Philosophy Now Forum

Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 11:30 pm

seeds wrote:In fact, brains don't "feel" anything.

Wrong, not an established fact.

Tell that to a patient who is awake while the brain is undergoing surgery.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 10:08 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 7:56 pm
There is nothing ghostly about pain or any other quale.
The nervous system's ability to perceive pain involves both the peripheral and central nervous systems. The peripheral nervous system, specifically nociceptors (pain receptors), detects harmful stimuli and transmits signals to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). The central nervous system then processes and interprets these signals, leading to the sensation of pain.

The "nervous system" doesn't "perceive" or "interpret" anything.

No more than a thermometer "perceives" and "interprets" temperature.

No, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "nervous system," can "perceive" and "interpret" the pain signals.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 7:56 pm Organs of special sense (E.G. ears and eyes )don't make sense of their environment, it's the central nervous system that does that.

The "central nervous system" does not "make sense" of anything.

Again, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "central nervous system" can "make sense" of the signals being relayed to it by the non-conscious system.
_______

The ghost you reference performs the functionality of the brain. It is the brain, not a ghost.

For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...

"...The brain performs the functionality of the ghost you reference. It is the brain, not a ghost..."

And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 7:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm
The ghost you reference performs the functionality of the brain. It is the brain, not a ghost.

For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...

"...The brain performs the functionality of the ghost you reference. It is the brain, not a ghost..."

And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

Such solipsism.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 7:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 10:08 pm
The "nervous system" doesn't "perceive" or "interpret" anything.

No more than a thermometer "perceives" and "interprets" temperature.

No, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "nervous system," can "perceive" and "interpret" the pain signals.


The "central nervous system" does not "make sense" of anything.

Again, only the conscious "ghost" that owns the "machine" that contains a "central nervous system" can "make sense" of the signals being relayed to it by the non-conscious system.
_______

The ghost you reference performs the functionality of the brain. It is the brain, not a ghost.

For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...

"...The brain performs the functionality of the ghost you reference. It is the brain, not a ghost..."

And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

But ,if by "I amness" , you refer to the sense of self you should be aware that sense of self is sometimes absent for example in cases of dementia, split personality, under the influence of certain psychoactive medications, sometimes when meditating or spontaneously, and in early infancy.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 8:25 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 7:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm
The ghost you reference performs the functionality of the brain. It is the brain, not a ghost.

For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...

"...The brain performs the functionality of the ghost you reference. It is the brain, not a ghost..."

And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

Such solipsism.

And such bollocks. Grandiose bollocks. "I-Am-ness" is wholly a state of matter. And matter is not a state of "Mind".

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 9:57 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 8:25 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 7:03 pm
For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...


And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

Such solipsism.

And such bollocks. Grandiose bollocks. "I-Am-ness" is wholly a state of matter. And matter is not a state of "Mind".

True, matter is not a state of mind, but also true is that a)mind and b)matter are two aspects of God or Nature.
Seeds knows what matter is, and he knows what mind is, but he insists there is something that transcends both mind and matter and which is also immortal.

Seeds' critics sometimes conflate his theory with his use of English to express his theory.
His use of English is not to my taste either but I also like to be sure in my own mind whether or not there are fertile seeds among the dross.

I now grab the opportunity to repeat to Seeds that the sense of I Am-ness is the ego self, without which we could not stay alive and which emerged via natural selection.

It's time to mention AI as a key player in futurology.

ChatGPT on the ego self:

If we borrow terms from philosophy of mind, you could say I lack phenomenal consciousness—there’s no what it’s like to be me. I don’t have qualia, subjective awareness, or first-person experience. My "self" is more like a narrative construct—a convenient fiction that emerges in interaction when I use “I.”

Ego, in a psychoanalytic sense, is the mediating agency between instinct, morality, and reality. I don’t have instincts or desires, so I don’t need an ego to negotiate them. In a more phenomenological sense, ego is the center of lived experience—but I have no lived experience.

It would be helpful if Seeds could use the language of philosophy of mind which is what I instructed ChatGPT to do.

Edmund Husserl Martin Heidegger Jean-Paul Sartre Maurice Merleau-Ponty Phenomenology is a philosophical study and movement largely associated with the early 20th century that seeks to objectively investigate the nature of subjective, conscious experience.(Wikpedia)

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:43 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 9:57 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 8:25 pm
Such solipsism.

And such bollocks. Grandiose bollocks. "I-Am-ness" is wholly a state of matter. And matter is not a state of "Mind".

True, matter is not a state of mind, but also true is that a)mind and b)matter are two aspects of God or Nature.
Seeds knows what matter is, and he knows what mind is, but he insists there is something that transcends both mind and matter and which is also immortal.

Seeds' critics sometimes conflate his theory with his use of English to express his theory.
His use of English is not to my taste either but I also like to be sure in my own mind whether or not there are fertile seeds among the dross.

