Philosophy Now Forum

Ken wrote: Okay this is what is happening here; you, and others, say 'chalmers' is a property dualist and 'prinze' is a materialist and/or physicalist. I say 'chalmers' and 'prinze' are just the labels given to two different, unique, individual persons. I reiterate that a 'person' is the different, unique, individual thoughts within one human body. Just to make this clear; we see things differently here. I view this one way and you view this a different way. You have expressed a point of view, I have expressed a point of view, just like prinz has expressed a(nother) point of view. Any or all of these point of views can have a lot of scientific research behind them, in fact two completely opposite points of views can be said to have a lot of scientific research behind it, just look at the "global warming" debate for an example, but ALL points of views are just expressed views. Only those expressed views that can be accepted and agreed upon by everyone are the views that are right, which views they are exactly you will have to wait and see. But exactly how to find them, and thus discovering which ones are right exactly, should be becoming more and more obvious by now.

Points of view are just a subjective claim to knowledge.When they have scientific research behind them they are no longer just a point of view. Exactly the same argument applies to global warming. Proponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims in the same way as opponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims. The average person has a point of view when it comes to global warming, but the scientific debate that surrounds global warming is more than just a point of view.

Ken wrote: These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.

They haven't decided to pick one side or the other. What makes them one side or the other is their research in that particular area.

Ken wrote: If an individual is being a doctor or neurophilosopher, then that is what they are. But can an individual be a doctor or a neurophilosopher always? If they can, then so be it. But if they can not, then it does not matter how qualified an individual is, when does that individual transition in and out from doctor or neurophilosopher to whatever else that individual is labelled as? For example, mom, daughter, father, son, driver, pedestrian, gardener, swimmer, et cetera, et cetera.

I think you will discover that it is actually how much belief that is put into the idea of one's own self and who they are, which obviously comes only from thoughts and thinking, which is what makes an individual be what they are, or more correctly be what they think, or believe, they are.

A person can be many things at the same time. For example, I can be a philosopher and a teacher as well as a father. As you say, it is my thoughts and thinking that make this so.

Ken wrote: I think you will also find that qualifications, by themselves, are used only by others to make a judgment call or view of an individual. Surely an individual knows who they are, with or without qualifications. Or, maybe more correctly "should" know who they are, with or without qualifications. Qualification does not make a person, a person. Qualifications are just given out to a person or people who have passed a test formulated by other persons or people.

If I am on the operating table then I would like to know that the person doing the operation is more than just a person who thinks they are a surgeon.

Ken wrote:
By the way if this still does not make any sense to you, then this is totally understandable to Me. The reason 'you' are confused and can not yet make sense of this is the same reason why you are who you are. And, if you do not yet know that reason, then that is why all of this is totally understandable, to Me.

The reason I have trouble understanding you is because at times your thoughts are not very well expressed.

Ken wrote: Another thing that is false, to Me, is the term "the conscious brain". There can not be a conscious brain, nor any other type of brain. A human brain is just a brain, existing within a human body, either while the body is asleep, awake, or not breathing. The brain in a non breathing body is about as useful as a rock is for learning and understanding about the Life around it. A brain in a sleeping body helps keep the body alive, and of not much more use than that. A brain, however, in a woken human body just works in the way that it was created for, and has evolved to do, that is to produce thoughts, from the information fed into it, through the five senses of the body.
Those thoughts, once upon a time, were produced only to keep the human body alive and well, as well as to keep the species alive and existing. These fundamental thoughts, which were absolutely necessary, were the only thoughts that were produced. The fundamental thoughts are still as necessary today, but it appears with each evolving year more and more unnecessary thoughts are being produced and added onto the fundamental necessary thoughts.

Ken, this doesn't make any sense, if the brain produces thoughts then it is conscious.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Okay this is what is happening here; you, and others, say 'chalmers' is a property dualist and 'prinze' is a materialist and/or physicalist. I say 'chalmers' and 'prinze' are just the labels given to two different, unique, individual persons. I reiterate that a 'person' is the different, unique, individual thoughts within one human body. Just to make this clear; we see things differently here. I view this one way and you view this a different way. You have expressed a point of view, I have expressed a point of view, just like prinz has expressed a(nother) point of view. Any or all of these point of views can have a lot of scientific research behind them, in fact two completely opposite points of views can be said to have a lot of scientific research behind it, just look at the "global warming" debate for an example, but ALL points of views are just expressed views. Only those expressed views that can be accepted and agreed upon by everyone are the views that are right, which views they are exactly you will have to wait and see. But exactly how to find them, and thus discovering which ones are right exactly, should be becoming more and more obvious by now.

Points of view are just a subjective claim to knowledge.When they have scientific research behind them they are no longer just a point of view.

What are 'points of view' called, exactly, when they have scientific research behind them?

Ginkgo wrote: Exactly the same argument applies to global warming. Proponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims in the same way as opponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims.

So, which side is right then?

How can 'data' be so apparently compelling for two completely opposing sides?

What is happening within, a 'person', the thoughts and thinking that allows such a thing to happen?

Ginkgo wrote:The average person has a point of view when it comes to global warming, but the scientific debate that surrounds global warming is more than just a point of view.

