Philosophy Now Forum

Ginkgo wrote: Thank you for your first comment I appreciate that.

Well, I appreciate your comments for a few reasons. First, you don't often agree with me, but you stay on point and understand the focus of the conversation, so I can learn why people have opposing views by listening to you. Second, you are well read and can introduce me to ideas and writers that I would otherwise not learn about. And you write well, and are polite and well mannered.

I would much rather talk to you than to someone who blathers on about ideas that are off topic, while they insult everyone that they can think of. You are MUCH better to talk to.

Ginkgo wrote:If you are looking for "evidence" for consciousness then we are pretty much stuck with a scientific explanation. From a scientific point of view consciousness is no different to any other physical system that works within the body.Just as the workings of the lungs or the digestive system can be explained in physical terms, so can consciousness.

I like science and have no problem with seeking scientific evidence. But science does not claim that the "workings of the lungs" actually create air, or that the "digestive system" creates the food that it digests. That would be absurd. But because consciousness can not be seen or measured, science has assumed that the brain creates consciousness. Even though the brain has been compared to a "processor", science still assumes that it creates, rather than processes, consciousness. This is assumption based on absurdity, religion, or magic.

Assumption is not scientific evidence, nor is it an acceptable start for philosophic theories.

Ginkgo wrote:The only sticking point is "emergence", but physicalists tend to be confident with this explanation.

If you look up "emergence" you will discover that they are talking about the rational mind, and we know that the rational mind emerges around the age of seven in humans. The rational mind, "Ego" as named by Freud, emerges from the other unconscious aspects of mind. This is what supposedly puts us above other species -- our rational self-aware mind.

So tell me, if a child at the age of five is in an accident and is unconscious, what would be the difference between the child's unconscious state and the child's normal state? Isn't a child always unconscious prior to age seven? Do you see the absurdity of this?

Ginkgo wrote:From the physicalist point of view consciousness contains no mysteries. Evidence from the scientific point of view is synonymous with demonstrable.

From the physicalist's point of view, any aspect of consciousness that does not fit in their evidence does not exist. Physicalists may study their theories, but philosophers study reality, and we can not simply dismiss an aspect of reality that does not fit into our ideas.

Ginkgo wrote:I happen to disagree with this particular scientific perspective when it comes to consciousness, but we have to acknowledge that this is the only evidence available that we can check for reliability. Unfortunately, the rest can only be speculation by adopting logical arguments. Logical arguments are not evidence by themselves.

I also think that consciousness resides outside of the brain ( partly anyway) but there is no evidence that anyone can draw on to support this claim.

This is simply not true. Evidence does exist, but people are so involved in their science v religion wars, that they simply will not look at the evidence -- it is either "God" or the brain, and nothing else exists. Horseshit. (Did you know that the word "horseshit" does not activate spell check? Interesting.) chuckle chuckle

Ginkgo wrote:I am not trying to discourage you, but collecting various philosophical and theological explanations for consciousness will never gel into "evidence". More often than not these explanations will conflict with science.

If I didn't say this then I would be less than honest.

I know that you are trying to be nice and let me down easy. But I would prefer if you would consider the possibility that we are wrong about the "God" v brain issue.

Ginkgo wrote:On a positive note, it may well be the case that we are not looking hard enough, but at the moment science cannot deliver this explanation. Perhaps in the future.

I did not say that we were not looking "hard enough". I stated that we are looking in the wrong places.

G

Gee wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: Thank you for your first comment I appreciate that.

Well, I appreciate your comments for a few reasons. First, you don't often agree with me, but you stay on point and understand the focus of the conversation, so I can learn why people have opposing views by listening to you. Second, you are well read and can introduce me to ideas and writers that I would otherwise not learn about. And you write well, and are polite and well mannered.

I would much rather talk to you than to someone who blathers on about ideas that are off topic, while they insult everyone that they can think of. You are MUCH better to talk to.

Ginkgo wrote:If you are looking for "evidence" for consciousness then we are pretty much stuck with a scientific explanation. From a scientific point of view consciousness is no different to any other physical system that works within the body.Just as the workings of the lungs or the digestive system can be explained in physical terms, so can consciousness.

