Christianity

[attofishpi]

Are you talking about first-order language semantics?

Logical semantics - but truly cbf, your two statements were contradictions:-
1- (answering my statement that my conscious mind makes decisions) Certainly not. This decision was made by your physical brain alone.
2- the brain doesn't make any conscious decisions.

Um...

You don't see it? Decisions are not made by any non-material "consciousness." In your first point above, I explicitly said the decision (not "your conscious decision") is made by your physical brain alone. And in your second point I just clarified that subtle(?) distinction, for people who may not have noticed its significance.

On your point 2. above you appear to be implying that conciousness does not exist, or that you should at least define what you mean by consciousness.

[BigMike]

On your point 2. above you appear to be implying that conciousness does not exist, or that you should at least define what you mean by consciousness.

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

[Dontaskme]

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

Well one is for certain, you have never ever seen consciousness, to be able to tell yourself whether it exists or not.

You have only seen a conceptual object, the only thing you've ever known.

[BigMike]

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

Well one is for certain, you have never ever seen consciousness, to be able to tell yourself whether it exists or not.

You have only seen a conceptual object, the only thing you've ever known.

Why don't you define consciousness for us all?

[Dontaskme]

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

Well one is for certain, you have never ever seen consciousness, to be able to tell yourself whether it exists or not.

You have only seen a conceptual object, the only thing you've ever known.

Why don't you define consciousness for us all?

How do you define an abstract idea. What is an idea? I have no idea.

Your turn.

[BigMike]

Well that explains it..next degree should be in semantics.

What is that and what is it? Please explain, and don't hesitate to display your "logical semantics" skills in doing so.

[BigMike]

Well one is for certain, you have never ever seen consciousness, to be able to tell yourself whether it exists or not.

You have only seen a conceptual object, the only thing you've ever known.

Why don't you define consciousness for us all?

How do you define an abstract idea. What is an idea? I have no idea.

Your turn.

You have no idea. Just what I thought.
You are kinda slow, aren't you? I just told you that I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

[attofishpi]

Well that explains it..next degree should be in semantics.

What is that and what is it? Please explain, and don't hesitate to display your "logical semantics" skills in doing so.

CBF. Southampton v Manchester United about to kick off.

[Dontaskme]

Why don't you define consciousness for us all?

How do you define an abstract idea. What is an idea? I have no idea.

Your turn.

You have no idea. Just what I thought.
You are kinda slow, aren't you? I just told you that I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

Not yet, means you may eventually discover whether consciousness exists or not. Ok, I get that.

Not today, but maybe tommorow you will discover whether consciousness exists or not...Ok

I'll just sit here and wait ...

[bahman]

Jun Kitazono, who works on projects at the University of Tokyo, has done a new study that shows how important certain types of connections between nerve cells are for figuring out what consciousness is. Connections go both ways between the parts of the brain that are important for consciousness (feed-forward and feed-back). The two-way processing is still very important whether you are looking at a human, a monkey, a mouse, a bird, or a fly. Researchers at Kyoto University in Japan have found that the fact that the brain network works both ways is a key to understanding where consciousness comes from.

The cortical and thalamic regions of the brain are the most important for consciousness. Less important for consciousness are other parts of the brain. The team is looking at different types of neural recordings to figure out how activity-based networks in the brain work.

All they can offer is that there is a correlation between conscious experience and physical activity in the brain. The hard problem of consciousness is unresolved. Even if one day someone finds an answer to the hard problem of consciousness then she./he can explain bottom-up phenomenon by bottom-up phenomenon I mean how consciousness can arise from physical activity in the brain. What is left is to explain how conscious experience can lead to causation, the so-called up-bottom phenomenon, like feeling the heat of the fire and moving your hand, where feeling the fire is a bottom-up phenomenon and moving your hand is the up-bottom phenomenon.

Needless to say that I have an argument against strong emergence.

In the end, can a network of people who are sending messages by mobile and they are sync in the same way that a brain is synced be conscious?

You also didn't address my argument for the existence of mind.

I merely wrote this to silence someone who had become locked in the same rut. He has repeatedly argued, over multiple pages and discussion threads, that material objects cannot produce awareness since "electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious." Non-material entities have no effect on how or what individuals think, feel, or do. I do not need consciousness, mind, the ghosts or spirits of my ancestors, or anything else of the type to conclude this. Simply put, Henry's foolishness just grew too tiresome.

He is absolutely right. Matter which is a sort of qualia cannot produce consciousness since itself is the subject of experience. Consciousness in simple words is the property of mind. Mind as I mentioned is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause qualia. Qualia is a reducible substance that is subject to change, destruction, and creation.

As I mentioned, a network of people who are sending messages by mobile and they are synced in the same way that neurons in a brain are synced cannot be conscious.

Moreover, mind does not interact with qualia instead it experiences and causes the qualia.

[Gary Childress]

This is epiphenomenalism, the view which I've already pointed out is analytically defeated in the article Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge by Titus Rivas & Hein van Dongen. Of course, as hq points out, disproofs such as this will simply be ignored by the fools of physicalism, who are only interested in evidence which supports their view.

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

How do you know this? Have you observed that consciousness has never pushed an atom around? Have you ever (or have you never) observed consciousness at all? I mean, I'm a conscious being and I seem to push atoms around rather frequently. What are we to make of that? Or what should I make of that?

[phyllo]

Well one is for certain, you have never ever seen consciousness, to be able to tell yourself whether it exists or not.

You have only seen a conceptual object, the only thing you've ever known.

Why don't you define consciousness for us all?

How do you define an abstract idea. What is an idea? I have no idea.

Your turn.

You know what consciousness is but you can't put it into words?

Is that what you are saying here?

[BigMike]

This is epiphenomenalism, the view which I've already pointed out is analytically defeated in the article Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge by Titus Rivas & Hein van Dongen. Of course, as hq points out, disproofs such as this will simply be ignored by the fools of physicalism, who are only interested in evidence which supports their view.

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

How do you know this? Have you observed that consciousness has never pushed an atom around? Have you ever (or have you never) observed consciousness at all? I mean, I'm a conscious being and I seem to push atoms around rather frequently. What are we to make of that? Or what should I make of that?

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. There are only four forces in the known universe: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear forces. They are all interactions between physical objects. Consciousness, being non-physical, cannot push atoms around.

[Gary Childress]

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

How do you know this? Have you observed that consciousness has never pushed an atom around? Have you ever (or have you never) observed consciousness at all? I mean, I'm a conscious being and I seem to push atoms around rather frequently. What are we to make of that? Or what should I make of that?

Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. There are only four forces in the known universe: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear forces. They are all interactions between physical objects. Consciousness, being non-physical, cannot push atoms around.

Maybe you could edit "There are only four forces in the known universe" to "There are only four forces known in the universe"?

[phyllo]

I mean, I'm a conscious being and I seem to push atoms around rather frequently. What are we to make of that? Or what should I make of that?

Ants are not considered conscious, yet they push things around.

One can conclude that consciousness is not required to "push atoms".