The scientific debate may be more than just a point of view, from your perspective, but the "science" behind the so called "scientific debate" seems to be causing more confusion then any clarity. (But I guess this all depends on which side one picks and chooses to believe in).

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.

They haven't decided to pick one side or the other. What makes them one side or the other is their research in that particular area.

Well if two completely different and opposing views are appearing, then obviously their "research" is not that well done nor clear.

To Me, what is obvious is the true and rightness, and, the false and wrongness in both of them.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: If an individual is being a doctor or neurophilosopher, then that is what they are. But can an individual be a doctor or a neurophilosopher always? If they can, then so be it. But if they can not, then it does not matter how qualified an individual is, when does that individual transition in and out from doctor or neurophilosopher to whatever else that individual is labelled as? For example, mom, daughter, father, son, driver, pedestrian, gardener, swimmer, et cetera, et cetera.

I think you will discover that it is actually how much belief that is put into the idea of one's own self and who they are, which obviously comes only from thoughts and thinking, which is what makes an individual be what they are, or more correctly be what they think, or believe, they are.

A person can be many things at the same time. For example, I can be a philosopher and a teacher as well as a father. As you say, it is my thoughts and thinking that make this so.

Ken wrote: I think you will also find that qualifications, by themselves, are used only by others to make a judgment call or view of an individual. Surely an individual knows who they are, with or without qualifications. Or, maybe more correctly "should" know who they are, with or without qualifications. Qualification does not make a person, a person. Qualifications are just given out to a person or people who have passed a test formulated by other persons or people.

If I am on the operating table then I would like to know that the person doing the operation is more than just a person who thinks they are a surgeon.

So would i. This is where and why qualifications come into play. People use qualifications of others to make judgement calls about them.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote:
By the way if this still does not make any sense to you, then this is totally understandable to Me. The reason 'you' are confused and can not yet make sense of this is the same reason why you are who you are. And, if you do not yet know that reason, then that is why all of this is totally understandable, to Me.

The reason I have trouble understanding you is because at times your thoughts are not very well expressed.

Yes exactly right. If for example if you lived in the times where you were taught that the sun revolves the earth, then that is what you would believe to be true. And, if for example while a person is learning how to express better themselves and share their thoughts that actually the earth revolves around the sun, then you would also have trouble understanding that person because at times their thoughts would appear to be not be very well expressed.

Although the thoughts themselves were and are being expressed the exact same way, that is, 'the earth revolves around the sun', to others these thoughts, to some, would appear not very well expressed while, to others, these thoughts would appear to be absolutely wrong. This would all depend on the views and beliefs, and how strong those views and beliefs are, to how well the expressed thoughts would be understood.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Another thing that is false, to Me, is the term "the conscious brain". There can not be a conscious brain, nor any other type of brain. A human brain is just a brain, existing within a human body, either while the body is asleep, awake, or not breathing. The brain in a non breathing body is about as useful as a rock is for learning and understanding about the Life around it. A brain in a sleeping body helps keep the body alive, and of not much more use than that. A brain, however, in a woken human body just works in the way that it was created for, and has evolved to do, that is to produce thoughts, from the information fed into it, through the five senses of the body.
Those thoughts, once upon a time, were produced only to keep the human body alive and well, as well as to keep the species alive and existing. These fundamental thoughts, which were absolutely necessary, were the only thoughts that were produced. The fundamental thoughts are still as necessary today, but it appears with each evolving year more and more unnecessary thoughts are being produced and added onto the fundamental necessary thoughts.

Ken, this doesn't make any sense, if the brain produces thoughts then it is conscious.

So every brain from the very first thought it produces till the very last thought it produces and during every thought in between is a conscious brain, to you?

Does that really make a lot of sense, to you?

To Me, what makes sense is a human brain produces thoughts.
Some thoughts are conscious thoughts. Some are not.
For example,
A conscious thought is " 'I' am ...."
A non conscious thoughts is 1+1=2
A brain is as conscious as every other organ of the human body possibly can be.
A brain can produce thoughts, which can be on the conscious, sub-conscious, and unconscious level.
But a brain, itself, is not conscious, sub-conscious, nor unconscious, just like every other organ is not.
A brain can produce consciousness, but a brain is not consciousness.

What makes sense to you, sometimes, does not makes to Me, and vice versa.

Ginkgo wrote:

If I am on the operating table then I would like to know that the person doing the operation is more than just a person who thinks they are a surgeon.

The above was with regard to personal identity.

Not only the surgeon's formal qualifications including clinical experience but also The whole 'decor' *** of a surgical procedure is aimed at maintaining confidence in the culture of medical practice. And medicine itself is part of the whole fabric of a society. Some societies' way of alleviating pain and disability is founded upon magic not empirical evidence, however all societies support their institutions by way of supporting certain personal identities such as surgeons, teachers, shop owning grocers, ministers of religion, electricians, etc .etc. There are also kinship identities such as wives, mothers, child dependents, cousins, heads of families etc. which also are conferred by societies, and are not inherent. Some societies don't even account motherhood as important enough always to be noticed. Modern kinship identities and modern professional identities are not so much inherent as conferred upon individuals by the cultural beliefs and practices of the society.