I like science and have no problem with seeking scientific evidence. But science does not claim that the "workings of the lungs" actually create air, or that the "digestive system" creates the food that it digests. That would be absurd. But because consciousness can not be seen or measured, science has assumed that the brain creates consciousness. Even though the brain has been compared to a "processor", science still assumes that it creates, rather than processes, consciousness. This is assumption based on absurdity, religion, or magic.

Assumption is not scientific evidence, nor is it an acceptable start for philosophic theories.

Ginkgo wrote:The only sticking point is "emergence", but physicalists tend to be confident with this explanation.

If you look up "emergence" you will discover that they are talking about the rational mind, and we know that the rational mind emerges around the age of seven in humans. The rational mind, "Ego" as named by Freud, emerges from the other unconscious aspects of mind. This is what supposedly puts us above other species -- our rational self-aware mind.

So tell me, if a child at the age of five is in an accident and is unconscious, what would be the difference between the child's unconscious state and the child's normal state? Isn't a child always unconscious prior to age seven? Do you see the absurdity of this?

Ginkgo wrote:From the physicalist point of view consciousness contains no mysteries. Evidence from the scientific point of view is synonymous with demonstrable.

From the physicalist's point of view, any aspect of consciousness that does not fit in their evidence does not exist. Physicalists may study their theories, but philosophers study reality, and we can not simply dismiss an aspect of reality that does not fit into our ideas.

Ginkgo wrote:I happen to disagree with this particular scientific perspective when it comes to consciousness, but we have to acknowledge that this is the only evidence available that we can check for reliability. Unfortunately, the rest can only be speculation by adopting logical arguments. Logical arguments are not evidence by themselves.

I also think that consciousness resides outside of the brain ( partly anyway) but there is no evidence that anyone can draw on to support this claim.

This is simply not true. Evidence does exist, but people are so involved in their science v religion wars, that they simply will not look at the evidence -- it is either "God" or the brain, and nothing else exists. Horseshit. (Did you know that the word "horseshit" does not activate spell check? Interesting.) chuckle chuckle

Ginkgo wrote:I am not trying to discourage you, but collecting various philosophical and theological explanations for consciousness will never gel into "evidence". More often than not these explanations will conflict with science.

If I didn't say this then I would be less than honest.

I know that you are trying to be nice and let me down easy. But I would prefer if you would consider the possibility that we are wrong about the "God" v brain issue.

Ginkgo wrote:On a positive note, it may well be the case that we are not looking hard enough, but at the moment science cannot deliver this explanation. Perhaps in the future.

I did not say that we were not looking "hard enough". I stated that we are looking in the wrong places.

G

I think I see what you are getting at. Please understand that I am talking in general terms.

Yes, science assumes that when it comes to the increasing complexity consciousness will eventually manifest itself from the human brain. Unfortunately, from a scientific point of view I cannot say that the brain acts like a facilitator of consciousness, rather than a source of consciousness. If I want to say that the brain is just a facilitator then I would need to show where this outside information resides and what is the mechanism taking place.

Philosophical explanations such as quantum consciousness and religious explanations do not count as evidence from scientific point of view. The evidence needs to have the potential to be empirically testable before science will treat any theory seriously.Science may well be wrong, but this is just how it works. It works this way because its success is measured in terms of its effectiveness over the last 200 years.

As far as "God versus brain" is concerned I know this dichotomy is wrong, but I just can't prove it. In that sense you are preaching to the converted.

Similar type questions have been asked in modern times. For example, Dawkins thinks that evolution came about through the use of "a crane" (built from the ground up). Religious people tend to think that evolution came about through the use of a sky hook (top down). The most likely answer is that we came about because of both. We can prove the former, but we cannot prove the latter. By the same token it is frustrating that we cannot prove that both work together.

The emergence I was referring to was biological emergence. This is somewhat different to the psychological explanation of emergence in children under a certain age. Probably my fault because it did not make that clear.

Reflecting upon a number of responses to this problem, I seem to get the impression that "evidence" from your point of view is evidence that convinces you. Would I be right in saying that this "evidence" does not require other people to accept it as convincing? An important question that should have asked right from the onset.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/god-on-the-brain/

You should watch this:

Epilepsy induced psychosis.

Leading to the hypothesis that religion is encoded in our genetics.

