manifests the computer as a thought, because only thought things are known...not no things.

No thing is thinging.

All things are no thing thinging. One not two.

Am I thinking, or am I a thought.

Think on these things...because thinking cannot think of no thing.

You cannot experience yourself as a thought thing, an object known. You are no thing known without the object/thing known. ( this knowing is one without a second)

[henry quirk]

Only evidence I'm interested in, in this leg of the thread, is of how unconscious electrons, neutrons, and protons come together and become conscious. No such evidence has been offered.

My own view...

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

That is: mind is not brain process, is not the result of electrons, neutrons, and protons; mind is sumthin' other than.

But, Henry, where's your evidence?

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings). I'd offer more but what's the point? The materialists/physicalists can't even dispute the tidbit (but, lordy, they dance hard and fast to ignore or dismiss it).

Anyway: we're all caught up, yeah? We understand what's on the table, yeah?

Say yes, DAM.

[phyllo]

Only evidence I'm interested in, in this leg of the thread, is of how unconscious electrons, neutrons, and protons come together and become conscious. No such evidence has been offered.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

That conclusion does not logically follow.

It's like saying : electrons, neutrons, and protons are not wet, therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make wetness.

[henry quirk]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Indeed. At some point, though, one has to consider the possibility there is no evidence. As I say: we're no closer to explainin' consciousness as brain process today than we were 50 years ago.

It's like saying : electrons, neutrons, and protons are not wet, therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make wetness.

I can give give you the chemical formula for water; can you give me the chemical formula for mind? Till you can, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider alternate explanations. Nor do I think it unreasonable for folks like yourself to concede the possibility that mind is mebbe sumthin' other than brain.

[FlashDangerpants]

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings). I'd offer more but what's the point? The materialists/physicalists can't even dispute the tidbit (but, lordy, they dance hard and fast to ignore or dismiss it).

There is no property of sweetness in an electron, a proton or neutron. Yet arrange those items into honey and sweetness emerges. So there is a problem with your argument and you should congratulate yourself less profusely for it.

[henry quirk]

There is no property of sweetness in an electron, a proton or neutron. Yet arrange those items into honey and sweetness emerges.

I can give you the chemical formula for honey and describe chemical process by which your taste buds perceive sweet; can you give me the chemical formula or atomic structure for the mind that concludes damn, that's too sweet or damn, that honey isn't sweet at all or no thanks, I don't like honey ?

[phyllo]

It's like saying : electrons, neutrons, and protons are not wet, therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make wetness.

I can give give you the chemical formula for water; can you give me the chemical formula for mind? Till you can, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider alternate explanations. Nor do I think it unreasonable for folks like yourself to concede the possibility that mind is mebbe sumthin' other than brain.

The point is that there are all sorts of emergent properties of matter.

But you keep insisting that consciousness is not one of them. You have no basis for saying that.

I already said that mind isn't just brain, but I don't think it has any non-physical components.

I don't see what I get by throwing in a non-physical part so I apply Occam's Razor and leave it out.

What advantage do the alternate, non-physical explanations have over the physical?

[BigMike]

What advantage do the alternate, non-physical explanations have over the physical?

I would be hard pressed to come up with even a single one.

[Dontaskme]

As I say: we're no closer to explainin' consciousness as brain process today than we were 50 years ago.



I can give give you the chemical formula for water; can you give me the chemical formula for mind? Till you can, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider alternate explanations. Nor do I think it unreasonable for folks like yourself to concede the possibility that mind is mebbe sumthin' other than brain.

Mind is a 'thought'. . which is a concept.

Can a 'thought' be seen or known to be ''anything other'' than a physical object? which is a concept. - NO it cannot.
To know and see a 'thought' is only possible as seen and known as a physical object.
What appears to be the external world is likened to a screen on which 'thoughts' are being projected upon where the observer (formless) is observing the observed (material form) which is happening in the exact same instantaneous moment.

The physical objective world of matter is inseparable from the mind/thought that knows and sees it. There is no division there, mind and matter is the same substance, it's one singlular inseparable flow.

What is the formula for mind...is like asking what is empty space made from.

Duality is an illusion, it is Nondual.

The chemical formula that makes up matter is mind...known and seen as concepts only.

There is no access to the ABSOLUTE ONE...because you are it.

Matter is literally made from the space it is appearing in. Space must be teeming with subtances that are invisible to the human eye, but obviously exist.

[henry quirk]

*But you keep insisting that consciousness is not one of them. **You have no basis for saying that.

*As I say: I'll be happy to look at any evidence that indicates consciousness is a property of electrons, protons, and neutrons put together in a certain way.

**And you have no basis for sayin' unconscious particles produce consciousness.

*

What advantage do the alternate, non-physical explanations have over the physical?

What advantage does positin' as of now undetectable, unmeasurable, dark matter/energy have?

Why multiple entities unnecessarily?

[Sculptor]

Hear, hear!

Isn't it "hear here."

Or maybe "here, here."

Alternatively "Here, hear".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

[phyllo]

*But you keep insisting that consciousness is not one of them. **You have no basis for saying that.

*As I say: I'll be happy to look at any evidence that indicates consciousness is a property of electrons, protons, and neutrons put together in a certain way.

**And you have no basis for sayin' unconscious particles produce consciousness.

*

You can't even admit that there is an error in your logic.

What advantage does positin' as of now undetectable, unmeasurable, dark matter/energy have?

Who is talking about dark matter?

Nobody.

So why bring it up?

[henry quirk]

You can't even admit that there is an error in your logic.

I see no error. Explain my error.

*

Who is talking about dark matter?

You said:

I don't see what I get by throwing in a non-physical part so I apply Occam's Razor and leave it out.

My point, with dark matter/energy is that's exactly what astrophysics does. It throws in an undetectable, unmeasurable sumthin' to make (what I believe is called) the standard model work. You have, I presume, no problem with that.

As I say:

I am, however, perfectly willin' to review evidence that illustrates, explains, how electrons, neutrons, and protons might be conscious; or evidence, an explanation, of how these unconscious particles can come together in a certain way and become conscious, imaginative, loving, hateful, despairing, hopeful, etc.

I'm always lookin' to minimize and simplify so any such evidence would allow me to jettison concepts like dual substance/dual aspect and The Creator in favor of the pure materialism and atheism I embraced no more than four years ago, that I embraced pretty much my whole life.

[phyllo]

I see no error. Explain my error.

Anybody else want to try, cause I'm about worn out.

You said:

I don't see what I get by throwing in a non-physical part so I apply Occam's Razor and leave it out.

My point, with dark matter/energy is that's exactly what astrophysics does. It throws in an undetectable, unmeasurable sumthin' to make (what I believe is called) the standard model work. You have, I presume, no problem with that.

I was talking about 'mind'.

Is there any advantage to having non-physical components as part of 'mind'?

[henry quirk]

I'm about worn out.

I feel the same. For 15 pages, thereabouts, I've asked for some evidence of how unconscious particles make consciousness, and you folks ain't ponied up squat.

Might be time to call it a day, on this subject, and, as I said up-thread, return the thread to those who wanna endlessly examine Christianity.