Thus Ginkgo or I perhaps would feel safer in the hands of a competent wise herbalist and bone setter than with a modern surgeon depending upon Ginkgo'or my beliefs and customs.Ginkgo or I might be terrified out of our wits by the 'decor' of the operating theatre and surgical ward. I am saying that personal identity is attributed not inherent.

Personal identity is conferred by society and is also internalised so that when an identification ends the individual suffers often from a very painful drop in self esteem. This happens with divorce, bereavement, retirement, the occupation of one's country by a foreign power, dementia, certain diseases notably mental illness, occupational redundancy, failing an examination, loss of honour of one's family or clan, and so on.

Personal identity is regarded empirically with the consent of modern societies so that such scientists as police and historians use markers such as DNA, age of bones, dental records, fingerprints, legal documents, and certain unwitting testimonies from witnesses. Those seemingly undeniable evidences of personal identity depend upon modern societies' trust in empirical evidence and modern scientific theories. It was not always so, and anthropologist might even nowadays discover extant cultures of belief which identify individuals according to criteria which differ from Ginkgo's and mine.

There is survival potential of the feeling of self in all cultures. However the feeling that one is an enduring self is no sort of evidence for its being an enduring fact.

Ginkgo wrote:

If I am on the operating table then I would like to know that the person doing the operation is more than just a person who thinks they are a surgeon.

The above was with regard to personal identity.

Not only the surgeon's formal qualifications including clinical experience but also The whole 'decor' *** of a surgical procedure is aimed at maintaining confidence in the culture of medical practice. And medicine itself is part of the whole fabric of a society. Some societies' way of alleviating pain and disability is founded upon magic not empirical evidence, however all societies support their institutions by way of supporting certain personal identities such as surgeons, teachers, shop owning grocers, ministers of religion, electricians, etc .etc. There are also kinship identities such as wives, mothers, child dependents, cousins, heads of families etc. which also are conferred by societies, and are not inherent. Some societies don't even account motherhood as important enough always to be noticed. Modern kinship identities and modern professional identities are not so much inherent as conferred upon individuals by the cultural beliefs and practices of the society.

Thus Ginkgo or I perhaps would feel safer in the hands of a competent wise herbalist and bone setter than with a modern surgeon depending upon Ginkgo'or my beliefs and customs.Ginkgo or I might be terrified out of our wits by the 'decor' of the operating theatre and surgical ward. I am saying that personal identity is attributed not inherent.

Personal identity is conferred by society and is also internalised so that when an identification ends the individual suffers often from a very painful drop in self esteem. This happens with divorce, bereavement, retirement, the occupation of one's country by a foreign power, dementia, certain diseases notably mental illness, occupational redundancy, failing an examination, loss of honour of one's family or clan, and so on.

Personal identity is regarded empirically with the consent of modern societies so that such scientists as police and historians use markers such as DNA, age of bones, dental records, fingerprints, legal documents, and certain unwitting testimonies from witnesses. Those seemingly undeniable evidences of personal identity depend upon modern societies' trust in empirical evidence and modern scientific theories. It was not always so, and anthropologist might even nowadays discover extant cultures of belief which identify individuals according to criteria which differ from Ginkgo's and mine.

There is survival potential of the feeling of self in all cultures. However the feeling that one is an enduring self is no sort of evidence for its being an enduring fact.

"A non conscious thoughts is 1+1=2"
Ken
I'm confused. When you think "1+1=2" you are not conscious that 1+1=2?
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/a ... gy_web.pdf explores knowledge as qualia.

raw_thought wrote:"A non conscious thoughts is 1+1=2"
Ken
I'm confused. When you think "1+1=2" you are not conscious that 1+1=2?

That is not what I meant sorry. My mistake.

ken wrote: What are 'points of view' called, exactly, when they have scientific research behind them?

It is called empirical verification. It is when the data, observations and experiment confirm or reject a hypothesis.

Ginkgo wrote: Exactly the same argument applies to global warming. Proponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims in the same way as opponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims.

Ken wrote: So, which side is right then?

How can 'data' be so apparently compelling for two completely opposing sides?

There is nothing new in this. When we look at the history of science we will see that eventually the sciences converge. When this happens we will get a new theory in relation to so-called global warming.

Ken wrote: What is happening within, a 'person', the thoughts and thinking that allows such a thing to happen?

Probably politics.

Ken wrote: The scientific debate may be more than just a point of view, from your perspective, but the "science" behind the so called "scientific debate" seems to be causing more confusion then any clarity. (But I guess this all depends on which side one picks and chooses to believe in).

True, but as I said previously there is nothing new in this when we look at the history of science.

Ken wrote: These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.

Ginkgo wrote: They haven't decided to pick one side or the other. What makes them one side or the other is their research in that particular area.

Ken wrote: Well if two completely different and opposing views are appearing, then obviously their "research" is not that well done nor clear.

To Me, what is obvious is the true and rightness, and, the false and wrongness in both of them.

This is because consciousness is still a mystery and there is a long way to go before we unravel its mysteries, but as I say we are just starting to see the sciences converge in this area.

Ken wrote: So every brain from the very first thought it produces till the very last thought it produces and during every thought in between is a conscious brain, to you?