Ginkgo wrote: Yes, science assumes that when it comes to the increasing complexity consciousness will eventually manifest itself from the human brain. Unfortunately, from a scientific point of view I cannot say that the brain acts like a facilitator of consciousness, rather than a source of consciousness. If I want to say that the brain is just a facilitator then I would need to show where this outside information resides and what is the mechanism taking place.

Agreed. Just as stating that the brain is a "source of consciousness" would require that someone show the mechanism taking place and how this is accomplished. Science can not show this either, so it becomes a case of what you want to believe. This is why I keep stating that the idea that consciousness comes from within us is a religious belief -- there is no other explanation for it.

Have you ever heard of the ass-u-me theory? It states that when you assume, per the underlined above, you make an ass out of u and me. The only difference between "assuming" and "making shit up" is that the people who assume are in denial about the fact that they are making shit up.

Ginkgo wrote:Philosophical explanations such as quantum consciousness and religious explanations do not count as evidence from scientific point of view. The evidence needs to have the potential to be empirically testable before science will treat any theory seriously.Science may well be wrong, but this is just how it works. It works this way because its success is measured in terms of its effectiveness over the last 200 years.

I must have made a left when I thought I made a right, because I thought that this was a philosophy forum. Am I lost or are you?

Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science? Or do I have to explain it?

Ginkgo wrote:As far as "God versus brain" is concerned I know this dichotomy is wrong, but I just can't prove it. In that sense you are preaching to the converted.

It is not philosophy's job to prove that it is wrong. That is science's job, and they don't want to do it. It is philosophy's job to discover what the truth of the matter is, so if you know that the current ideas are wrong, then you need to start looking in another direction. Philosophy studies what is real and true, then science proves it.

Ginkgo wrote:Similar type questions have been asked in modern times. For example, Dawkins thinks that evolution came about through the use of "a crane" (built from the ground up). Religious people tend to think that evolution came about through the use of a sky hook (top down). The most likely answer is that we came about because of both. We can prove the former, but we cannot prove the latter. By the same token it is frustrating that we cannot prove that both work together.

I recently came across a study that shows that the brain actually works top down and bottom up. I will look for the video on that and post it, but it will take a while because it is in the 15 page thread that I was just looking through for information for Greylorn and Arising. It is a huge thread and my eyes are tired at the moment.

Ginkgo wrote:The emergence I was referring to was biological emergence. This is somewhat different to the psychological explanation of emergence in children under a certain age. Probably my fault because it did not make that clear.

My point was that the word "consciousness" is used in too many different ways so it is easy to manipulate or confuse the truth about it. Neurology uses the word "conscious" to note that someone is alert and aware, and uses the word "unconscious" to note that they are not alert and aware. But if we are being honest an unconscious person still possesses consciousness, because if they didn't, they would be dead. Neurology has noted this problem and is changing their terminology to "non-responsive" rather than unconscious, as it is more accurate.

There is no such thing as "biological emergence" with regard to consciousness. That is a made-up theory, not fact -- no evidence.

Ginkgo wrote:Reflecting upon a number of responses to this problem, I seem to get the impression that "evidence" from your point of view is evidence that convinces you. Would I be right in saying that this "evidence" does not require other people to accept it as convincing? An important question that should have asked right from the onset.

This is aggravating. I know full well that Greylorn already explained this to you. Evidence does not require belief. Evidence is simple fact. Proof requires a lot of evidence in order to cause belief.

The problem arises when people will deny evidence because they don't like it, even though they know that the current theories are WRONG, they will not look for further evidence, because they don't want to. Again we have belief doing science and philosophy, which is a tragedy.

G

Gee wrote:...
I like science and have no problem with seeking scientific evidence. But science does not claim that the "workings of the lungs" actually create air, or that the "digestive system" creates the food that it digests. That would be absurd. But because consciousness can not be seen or measured, science has assumed that the brain creates consciousness. Even though the brain has been compared to a "processor", science still assumes that it creates, rather than processes, consciousness. ...

But the workings of the lungs create oxygen and carbon dioxide from air and the digestive system creates carbohydrates, protein, fats, and vitamins from food, so why not the CNS creating consciousness from external phenomena or stimuli? Especially if it is a processor processing external inputs.

This is assumption based on absurdity, religion, or magic.