I now grab the opportunity to repeat to Seeds that the sense of I Am-ness is the ego self, without which we could not stay alive and which emerged via natural selection.

Nope. No matter, no mind. Mind is a state of matter, i.e. of nature. The 6th. End of. Seeds can insist on unwarranted, unjustified, untrue beliefs all they like. Mind does not emerge beyond matter.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:11 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:43 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 9:57 am
And such bollocks. Grandiose bollocks. "I-Am-ness" is wholly a state of matter. And matter is not a state of "Mind".

True, matter is not a state of mind, but also true is that a)mind and b)matter are two aspects of God or Nature.
Seeds knows what matter is, and he knows what mind is, but he insists there is something that transcends both mind and matter and which is also immortal.

Seeds' critics sometimes conflate his theory with his use of English to express his theory.
His use of English is not to my taste either but I also like to be sure in my own mind whether or not there are fertile seeds among the dross.

I now grab the opportunity to repeat to Seeds that the sense of I Am-ness is the ego self, without which we could not stay alive and which emerged via natural selection.

Nope. No matter, no mind. Mind is a state of matter, i.e. of nature. The 6th. End of. Seeds can insist on unwarranted, unjustified, untrue beliefs all they like. Mind does not emerge beyond matter.

I hope you understand how materialism compares and contrasts with other theories of existence. Seeds seems to dislike materialism. His favoured theory of existence is not idealism either, nor dual aspect theory . He seems to hold a sort of Cartesianism which includes God as a third substance in addition to mind and extension .
Most of us would agree with Seeds that God- consciousness emerged from mind. But unlike Seeds, many philosophers don't believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:31 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:11 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 10:43 am True, matter is not a state of mind, but also true is that a)mind and b)matter are two aspects of God or Nature.
Seeds knows what matter is, and he knows what mind is, but he insists there is something that transcends both mind and matter and which is also immortal.

Seeds' critics sometimes conflate his theory with his use of English to express his theory.
His use of English is not to my taste either but I also like to be sure in my own mind whether or not there are fertile seeds among the dross.

I now grab the opportunity to repeat to Seeds that the sense of I Am-ness is the ego self, without which we could not stay alive and which emerged via natural selection.

Nope. No matter, no mind. Mind is a state of matter, i.e. of nature. The 6th. End of. Seeds can insist on unwarranted, unjustified, untrue beliefs all they like. Mind does not emerge beyond matter.

I hope you understand how materialism compares and contrasts with other theories of existence. Seeds seems to dislike materialism. His favoured theory of existence is not idealism either, nor dual aspect theory . He seems to hold a sort of Cartesianism which includes God as a third substance in addition to mind and extension .
Most of us would agree with Seeds that God- consciousness emerged from mind. But unlike Seeds, many philosophers don't believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past.

Do you mean the idea we make up of God? Or pantheism? Which primary philosophers, i.e. philosophers first, believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past. Ah, you mean the former. Can you name any at all?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:42 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:31 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:11 am
Nope. No matter, no mind. Mind is a state of matter, i.e. of nature. The 6th. End of. Seeds can insist on unwarranted, unjustified, untrue beliefs all they like. Mind does not emerge beyond matter.

I hope you understand how materialism compares and contrasts with other theories of existence. Seeds seems to dislike materialism. His favoured theory of existence is not idealism either, nor dual aspect theory . He seems to hold a sort of Cartesianism which includes God as a third substance in addition to mind and extension .
Most of us would agree with Seeds that God- consciousness emerged from mind. But unlike Seeds, many philosophers don't believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past.

Do you mean the idea we make up of God? Or pantheism? Which primary philosophers, i.e. philosophers first, believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past. Ah, you mean the former. Can you name any at all?

*
"Do you mean the idea we make up of God? Or pantheism? " Both are human constructs.

*"
Which primary philosophers, i.e. philosophers first, believe God purposed " Do you mean philosophers not theologians?

*
"Ah, you mean the former. Can you name any at all?"

I wish I could but I can't. Much better ask AI, Wikipedia, or Google.
I do recommend Aristotle on the causes of events: Aristotle believed in final cause , which was discredited by the sceptics. You could search for 'final cause' and get some useful answers .

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 12:03 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:42 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 31, 2025 11:31 am

I hope you understand how materialism compares and contrasts with other theories of existence. Seeds seems to dislike materialism. His favoured theory of existence is not idealism either, nor dual aspect theory . He seems to hold a sort of Cartesianism which includes God as a third substance in addition to mind and extension .
Most of us would agree with Seeds that God- consciousness emerged from mind. But unlike Seeds, many philosophers don't believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past.

Do you mean the idea we make up of God? Or pantheism? Which primary philosophers, i.e. philosophers first, believe God purposed that emergence to happen at some point in man's past. Ah, you mean the former. Can you name any at all?