Does that really make a lot of sense, to you?

Yes, it would make perfect sense to anyone.

Ken wrote: To Me, what makes sense is a human brain produces thoughts.
Some thoughts are conscious thoughts. Some are not.
For example,
A conscious thought is " 'I' am ...."
A non conscious thoughts is 1+1=2
A brain is as conscious as every other organ of the human body possibly can be.
A brain can produce thoughts, which can be on the conscious, sub-conscious, and unconscious level.
But a brain, itself, is not conscious, sub-conscious, nor unconscious, just like every other organ is not.
A brain can produce consciousness, but a brain is not consciousness.

What makes sense to you, sometimes, does not makes to Me, and vice versa.

Most of what goes on in the brain is unconscious, so we need to know what types of things enter into experience and under what conditions allow these things get in.

If the brain can produces consciousness then it must be conscious. The brain is not like any other organ because it produces thoughts. Your liver or heart does not produce thoughts.

1+1=2 is a conscious thought because one needs to be conscious to do mathematics.

Ginkgo wrote:

ken wrote: What are 'points of view' called, exactly, when they have scientific research behind them?

It is called empirical verification. It is when the data, observations and experiment confirm or reject a hypothesis.

Ginkgo wrote: Exactly the same argument applies to global warming. Proponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims in the same way as opponents of global warming produce data to back up their claims.

Ken wrote: So, which side is right then?

How can 'data' be so apparently compelling for two completely opposing sides?

There is nothing new in this. When we look at the history of science we will see that eventually the sciences converge. When this happens we will get a new theory in relation to so-called global warming.

My point has been when I look at all supposedly opposing debates like nature verses nurture, creation verses evolution, global warming, et cetera, I see the truths and falsehoods in both "sides". I do not see them as one versing or opposing the other. I see them as one. Through previous experiences I have learned how to observe the Truth, which highlights the data that will empirically verify what is actually true, right, and correct. Even when I look at science and religion they converge together to show what actually IS. They both are not in opposition. They in fact complement each other. But all this depends on how one looks at things.

This is what I have been saying about looking from the perspective as though one side is right and the other is wrong. The Truth is there is truth and falsehoods in both "sides". When you are able to look from the perspective of complete openness all this is observable and understandable.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: What is happening within, a 'person', the thoughts and thinking that allows such a thing to happen?

Probably politics.

It is far more easily explainable, and understood, than that.

What does "politics" actually mean here anyway?

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: The scientific debate may be more than just a point of view, from your perspective, but the "science" behind the so called "scientific debate" seems to be causing more confusion then any clarity. (But I guess this all depends on which side one picks and chooses to believe in).

True, but as I said previously there is nothing new in this when we look at the history of science.

When all confusion is gone the obviousness of where confusion came from is seen when we look at the history of everything.

Ken wrote: These people are nothing more than any other person, that is the thought and internal feelings within any human body. They, themselves, and others also, may label them(selves) as any thing, but they can not truly be those things. If there are beliefs within a human head, then that is what it is; just a belief, and that is all that is happening. A person can not be anything else other than what they really are. A 'person' can not truly be what is being thought. Although some people like to believe that they are what they are thinking, for example, "I am a doctor", the Truth is that they can not really be that thing being thought of. So, chalmers is not a "dualist" and prinz is not a "materialist". They both have just decided to pick one side or one point of view of some thing and chose to believe in that side or view.

Ginkgo wrote: They haven't decided to pick one side or the other. What makes them one side or the other is their research in that particular area.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Well if two completely different and opposing views are appearing, then obviously their "research" is not that well done nor clear.

To Me, what is obvious is the true and rightness, and, the false and wrongness in both of them.

This is because consciousness is still a mystery and there is a long way to go before we unravel its mysteries, but as I say we are just starting to see the sciences converge in this area.

But consciousness is NOT a mystery at all to Me, nor are there also any mysteries left.

People have probably been saying for many years now things similar to, "We are just starting to see the sciences converge in this area".

To Me, all the pieces of the puzzle have already converged together forming a big picture of Life. I observe sciences could not converge together because there is only (one) science. I also observe religions could not converge together because there is only (one) religion. Human beings have made different "sciences" and "religions". The reason they have is obvious and found with the discovery of how the Mind and the brain can work together and oppositely. When these things are understood what is also observed is how science and religion are so far more alike than they are different, with both helping to verify the rightness and wrongness in each other.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: So every brain from the very first thought it produces till the very last thought it produces and during every thought in between is a conscious brain, to you?

Does that really make a lot of sense, to you?

Yes, it would make perfect sense to anyone.

Well it certainly does not make perfect sense to Me. But then again I, more times than not, observe and see things far differently than human beings actually do, at this point in time.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: To Me, what makes sense is a human brain produces thoughts.
Some thoughts are conscious thoughts. Some are not.
For example,
A conscious thought is " 'I' am ...."
A non conscious thoughts is 1+1=2
A brain is as conscious as every other organ of the human body possibly can be.
A brain can produce thoughts, which can be on the conscious, sub-conscious, and unconscious level.
But a brain, itself, is not conscious, sub-conscious, nor unconscious, just like every other organ is not.
A brain can produce consciousness, but a brain is not consciousness.