Or more likely Occam's Razor and the observation that apparently there are no disembodied consciousnesses.

Gee wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: Yes, science assumes that when it comes to the increasing complexity consciousness will eventually manifest itself from the human brain. Unfortunately, from a scientific point of view I cannot say that the brain acts like a facilitator of consciousness, rather than a source of consciousness. If I want to say that the brain is just a facilitator then I would need to show where this outside information resides and what is the mechanism taking place.

I know you're not going to reply to this as you have labelled me as a troll, and so on but the mechanism is shown quite clearly in people who have damage to different areas of their brain. For example if the prefrontal lobes are damage they seem incapable of ethical reasoning. Likewise if the lower brain functional areas are damaged they tend to lack the ability to memorise anything, such as in amygdila disfunction. The evidence is not conclusive but it is out there.

And you should watch the documentary above: God on the Brain. You wont but you should..?

Agreed. Just as stating that the brain is a "source of consciousness" would require that someone show the mechanism taking place and how this is accomplished. Science can not show this either, so it becomes a case of what you want to believe. This is why I keep stating that the idea that consciousness comes from within us is a religious belief -- there is no other explanation for it.

Have you ever heard of the ass-u-me theory? It states that when you assume, per the underlined above, you make an ass out of u and me. The only difference between "assuming" and "making shit up" is that the people who assume are in denial about the fact that they are making shit up.

Have you ever actually done any research into biology. Because ass you and me is a pretty specious argument from someone who refuses to look at sources that don't support his own confirmation bias.

Ginkgo wrote:Philosophical explanations such as quantum consciousness and religious explanations do not count as evidence from scientific point of view. The evidence needs to have the potential to be empirically testable before science will treat any theory seriously.Science may well be wrong, but this is just how it works. It works this way because its success is measured in terms of its effectiveness over the last 200 years.

I must have made a left when I thought I made a right, because I thought that this was a philosophy forum. Am I lost or are you?

Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science? Or do I have to explain it?[/QUOTE]

I genuinely think like Grey you have no idea what science or scientific method is. In Grey it's bemusing because clearly he has spent a lifetime creating scenarios for scientists. You however seem a more strange fish in the ocean of nonsense, you've no idea how science works and yet you wax lyrical on it anyway...

Ginkgo wrote:As far as "God versus brain" is concerned I know this dichotomy is wrong, but I just can't prove it. In that sense you are preaching to the converted.

It is not philosophy's job to prove that it is wrong. That is science's job, and they don't want to do it. It is philosophy's job to discover what the truth of the matter is, so if you know that the current ideas are wrong, then you need to start looking in another direction. Philosophy studies what is real and true, then science proves it.

Ginkgo wrote:Similar type questions have been asked in modern times. For example, Dawkins thinks that evolution came about through the use of "a crane" (built from the ground up). Religious people tend to think that evolution came about through the use of a sky hook (top down). The most likely answer is that we came about because of both. We can prove the former, but we cannot prove the latter. By the same token it is frustrating that we cannot prove that both work together.

Ginkgo has the right idea here, but the wrong reasoning. That said at least he is in the right ballpark.

I recently came across a study that shows that the brain actually works top down and bottom up. I will look for the video on that and post it, but it will take a while because it is in the 15 page thread that I was just looking through for information for Greylorn and Arising. It is a huge thread and my eyes are tired at the moment.

Ginkgo wrote:The emergence I was referring to was biological emergence. This is somewhat different to the psychological explanation of emergence in children under a certain age. Probably my fault because it did not make that clear.

It doesn't work like that at least in science but hey knock yourself out your threads resident hyper troll is always interested in facts.

My point was that the word "consciousness" is used in too many different ways so it is easy to manipulate or confuse the truth about it. Neurology uses the word "conscious" to note that someone is alert and aware, and uses the word "unconscious" to note that they are not alert and aware. But if we are being honest an unconscious person still possesses consciousness, because if they didn't, they would be dead. Neurology has noted this problem and is changing their terminology to "non-responsive" rather than unconscious, as it is more accurate.

There is no such thing as "biological emergence" with regard to consciousness. That is a made-up theory, not fact -- no evidence.

And that is another God of the gaps argument, because we don't know it means, they will never know. IT's sloppy philosophy g.