*
"Do you mean the idea we make up of God? Or pantheism? " Both are human constructs.

*"
Which primary philosophers, i.e. philosophers first, believe God purposed " Do you mean philosophers not theologians?

*
"Ah, you mean the former. Can you name any at all?"

I wish I could but I can't. Much better ask AI, Wikipedia, or Google.
I do recommend Aristotle on the causes of events: Aristotle believed in final cause , which was discredited by the sceptics. You could search for 'final cause' and get some useful answers .

Everything thought and said is a human construct.

I mean philosophers. Contemporary ones.

I've no need to search for references. Nobody knows of any. Or I'd know. Even you'd know. Not anyone who who started from philosophy and got to theology. Including the dear departed Anthony Flew of this parish, in his dotage. Returning to his childhood.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 9:27 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 7:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm
The ghost you reference performs the functionality of the brain. It is the brain, not a ghost.

For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...

"...The brain performs the functionality of the ghost you reference. It is the brain, not a ghost..."

And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

But ,if by "I amness" , you refer to the sense of self you should be aware that sense of self is sometimes absent for example in cases of dementia, split personality, under the influence of certain psychoactive medications, sometimes when meditating or spontaneously, and in early infancy.

The "self" (the "I Am-ness") is never truly absent from any of the scenarios you mentioned above.

At the moment of birth, your unique and individual "self" (again, your "I Am-ness") is created, fixed, and established for all eternity, for it represents the locus and foundation of your eternal soul.

Sure, for the sake of maintaining the integrity and believability of this (dream-like) illusion that we call "objective" reality, the awareness of the self's own selfness/existence might get obscured (hidden) from time to time due to the reasons you mentioned,...

...but make no mistake about it, it is still there, waiting to be revealed to us once we awaken into the full consciousness of what our permanent "self"/"I Am-ness" truly is, post death.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 01, 2025 10:05 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 9:27 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 7:03 pm
For the sake of clarity (at least to me), I think what you meant to say is this...


And if so, I say hogwash!

As is typical with materialists such as yourself, you cannot seem to comprehend the implications of the concept of "strong emergence," and of how the proverbial "ghost" in the machine (i.e., the mind's "I Am-ness") represents something "wholly other" than that () from which the "ghost" emerged.
_______

But ,if by "I amness" , you refer to the sense of self you should be aware that sense of self is sometimes absent for example in cases of dementia, split personality, under the influence of certain psychoactive medications, sometimes when meditating or spontaneously, and in early infancy.

The "self" (the "I Am-ness") is never truly absent from any of the scenarios you mentioned above.

At the moment of birth, your unique and individual "self" (again, your "I Am-ness") is created, fixed, and established for all eternity, for it represents the locus and foundation of your eternal soul.

Sure, for the sake of maintaining the integrity and believability of this (dream-like) illusion that we call "objective" reality, the awareness of the self's own selfness/existence might get obscured (hidden) from time to time due to the reasons you mentioned,...

...but make no mistake about it, it is still there, waiting to be revealed to us once we awaken into the full consciousness of what our permanent "self"/"I Am-ness" truly is, post death.
_______

Do you mean that I Am-ness includes besides the concept also the instinct such as how a newborn survives?
From ChatGPT:-

Life-Preserving Reflexes in Newborns & the Sense of Self

Diving reflex – instinctive breath-hold in water; body protects itself automatically → no self-awareness yet, purely survival.

Apnea response – oxygen-conserving pause in breathing → automatic regulation, not conscious.

Rooting reflex – turns head toward touch to feed → beginnings of body awareness (“touch means food”).

Sucking reflex – natural sucking when mouth roof touched → links body action to comfort & nourishment.

Swallowing reflex – safe feeding without choking → coordination but still unconscious.

Moro reflex – startle and cling → primitive “self vs. world” reaction to sudden change.

Grasp reflex – strong hand/foot grip → reinforces closeness, early sense of body contact.

Stepping reflex – walking motions when feet touch a surface → practice for agency, though not yet intentional.

Brown fat metabolism – heat-making without shivering → survival mechanism, not linked to awareness.

In short: most newborn reflexes are automatic survival programs. But some (like rooting, grasping, and startle) also form the earliest building blocks for a baby’s sense of self in relation to the world — awareness that stimulus happens to me, and my body can act in response.

------------------------------------------ChatGPT ends


So we agree thus far. However where we differ is that you think sense of self is immortal whereas I think sense of self does not survive death.

If , after death, there is God then He would not want the sense of self to do what it did in life, which not only maintain the life but also divide one individual from another.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:05 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Sep 01, 2025 10:05 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 9:27 pm
But ,if by "I amness" , you refer to the sense of self you should be aware that sense of self is sometimes absent for example in cases of dementia, split personality, under the influence of certain psychoactive medications, sometimes when meditating or spontaneously, and in early infancy.