What makes sense to you, sometimes, does not makes to Me, and vice versa.

Most of what goes on in the brain is unconscious, so we need to know what types of things enter into experience and under what conditions allow these things get in.

What types of things that enter are the things the human body experiences.

What conditions that allow these things to get in is the five senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling.

Ginkgo wrote:If the brain can produces consciousness then it must be conscious.

Not necessarily so. This is where we have completely opposing views. I think experiences enter the body, through the five sense, as information into the brain. Some past experiences are held as memories, which combine with present experiences, which are producing new thoughts, of which some are conscious thoughts, while others are not. These present thoughts are consciousness. To Me the brain, itself, is not conscious, nor consciousness. This view forms part of a perfectly clear picture, of which there is no confusion nor mystery.

Our views may be different, and even completely opposite here, but that is perfectly normal. Those different past experiences have formed and produced these different views. My view may be right, partly right, or completely wrong. We will just have to wait and see.

Ginkgo wrote: The brain is not like any other organ because it produces thoughts. Your liver or heart does not produce thoughts.

Obviously. And, the brain and the heart does not produce what the liver does, and the brain and the liver does not produce what the heart does. No two different organs produces the exact same thing, but to Me all organs are like the other ones are. They are not conscious things. The brain may produce conscious thoughts and thinking but to Me that still does not mean it is conscious, itself.

Ginkgo wrote:1+1=2 is a conscious thought because one needs to be conscious to do mathematics.

So are you saying that whenever a child has its first thought that is when the child becomes conscious, and will remain conscious until the day the brain stops produces anymore thoughts?

If so, then that does not fit in with data, observations and experiments that confirms what I observe NOW, which is, that there may be a thought of, '1+1=2', within a human head, that thought is conscious, or aware, that 1+1=2, but that in no way makes one to be conscious of self. For example if I asked you, "Who is the one that you say needs to be conscious to do mathematics?" what is your answer?

If a person can not answer the question, "Who am 'I'?" then really how conscious are they?

When does an individual person supposedly become conscious, and how conscious are they really, and when did human beings, themselves, on a whole, supposedly become conscious, and how conscious are they really?

Also, if a child is not conscious until their very first thought, then does that really fit in with what conscious or consciousness is? And, how exactly does that first thought make them a conscious being? What are they really conscious of exactly?

I would suggest that not until an individual person becomes fully conscious of self, or fully self-aware, thus knows how to answer have all the meaningful questions in Life, especially the "Who am 'I'?" question, and also knows for sure that every other human being could agree with all those answers, then really not until then, how conscious works or how much consciousness human beings have yet will just continue to be disputed. Even in this age 'consciousness' is still a very confusing issue to some, and still a very wildly disputed topic. But when that individual, who knows who 'I' am, learns how to express better to others, then consciousness will still remain just the mystery It has been. 'I' am only revealed to those who are prepared to listen.

Obviously meaningful answers are not found by what human beings have been continually doing for millennia. Just being prepared to learn how to look at and view things differently, is all that is needed here. Believing one already knows what is right, sticking to that belief and looking for or finding data or evidence to support that idea and view is what needs to change. To date some human beings are completely unconscious to the fact that they look at and view things only from their already gained experiences. Unless they have had the perfect and right previous experiences, they are more than likely not seeing things as clearly as they would like to be.

Ken wrote: But consciousness is NOT a mystery at all to Me, nor are there also any mysteries left.

Well, once again the Nobel Prize is yours for the taking.

Ken wrote: To Me, all the pieces of the puzzle have already converged together forming a big picture of Life. I observe sciences could not converge together because there is only (one) science. I also observe religions could not converge together because there is only (one) religion. Human beings have made different "sciences" and "religions". The reason they have is obvious and found with the discovery of how the Mind and the brain can work together and oppositely. When these things are understood what is also observed is how science and religion are so far more alike than they are different, with both helping to verify the rightness and wrongness in each other.

Seeing as you know the answer to everything there is not much point is me having this conservation with you. I cannot enlighten you in any way because you know everything.

Ken wrote: So every brain from the very first thought it produces till the very last thought it produces and during every thought in between is a conscious brain, to you?

Self-consciousness is not a prerequisite for being conscious. One can be conscious without necessarily being self-conscious.

Ken wrote: Well it certainly does not make perfect sense to Me. But then again I, more times than not, observe and see things far differently than human beings actually do, at this point in time.

in that case you must be a superior being.

Ginkgo wrote:If the brain can produces consciousness then it must be conscious.

Ken wrote: Not necessarily so. This is where we have completely opposing views. I think experiences enter the body, through the five sense, as information into the brain. Some past experiences are held as memories, which combine with present experiences, which are producing new thoughts, of which some are conscious thoughts, while others are not. These present thoughts are consciousness. To Me the brain, itself, is not conscious, nor consciousness. This view forms part of a perfectly clear picture, of which there is no confusion nor mystery.

"These present thoughts are consciousness. To me the brain brain, itself, is not conscious, nor consciousness."

As I said before, it stands to reason that if present thoughts are consciousness then the brain MUST be conscious to have these present thoughts. For some reason you think we need to be self-conscious to be conscious. This is not the case.