Ginkgo wrote:Reflecting upon a number of responses to this problem, I seem to get the impression that "evidence" from your point of view is evidence that convinces you. Would I be right in saying that this "evidence" does not require other people to accept it as convincing? An important question that should have asked right from the onset.

This is aggravating. I know full well that Greylorn already explained this to you. Evidence does not require belief. Evidence is simple fact. Proof requires a lot of evidence in order to cause belief.

The problem arises when people will deny evidence because they don't like it, even though they know that the current theories are WRONG, they will not look for further evidence, because they don't want to. Again we have belief doing science and philosophy, which is a tragedy.

G

G you deny anything that does not conform to your own bias, you like Grey call people trolls when they do not subscribe to your personal Jesus. Let me ask you one simple question: who is more logical the man that can tackle any argument without throwing his toys out of his pram when people don't agree with him. OR the man who can and will rebut any argument? Without having to wander around the whole internet to find like minded people? No don't worry you wont answer I know, any more than Grey will anyone who denies his facile crap. But you think about that when you are chowing down on your cognitive dissonance.

Grey can of course say what he wants but you and I both know that he will never make any effort to prove his arguments either philosophically or by scientific experiment.

G I have no problem with ID, or Intelligent design proponents what I do have a problem with however is people who just talk in circles, I am pretty sure Grey knows what he is doing, he is trying to muddy a debate that should not exist by talking shit. You on the other hand I assume are more honest, although it is hard to tell..?

This is aggravating. I know full well that Greylorn already explained this to you. Evidence does not require belief. Evidence is simple fact. Proof requires a lot of evidence in order to cause belief.

The problem arises when people will deny evidence because they don't like it, even though they know that the current theories are WRONG, they will not look for further evidence, because they don't want to. Again we have belief doing science and philosophy, which is a tragedy.

G

Physician heal thyself.

Blaggard wrote: Ginkgo has the right idea here, but the wrong reasoning. That said at least he is in the right ballpark.

Hi Blaggard

Your comment has got me interested. Can you give me an outline of your position?

Gee,

See what happens when you feed the troll? It turns around, raises its warty tail so as to present its favorite visage, farts in your face, and then emits a turdlette. It then turns around, carefully gathers the offal in its forepaws as it would a fragile treasure, and offers it to you as if its production required intelligence and imagination.

G

Ginkgo wrote:

Blaggard wrote: Ginkgo has the right idea here, but the wrong reasoning. That said at least he is in the right ballpark.

Hi Blaggard

Your comment has got me interested. Can you give me an outline of your position?

Ginkgo,

How big an ass will you kiss if it tells you that you are right?

G

Arising_uk wrote:No, we appear to be at cross-purposes. Its that you use words like 'within' and 'where' I hear this as you making consciousness a separate thing that can be apart from the being of a body. So in your terms I have consciousness as being 'local' in that it is the being of a body with senses in an external world.

Arising_uk wrote:This is what I mean, its not 'where is the being ...' but that it is 'the being of ...'. Nature or the external environment appears to be the definer.

After considering the two quotes above, I am wondering if you study consciousness in the same way that Heidegger studied it. I have never read his work and have been told that it is difficult to comprehend, but he studied "Being" in much the same way that some Eastern philosophies study "being". It is a subjective study, and not my cup of tea, but I found a very good thread on Heidegger and Being in another forum, which I enjoyed tremendously. If you have an interest, say so, and I will look up the thread and PM a link to you.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee stated: The question, "Do you think that consciousness is within the body?" is pretty straight forward. Just answer yes or no.

In your terms, yes but I qualify it in that it is the being of a body, specifically one with a combination of 'sensory' sub systems but essentially one with a CNS.

Arising_uk wrote:I also don't think 'brain' is an accurate term as its the CNS.

I see it a little differently because I broke consciousness into two divisions. The first division is well studied and includes knowledge, thought, memory, and most of our sensory input in memory. This division is internal and private. The second division is awareness, feeling (not tactile) and emotion. This division is not well studied and is shared and external.

The central nervous system is internal and private and tells us what is going on inside the body. But hormones and pheromones are not exclusively internal, and deal with the external world, as do emotions, which are also activated by chemicals.