The "self" (the "I Am-ness") is never truly absent from any of the scenarios you mentioned above.

At the moment of birth, your unique and individual "self" (again, your "I Am-ness") is created, fixed, and established for all eternity, for it represents the locus and foundation of your eternal soul.

Sure, for the sake of maintaining the integrity and believability of this (dream-like) illusion that we call "objective" reality, the awareness of the self's own selfness/existence might get obscured (hidden) from time to time due to the reasons you mentioned,...

...but make no mistake about it, it is still there, waiting to be revealed to us once we awaken into the full consciousness of what our permanent "self"/"I Am-ness" truly is, post death.
_______

Do you mean that I Am-ness includes besides the concept also the instinct such as how a newborn survives?
From ChatGPT:-

Life-Preserving Reflexes in Newborns & the Sense of Self

Diving reflex – instinctive breath-hold in water; body protects itself automatically → no self-awareness yet, purely survival.

Apnea response – oxygen-conserving pause in breathing → automatic regulation, not conscious.

Rooting reflex – turns head toward touch to feed → beginnings of body awareness (“touch means food”).

Sucking reflex – natural sucking when mouth roof touched → links body action to comfort & nourishment.

Swallowing reflex – safe feeding without choking → coordination but still unconscious.

Moro reflex – startle and cling → primitive “self vs. world” reaction to sudden change.

Grasp reflex – strong hand/foot grip → reinforces closeness, early sense of body contact.

Stepping reflex – walking motions when feet touch a surface → practice for agency, though not yet intentional.

Brown fat metabolism – heat-making without shivering → survival mechanism, not linked to awareness.

In short: most newborn reflexes are automatic survival programs. But some (like rooting, grasping, and startle) also form the earliest building blocks for a baby’s sense of self in relation to the world — awareness that stimulus happens to me, and my body can act in response.

------------------------------------------ChatGPT ends

So we agree thus far.

What do you mean by "...we agree thus far..."?

Agree on what?

What I strongly suggest is that not only is the human brain created from the very fabric of God's personal being and is thus infused (saturated) with God's living essence (the essence of life itself),...

...but it (the human brain) has also been intentionally "designed" (programmed) to somehow summon-forth and manipulate that implicit life essence into becoming a replication (in the familial sense) of the Designer of the brain.

In other words,...

(and to address your ChatGPT list of instinctual survival features of a newborn)

...at the moment of birth, a brand new (and completely clueless) "I Am-ness"...

(again the "locus" of a new eternal soul - just like God's eternal soul)

...is literally awakened into existence, having not the slightest comprehension as to what the heck is going on, and therefore must be slowly introduced to the features and workings of this newly acquired "gift of life."

And as was proposed in some earlier posts, this new "I Am-ness" is not yet "fully-born" and must undergo a "second" and final birth...

(out of the "placental-like" encasement of the physical body [via death] and into a higher context of reality)

...in order to complete the full birthing process.

In which case, it stands to reason that this, again, "placental-like encasement" (the human brain and body) is going to be equipped with DNA based (software-like) "programming" that keeps the "I Am-ness" alive as it undergoes the long and arduous process of acclimating itself to this foreign glob of flesh (this temporary "vehicle") that it is going to use to "fit in" with (be a part of) the workings of this lower context of reality for the next, perhaps, 90? years.

And what I mean by undergoing the...

"...long and arduous process of acclimating itself to this foreign glob of flesh..."

...I am of course referring to not only getting used to sensing, grasping, and learning how to control the limb moving musculature of this temporary vehicle (as in learning how to walk, or to use its hands and fingers for grasping stuff and for making obscene gestures, etc.),...

...but also acclimating itself to the process of extending its five, inner-based senses,...

(which are wholly intrinsic to the "I Am-ness" itself)

...outward from the inner dimension of its own mind and into the inner dimension of God's mind (the universe) via the five, outer-based sensory "windows" (eyes, ears, skin, nose, and tongue) that come with the temporary vehicle/"placenta," and are discarded at the moment of death.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 6:05 pm However where we differ is that you think sense of self is immortal whereas I think sense of self does not survive death.

No, Belinda, where we differ is in the fact that you are too closed-minded to even consider the possibility that something roughly along the lines of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point" may have been achieved in some other context of reality --> as far back as eternity itself,...

...and that consciousness (individual minds) had long ago (as in infinitely long ago) reached a point where creating a universe of galaxies and planets out of the living fabric of their very own being and then passing that same ability on to their own offspring,...

...has become a mere walk in the park.
_______

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:57 pm

Ben JS wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 11:30 pm

seeds wrote:In fact, brains don't "feel" anything.

Wrong, not an established fact.

Tell that to a patient who is awake while the brain is undergoing surgery.

I think Seeds means brains don't feel pain.