Mind is immortal II

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:12 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:16 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:20 pm
I totally agree there is no consciousness independent of the physical organisms that have it. Whatever consciousness there is ceases when the organism ceases. And of course the idea of immortality is pure superstitious nonsense.

I was more curious about what you thought consciousness itself is. It seems to me it cannot be physical, even though it cannot exist independently of the physical, but your view may be different.
Ultimately we have no real handle on how things come to be as they are. With science we can give finer and finer descriptions but when all is said and done we can only throw our hands up in wonder.
I regard consciousness as a secondary or emergant property of neural matter. We know from science that matter and energy in combination produce special qualities. Add carbon to iron under extreme heat and you make steel which does not rust. COmbine pig shit with charcoal in the right quantities and you can blow stuff up. For some reason that can never be stated all matter in the universe exerts a force on all other matter such that all things are attracted one to the other. We can call that gravity but there is no explanation for it.
What bahman has done on this thread is that he has effectively invoked magic. If he were talking about gravity it would be a magical fairy pushing the Moon round the earth.
You can trace dualism from way before Descartes to ancient times. This "theory" has progressed precisely zero steps in all that time. It has offered a poor and unfalsifyable description but has not begun to answer any questions. It's a dwead end street with nothing on it.
On the other hand neuroscience is making great progress, and continues to astound us.
Is there ever going to be an ultimate explanation? What would it even look like? As most answers we have tend to be metaphorical even for the most complex scientific theories - they tend to say what it is "like" - I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
If there is a ghost in the machine behind it all, it puzzles me what it is supposed to be doing.
As an emergent property of the complexity of neurones and electrical charges, hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters: consciousness is physical.
You have to ask if it is not physical then what the fuck do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
Exactly. If it's physical, let's see it.
Can you see gravity ,the strong nuclear force, x-rays, atoms, radio waves ad infinitem. No one has a problem with them being physical.
I do not doubt at all that the physiological neurological aspects related to consciousness are necessary to our consciousness. The problem with describing consciousness itself as physical, for me, is that you cannot demonstrate it.
Yes you can. Just like gravity and x rays. COnsciousness is just more complex, as you would expect.

What I mean by consciousness is my actual experience, my tasting of salt, seeing things and hearing sounds, smelling coffee and feeling soft sheets and rough stones. Those experiences, as I experience them (along with all I think), I cannot ever show anyone else, and if anything or anyone else is conscious, they cannot show it to anyone else. One can certainly study all the behavior of the neurological system associated with consciousness, but consciousness itself cannot be observed, much less studied. The best the psychologist has is the testimony of those who claim to be conscious about their consciousness.

If consciousness itself were physical, it would have to be demonstrable, like all other physical things, by exhibiting some physical property or properties that could be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted, but it doesn't have any physical properties at all. Except for the testimony of others who claim to be conscious and the assumption, based on animals' behavior, there is no way to even detect the existence of consciousness. [That was originally the argument of the behavioral psychologists.] The only consciousness one is really aware of is their own, but only because they are conscious. One cannot even see, hear, feel, taste or smell their own consciousness.

I do not believe in any duality, however. Consciousness, whatever it is, is a perfectly natural aspect of material existence, as much as any physical attribute, and can only exist as an attribute of a physical living organism.

To answer your question, "what do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?" We need them to interface between the physiological (biological) and psychological (conscious) aspects of an organism's nature.
What flavoour do you like your fudge?
Dubious
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Dubious »

...as immortal as a live chicken hanging upside down in a Chinese meat market about to meet its fate! Am I wrong in assuming that Mind is immortal I failed to produce results? As a rhetorical question; it avoids people from having to lie!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Iwannaplato »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:02 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:34 pm It does not have to.
So, neuroscience is not where you find the solution to the hard problem of consciousness.
Really? Where is that solution ?
You first said neuroscience was where the answer is. I asked for some research to back up this claim. Now you seem to be saying it doesn't have the answer. You said 'it doesn't have to.' Sure, it doesn't have to. But does it or doesn't have the answer? Is there an answer to the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience research? If yes, please link us to it? If not, please say not, or if you don't know, please say that.

This all stems from you saying that the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is in Neuroscience. That sounded like they have an answer, great. Link us to it. But perhaps you meant, if an answer comes it will come within neuroscience. Is that what you meant? Something else?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:01 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:51 am

But neurology has all that.
No. The hard problem of consciousness is not answered yet. Do you know what is the hard problem of consciousness is?
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:41 am What have YOU got?
I am a dualist and idealist so the mind is fundamental to me and it has properties such as consciousness.
great show me how that works!
Well, I already discuss the necessity of mind for any change in the link in OP. Mind however should have two main abilities namely the ability to experience and the ability to cause. These two abilities are needed to have a coherent change. It is obvious, from the discussion in the link, that mind needs the ability to cause in order to cause a change. Mind also needs the ability to experience in order to cause a coherent change. QED.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:35 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:01 pm No. The hard problem of consciousness is not answered yet. Do you know what is the hard problem of consciousness is?
So you are criticising me for having most of the answers but not all of them yet, but you have NOTHING!
And you expect us to accept the mind is immortal! :roll:
I don't understand why you evade answering my question. I think it is clear that if the mind is needed for change then it follows that we are dealing with a regress if the mind is subject to change. Regress is impossible therefore the mind is time-independent. The mind exists and it is time-independent therefore it is immortal.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:59 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:02 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:39 pm So, neuroscience is not where you find the solution to the hard problem of consciousness.
Really? Where is that solution ?
You first said neuroscience was where the answer is. I asked for some research to back up this claim. Now you seem to be saying it doesn't have the answer. You said 'it doesn't have to.' Sure, it doesn't have to. But does it or doesn't have the answer? Is there an answer to the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience research? If yes, please link us to it? If not, please say not, or if you don't know, please say that.