So I see the nervous system (internal communication) and chemistry (external communication) as culminating and working together in the brain. I guess you could say that I see the CNS as the land line, and the chemistry as the cell phone.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee stated: So if one does not accept the ideas of conscious seeds, souls, and/or reincarnation, then there is no choice except to understand that consciousness grows. It is not a whole persona when we are born, so what does it grow out of?

As you say, it grows with the development of a body and its senses but I have some reservations about the lack of how language functions in this scenario.

I don't see the problem with language, but then I can not study everything. I do know that there are lots of studies about language, having run across them in different forums. And I believe that there are theories of a basic structuring of grammar that precedes language in the brains of certain species. If you Wiki it, I am sure that you will find something that can explain your reservations.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee stated: So if one of the bodies dies, does the other lose consciousness?

Obviously not but interestingly enough if one is deprived or isolated from others one can lose much of what we'd call consciousness and especially language and the inner voice that some think of as the 'self'

I found this very interesting as most people do not make the connection between consciousness and isolation. You actually do think, don't you. This prompted me to go to another forum and retrieve some information about isolation that I posted there. Tell me what you think of the following:

"Human Bonding": There is a lot of information on human bonding, too much to reproduce here. Suffice it to say that human bonding seems to be necessary.

If you look up "Orphanages" and "Deinstitutionalization" you will discover that it is very important for little ones to bond. Babies under the age of two can actually die for want of a bond, and older children can become physically and mentally sick and underdeveloped. The Bucharest Early Intervention information was interesting and is found under "Deinstitutionalization".

"Solitary Confinement" is also interesting. It has been called "psychological torture" and some prisoners actually stated that they would prefer to be lashed than go into solitary confinement because there is no permanent damage or madness associated with the lash.

We have juveniles on, I believe it was Riker Island, in New York, who are put into solitary confinement, and it is estimated that 48% of them have mental issues caused from confinement. In the US, we regularly put prisoners in solitary confinement and wonder why they are nuts when they get released. The World Health Organization is not happy with us in this regard.

If you check out Ergonomics, you will find that office workers, who are isolated are less productive, so they came up with the little booths that give privacy, but don't cut the person off from everyone else. I found that being marooned is not good, but it also does not guarantee madness, so being cut off from people is bad, but I suspect that being cut off from life is what makes people lose their minds. Why? For a long time, we believed that it was being cut off from light that made people go mad, but I am beginning to suspect that this is not the whole truth. What is cut off? Is there a connection between life forms? Are we saying that the "connection" can not go through walls?

Everyone knows that the "laying on of hands" is nonsense, but apparently, it can be the difference between life and death for a newborn. And if an institutionalized infant bonds with a worker, then that worker changes jobs, it can mean the death of that newborn. Why?

I did not provide links with the above, but if you go to Wiki and type in the capitalized words in "quotes", you will find the stated information.

It is clear that isolation, consciousness, and bonding are very relevant to each other. Language is also important as it is a definitive clue of consciousness, but I think that it is a mistake to consider it the only clue. Not that long ago, we were putting deaf and blind children in sanitariums along with schizophrenics, psychotics, and tuberculosis patients, primarily because we believed that a person who did not possess language did not possess consciousness. Hellen Keller, who was deaf and blind, showed us that we were wrong. Once a way was found to reach her mind, she got a bachelor's degree, became a lecturer, and a political activist -- the woman was brilliant.

Language proves intentionality, so it proves consciousness, but as Hellen Keller demonstrated, it does not have to be verbal language. Body language can also prove intentionality, so that means that bees, who do a dance to show other bees where the flowers are, are conscious.

One of the other members found this site, which is interesting:

There's even evidence bacteria are conscious. One will glow when a certain number exist in a given location. We're going to find out that consciousness isn't what we think it is and much of what we think is not real.

I tried finding bacterium that glows and came up with this instead. I didn't watch it so I can't reccommend it, but it's on subject.

http://www.ted.com/t...ommunicate.html

Back to the idea of isolation; consider that zoologists have discovered that social species must have social interaction, or they also go mad. Zoos have been trying to adapt to the needs of their social animals. Even so, we know that there are some species that have life-long bonds, but are not considered social animals. So there is a lot to consider regarding isolation and consciousness.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee stated: How do you know if it was conscious in the first place? Where is the line that defines what is conscious? I put that line at "life". Where do you put it?