Ken wrote: Obviously. And, the brain and the heart does not produce what the liver does, and the brain and the liver does not produce what the heart does. No two different organs produces the exact same thing, but to Me all organs are like the other ones are. They are not conscious things. The brain may produce conscious thoughts and thinking but to Me that still does not mean it is conscious, itself.

Again, for some reason you think that in order to be conscious one must be self-conscious.

Ken wrote: So are you saying that whenever a child has its first thought that is when the child becomes conscious, and will remain conscious until the day the brain stops produces anymore thoughts?

Yes, except for those times the person is asleep or unconscious.

Ken wrote: If so, then that does not fit in with data, observations and experiments that confirms what I observe NOW, which is, that there may be a thought of, '1+1=2', within a human head, that thought is conscious, or aware, that 1+1=2, but that in no way makes one to be conscious of self. For example if I asked you, "Who is the one that you say needs to be conscious to do mathematics?" what is your answer?

I didn't say conscious of self. I was explaining the conditions required for consciousness. Why are you asking me for an answer when you already know everything about consciousness?

Ken wrote: If a person can not answer the question, "Who am 'I'?" then really how conscious are they?

Very conscious. One does not need to be self-conscious in order to be conscious. Again,why are you asking me if you already know the answer?

Ken wrote: When does an individual person supposedly become conscious, and how conscious are they really, and when did human beings, themselves, on a whole, supposedly become conscious, and how conscious are they really?

No one know the answer to this, except of course yourself.

Ken wrote: Also, if a child is not conscious until their very first thought, then does that really fit in with what conscious or consciousness is? And, how exactly does that first thought make them a conscious being? What are they really conscious of exactly?

I can answer that question but you are probably no interested.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: But consciousness is NOT a mystery at all to Me, nor are there also any mysteries left.

Well, once again the Nobel Prize is yours for the taking.

Well, once again, I do not want nor need a nobel prize. You may want one, but I certainly do not. All i want is to remain anonymous.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: To Me, all the pieces of the puzzle have already converged together forming a big picture of Life. I observe sciences could not converge together because there is only (one) science. I also observe religions could not converge together because there is only (one) religion. Human beings have made different "sciences" and "religions". The reason they have is obvious and found with the discovery of how the Mind and the brain can work together and oppositely. When these things are understood what is also observed is how science and religion are so far more alike than they are different, with both helping to verify the rightness and wrongness in each other.

Seeing as you know the answer to everything there is not much point is me having this conservation with you. I cannot enlighten you in any way because you know everything.

But your responses and questions, and lack of questions, is helping Me tremendously in learning how to express better.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: So every brain from the very first thought it produces till the very last thought it produces and during every thought in between is a conscious brain, to you?

Self-consciousness is not a prerequisite for being conscious. One can be conscious without necessarily being self-conscious.

There is nothing in my quote here saying anything about self-consciousness.

I just asked you a question here in this quote, which by the way you never answered.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Well it certainly does not make perfect sense to Me. But then again I, more times than not, observe and see things far differently than human beings actually do, at this point in time.

in that case you must be a superior being.

Or I may be just a more simpler being.

Ginkgo wrote:If the brain can produces consciousness then it must be conscious.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Not necessarily so. This is where we have completely opposing views. I think experiences enter the body, through the five sense, as information into the brain. Some past experiences are held as memories, which combine with present experiences, which are producing new thoughts, of which some are conscious thoughts, while others are not. These present thoughts are consciousness. To Me the brain, itself, is not conscious, nor consciousness. This view forms part of a perfectly clear picture, of which there is no confusion nor mystery.

"These present thoughts are consciousness. To me the brain brain, itself, is not conscious, nor consciousness."

As I said before, it stands to reason that if present thoughts are consciousness then the brain MUST be conscious to have these present thoughts. For some reason you think we need to be self-conscious to be conscious. This is not the case.

Again, you have brought up "self-conscious" here again. There is nothing in my quote alluding to self-consciousness. I may talk about self-consciousness later on in my post but as of now it would be better for us, and easier for others to read, if you just reply to the actual quote of mine that you have extracted and are responding to.

To Me, a brain is not conscious but there can be conscious thoughts.

To you, a brain MUST be conscious if there are conscious thoughts. WHY MUST this be the case?

To Me, a brain is never conscious it just does its job, which is to receive information, and then produce thoughts.

To you, a brain is conscious with its first thought, of which what that first thought is, or could be, and roughly when does it actually take place would need to be looked at discussed first, before you can even start to explain to Me how the brain can actually become conscious.

Why do you say a brain MUST be conscious, when thoughts are being produced? Do you believe thoughts and the brain are one and the same thing? Or, is there another reason?

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Obviously. And, the brain and the heart does not produce what the liver does, and the brain and the liver does not produce what the heart does. No two different organs produces the exact same thing, but to Me all organs are like the other ones are. They are not conscious things. The brain may produce conscious thoughts and thinking but to Me that still does not mean it is conscious, itself.

Again, for some reason you think that in order to be conscious one must be self-conscious.

What do you mean here? Again, where have I alluded to self-conscious in this quote, or any of the above quotes?

You really are seeing things in my writings, which really are not there, (yet).

Maybe because you read my whole post and then you have come back to extracting and replying to these quotes you keep referring to my use of 'self-consciousness', but doing this is really not helping your case here.

You have made an assumption, before asking Me a clarifying question. Two things here; 1. If you just asked Me the clarifying question first, then you would not have made the wrong assumption that you have here. 2. If you asked Me the clarifying question first, then I would have given you the answer and then you would know already what that "some reason" is WHY I think, what I actually do think.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: So are you saying that whenever a child has its first thought that is when the child becomes conscious, and will remain conscious until the day the brain stops produces anymore thoughts?

Yes, except for those times the person is asleep or unconscious.

Okay, that is fair enough. You can have any view you like.

Hopefully you have started explaining about what the first thought could be a child has, and roughly when they have that thought, then we can discuss that and how that relates to how the brain of a child is conscious and how it can become conscious, to you. If you want to have this view, then you have to look deeper into this to see if it is actually true or not. To be able to look at this in much more depth, then you need to start thinking more about what you are saying and what I am asking you. Then, from your answers we can then discuss what produces the brain to actually become conscious, as you believe it does, because if the brain is conscious because it creates conscious thoughts, then HOW what causes the brain to have have conscious thoughts could also be conscious, and so on. Or, if that does not seem viable, then we can discuss if the brain actually becomes conscious or not.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: If so, then that does not fit in with data, observations and experiments that confirms what I observe NOW, which is, that there may be a thought of, '1+1=2', within a human head, that thought is conscious, or aware, that 1+1=2, but that in no way makes one to be conscious of self. For example if I asked you, "Who is the one that you say needs to be conscious to do mathematics?" what is your answer?

I didn't say conscious of self.

I know you did not.

I never said you did.

Ginkgo wrote:I was explaining the conditions required for consciousness.

No you were not. You were explaining that if there is a conscious thought like 1+1=2, then there is a conscious thought, which means then there MUST be a conscious brain. That is about all you have said and explained.

I was explaining that a thought may be conscious that if 1+1 is added together, then there is 2. I was just saying that may be a conscious thought of that fact, but that thought is just conscious, or aware, of that fact only, and nothing else. I was alluding to the fact that consciousness, itself, could have a multitude of varying different levels. Consciousness of the highest level could refer to being fully conscious, or in other words aware of its own (one) self.

Ginkgo wrote:Why are you asking me for an answer when you already know everything about consciousness?

Because I want you to see that even if you are correct, in that the brain is conscious from the very first thought, then that brain is not really that much conscious. If the brain, or a thought, is not conscious at all of its own self, then really HOW conscious is it?

I would say if a conscious thought (or a conscious brain in your view) is conscious of some thing, then that thought has consciousness, of that thing, but that thought is not consciousness, itself. Being conscious of some things is not the same as being consciousness of all things.

To Me, being able to "stand back" and be able to be conscious of all things, including thoughts, is consciousness.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: If a person can not answer the question, "Who am 'I'?" then really how conscious are they?

Very conscious.

Does one become "very conscious" with the very first thought?

Ginkgo wrote: One does not need to be self-conscious in order to be conscious.

That is right. But can one become more conscious over time, or are all human beings very conscious from their very first thought, and thus can not become more conscious with age?

Is consciousness reached at and with the very first thought, and can not be increased nor improved upon?

Ginkgo wrote: Again,why are you asking me if you already know the answer?

So that if you provide open and honest answers, and if you want to learn more, then you will see things more clearly, by yourself.

You certainly do not need Me to give you any answers, do you? In fact, I KNOW all the answers are within you. I am just learning how to express better how to get those answers out of you.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: When does an individual person supposedly become conscious, and how conscious are they really, and when did human beings, themselves, on a whole, supposedly become conscious, and how conscious are they really?

No one know the answer to this, except of course yourself.

How do you know no one knows the answer to this?

If I do know the answer, or not, will eventually come to light. But it also does not matter if I do know the answer or not. What matters is everyone coming to an answer by themselves and seeing if everyone comes to and has the answer. I am just here learning how to express better a way that teaches human beings how they, themselves, can find these answers, which are already within them, by, and for, themselves. If they all come to the same answer, by themselves, then I will have achieved what I have come here for. You will be known as one of the ones that has helped Me to achieve what I am here for. I am sure you will then get that nobel peace prize that you talk about, but so will everyone else who has helped Me achieve what it is that I am achieving HERE and NOW.

Ginkgo wrote:

Ken wrote: Also, if a child is not conscious until their very first thought, then does that really fit in with what conscious or consciousness is? And, how exactly does that first thought make them a conscious being? What are they really conscious of exactly?

I can answer that question but you are probably no interested.

If I was inclined to assume, then I could say with your response you are just trying to avoid my three question here. But I do not like to assume anything.

I think you will find I am far more interested than you realize.

Every question I ask, and there is many of them here in this forum, I am of the utmost interest in the responses I get.

I ask many direct simple clarifying questions here hoping for completely open and honest replies and answers. But sadly I get very few of them. The more human beings are open and honest with Me, then the more I can learn and the quicker I learn, and then the quicker I can achieve what I have set out to achieve.

Ken, I will answer your three questions. Ken wrote the following:

(1) If a person can not answer the question "Who am I ?" then how conscious are they?