I put it with the other demanding such a recognition in a way that I cannot ignore.

"other"? I lost you again.

G

Greylorn;

Your last post to me was very long, and I broke it down into nine points that I need to address. Some of them can be merged, but I will still have to take some time to gather information and break up my response into responses. Be patient.

Arising;

I owe you another post. Soon.

Blaggard;

You can't really believe that I have not already viewed that link, or can you? It has been around for a while.

I don't address your posts because you could not find my point if I tattooed it on an arrowhead and shot it into you. And following your "logic" is like trying to plot the flight path of a rampaging butterfly. Lots of passion, lots of activity, but I have no idea of where it is going or why. The only things that I can consistently claim about your "logic" is that everyone else is wrong and if by chance you make a point, it will be off topic.

If you ever learn to actually listen to other people, who knows, there may be a brain above that ass. Don't expect a response until I actually see some thinking coming from you.

G

Gee wrote:
Agreed. Just as stating that the brain is a "source of consciousness" would require that someone show the mechanism taking place and how this is accomplished. Science can not show this either, so it becomes a case of what you want to believe. This is why I keep stating that the idea that consciousness comes from within us is a religious belief -- there is no other explanation for it.

This is no doubt the case, but this doesn't exclude science from from also saying the consciousness 'resides' with in the brain. There is no logical necessity that says one must exclude the other. The physicalists explanation for consciousness is that consciousness is a product of the physical processes that take place within the brain. I can assure you this is how physicalists address the problem of consciousness. But as I keep saying, this doesn't make the physicalist explanation correct.

Gee wrote:
I must have made a left when I thought I made a right, because I thought that this was a philosophy forum. Am I lost or are you?

Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science? Or do I have to explain it?

I believe I do, but I would be interested in you explanation.

Gee wrote:
It is not philosophy's job to prove that it is wrong. That is science's job, and they don't want to do it. It is philosophy's job to discover what the truth of the matter is, so if you know that the current ideas are wrong, then you need to start looking in another direction. Philosophy studies what is real and true, then science proves it.

The problem is that many philosophical theories are not testable by way of science. For example, there have been many good ethical arguments put forward over the centuries for the existence of God. In exactly the same way there have been equally good numbers of ethical arguments put forward for the non-existence of God. Both types of arguments are equally valid in their reasoning process. However, both cannot be correct. Science has no way of putting any of these arguments to the test.

The same problem exists for the philosophy of consciousness. Quite simply, most arguments cannot be tested in any scientific way. This is not to say that a small number don't have the potential for testability. The unity theory and the binding theory of consciousness spring to mind.

Gee wrote:
My point was that the word "consciousness" is used in too many different ways so it is easy to manipulate or confuse the truth about it. Neurology uses the word "conscious" to note that someone is alert and aware, and uses the word "unconscious" to note that they are not alert and aware. But if we are being honest an unconscious person still possesses consciousness, because if they didn't, they would be dead. Neurology has noted this problem and is changing their terminology to "non-responsive" rather than unconscious, as it is more accurate.

This is true.

Gee wrote:
There is no such thing as "biological emergence" with regard to consciousness. That is a made-up theory, not fact -- no evidence.

I'm not sure why you would say this. The scientific literature in this regard is very extensive.

Gee wrote:
The problem arises when people will deny evidence because they don't like it, even though they know that the current theories are WRONG, they will not look for further evidence, because they don't want to. Again we have belief doing science and philosophy, which is a tragedy.

G

True, but not always the case. Some people simply don't like the type of evidence presented.

Greylorn Ell wrote:Gee,

See what happens when you feed the troll? It turns around, raises its warty tail so as to present its favorite visage, farts in your face, and then emits a turdlette. It then turns around, carefully gathers the offal in its forepaws as it would a fragile treasure, and offers it to you as if its production required intelligence and imagination.

G

Stop trolling Greylorn and then hypocritically pointing out others as if it somehow makes a relevant point.

Ginkgo,

How big an ass will you kiss if it tells you that you are right?

G

Yours is so far buried up your own you'd have to get your head out of it before someone else could kiss it.



Religion it's like what most people feel when they have done too many drugs, but not enough to either pass out or to actually make any sense even when they do pry themselves eventually off the ceiling.