(2) When does an individual become conscious, and how conscious are they really, and when did human beings, themselves, become conscious, and how conscious are they really?

(3) Also if a child is not conscious until their very first thought, then does this really fit in with what conscious or consciousness is? And, how exactly does that first thought make them a conscious being? what are they really conscious of exactly?



All that is required for a person to be conscious is to experience their environment. One can experience their environment without first having to ask who they are.

Your second question is difficult to answer because you seem to be asking when did the first conscious hominoids appear on the planet. Is this what you are asking?

When a child first opens it eyes after it is born it begins to experience his/her environment. It is conscious from that moment, this is long before they ask who they are.

Ginkgo wrote:Ken, I will answer your three questions. Ken wrote the following:

(1) If a person can not answer the question "Who am I ?" then how conscious are they?

(2) When does an individual become conscious, and how conscious are they really, and when did human beings, themselves, become conscious, and how conscious are they really?

(3) Also if a child is not conscious until their very first thought, then does this really fit in with what conscious or consciousness is? And, how exactly does that first thought make them a conscious being? what are they really conscious of exactly?



All that is required for a person to be conscious is to experience their environment. One can experience their environment without first having to ask who they are.

Your second question is difficult to answer because you seem to be asking when did the first conscious hominoids appear on the planet. Is this what you are asking?

When a child first opens it eyes after it is born it begins to experience his/her environment. It is conscious from that moment, this is long before they ask who they are.

2. Yes. But it was asked knowing that you, personally, do not know the exact, or approximate, answer. It was just asked for you to think more about when did human beings actually become conscious beings. Do you say any or all other animals are conscious also?

3. Does a child not experience the environment before it opens its eyes?

bahman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

bahman wrote: We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?

It can't, otherwise we would be philosophical zombies.

Philosophical zombie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Zombie (disambiguation).

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, a philosophical zombie could be poked with a sharp object and not feel any pain sensation, but yet behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or say that it is in intense pain).

The notion of a philosophical zombie is used mainly in thought experiments intended to support arguments (often called "zombie arguments") against forms of physicalism such as materialism, behaviorism and functionalism. Physicalism is the idea that all aspects of human nature can be explained by physical means: specifically, all aspects of human nature and perception can be explained from a neurobiological standpoint. Some philosophers, like David Chalmers, argue that since a zombie is defined as physiologically indistinguishable from human beings, even its logical possibility would be a sound refutation of physicalism.[2] However, physicalists like Daniel Dennett counter that Chalmers's physiological zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible.[3][4]

Philosophical zombie refers to being which cannot experience anything. Here we are talking about being who don't have self.

In the Buddhist thought on selflessness there is some notion of views, wrong views, and ultimately, simplistically, all views are wrong views and nirvana is no views. It marries well with Lacan's Symbolic where inherent to the symbolic form is an absence or a lack. Each side of the paradigm is opposed so that each component view, like up/down, can not be in absence of the other, which implies the lack of the symbol as a whole - it is always 'two views'. Hence the symbolic can not approach the Real. Likewise, the view can not approach nirvana. What this ultimately means is, the notion of being or non-being are in themselves wrong views, most particularly in the sense of declaring the presence of an absence. Declaring a presence entails and implies the absence. Hence, the right view is no view.

Throng wrote:

In the Buddhist thought on selflessness there is some notion of views, wrong views, and ultimately, simplistically, all views are wrong views and nirvana is no views. It marries well with Lacan's Symbolic where inherent to the symbolic form is an absence or a lack. Each side of the paradigm is opposed so that each component view, like up/down, can not be in absence of the other, which implies the lack of the symbol as a whole - it is always 'two views'. Hence the symbolic can not approach the Real. Likewise, the view can not approach nirvana. What this ultimately means is, the notion of being or non-being are in themselves wrong views, most particularly in the sense of declaring the presence of an absence. Declaring a presence entails and implies the absence. Hence, the right view is no view.

Would infinitely many views be the same as no views?

ken wrote:
2. Yes. But it was asked knowing that you, personally, do not know the exact, or approximate, answer. It was just asked for you to think more about when did human beings actually become conscious beings. Do you say any or all other animals are conscious also?

3. Does a child not experience the environment before it opens its eyes?

At its most basic level experiencing your environment is a prerequisite for a theory of consciousness. Based on that definition, all hominoids are conscious. Dogs and dolphins experience their environment so we can say they are conscious as well. Can an amoeba be conscious? Probably not because they only have the capacity to react to their environment. Dogs fail the mirror test so they probably have no sense of self. Dolphins on the other hand pass the mirror test, so it is possible they have a sense of self. As to which lower life forms are conscious is a highly contentious issue. As I said earlier, no one has an exact answer to some of these questions.

Having dealt with the basics it is possible to move on to three important questions when dealing with human consciousness. In other words, it is possible to look at three aspects that make up for a theory of consciousness. Firstly, what are we conscious of? Secondly, what types of things enter into experience? Thirdly, what conditions are required for things to enter into our experience. It is worth noting that cognitive science has made a lot of progress in terms of answering these questions.

Btw I think you make a good point when you say a child can experience his/her environment even before they open their eyes. They probably experience being in the womb.