This all stems from you saying that the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is in Neuroscience. That sounded like they have an answer, great. Link us to it. But perhaps you meant, if an answer comes it will come within neuroscience. Is that what you meant? Something else?
I gave you my assessment of how physicalism has the answer:
Ultimately we have no real handle on how things come to be as they are. With science we can give finer and finer descriptions but when all is said and done we can only throw our hands up in wonder.
I regard consciousness as a secondary or emergant property of neural matter. We know from science that matter and energy in combination produce special qualities. Add carbon to iron under extreme heat and you make steel which does not rust. COmbine pig shit with charcoal in the right quantities and you can blow stuff up. For some reason that can never be stated all matter in the universe exerts a force on all other matter such that all things are attracted one to the other. We can call that gravity but there is no explanation for it.
What bahman has done on this thread is that he has effectively invoked magic. If he were talking about gravity it would be a magical fairy pushing the Moon round the earth.
You can trace dualism from way before Descartes to ancient times. This "theory" has progressed precisely zero steps in all that time. It has offered a poor and unfalsifyable description but has not begun to answer any questions. It's a dwead end street with nothing on it.
On the other hand neuroscience is making great progress, and continues to astound us.
Is there ever going to be an ultimate explanation? What would it even look like? As most answers we have tend to be metaphorical even for the most complex scientific theories - they tend to say what it is "like" - I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
If there is a ghost in the machine behind it all, it puzzles me what it is supposed to be doing.
As an emergent property of the complexity of neurones and electrical charges, hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters: consciousness is physical.
You have to ask if it is not physical then what the fuck do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?


Now where is YOURS.????
Stop avoiding the question and contrinute something. All you have done is criticise others but offered nothing in return.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:35 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:01 pm No. The hard problem of consciousness is not answered yet. Do you know what is the hard problem of consciousness is?
So you are criticising me for having most of the answers but not all of them yet, but you have NOTHING!
And you expect us to accept the mind is immortal! :roll:
I don't understand why you evade answering my question. I think it is clear that if the mind is needed for change then it follows that we are dealing with a regress if the mind is subject to change. Regress is impossible therefore the mind is time-independent. The mind exists and it is time-independent therefore it is immortal.
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:00 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:30 pm To show that the mind is immortal I have to show that the mind is time-independent and it exists. The existence of the mind is discussed here. To show that the mind is time-independent we first assume that time is time dependent. This means that the mind is subject to change. Anything that is subject to change requires a mind. This leads to a regress. Therefore, the mind is time-independent. Therefore, the mind is immortal.
Nothing is immortal!

No ontological existent is infinite or eternal. To exist, a thing must have some attributes (qualities, characteristics, properties), which are its limits.
Did you understand my argument? If yes what is your counter-argument? Saying that nothing is immortal is not a counter-argument.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:15 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:35 pm

So you are criticising me for having most of the answers but not all of them yet, but you have NOTHING!
And you expect us to accept the mind is immortal! :roll:
I don't understand why you evade answering my question. I think it is clear that if the mind is needed for change then it follows that we are dealing with a regress if the mind is subject to change. Regress is impossible therefore the mind is time-independent. The mind exists and it is time-independent therefore it is immortal.
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
You are making no sense.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:59 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:02 pm

Really? Where is that solution ?
You first said neuroscience was where the answer is. I asked for some research to back up this claim. Now you seem to be saying it doesn't have the answer. You said 'it doesn't have to.' Sure, it doesn't have to. But does it or doesn't have the answer? Is there an answer to the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience research? If yes, please link us to it? If not, please say not, or if you don't know, please say that.

This all stems from you saying that the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is in Neuroscience. That sounded like they have an answer, great. Link us to it. But perhaps you meant, if an answer comes it will come within neuroscience. Is that what you meant? Something else?
I gave you my assessment of how physicalism has the answer:
Ultimately we have no real handle on how things come to be as they are. With science we can give finer and finer descriptions but when all is said and done we can only throw our hands up in wonder.
I regard consciousness as a secondary or emergant property of neural matter. We know from science that matter and energy in combination produce special qualities. Add carbon to iron under extreme heat and you make steel which does not rust. COmbine pig shit with charcoal in the right quantities and you can blow stuff up. For some reason that can never be stated all matter in the universe exerts a force on all other matter such that all things are attracted one to the other. We can call that gravity but there is no explanation for it.
What bahman has done on this thread is that he has effectively invoked magic. If he were talking about gravity it would be a magical fairy pushing the Moon round the earth.
You can trace dualism from way before Descartes to ancient times. This "theory" has progressed precisely zero steps in all that time. It has offered a poor and unfalsifyable description but has not begun to answer any questions. It's a dwead end street with nothing on it.
On the other hand neuroscience is making great progress, and continues to astound us.
Is there ever going to be an ultimate explanation? What would it even look like? As most answers we have tend to be metaphorical even for the most complex scientific theories - they tend to say what it is "like" - I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
If there is a ghost in the machine behind it all, it puzzles me what it is supposed to be doing.
As an emergent property of the complexity of neurones and electrical charges, hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters: consciousness is physical.
You have to ask if it is not physical then what the fuck do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?


Now where is YOURS.????
Stop avoiding the question and contrinute something. All you have done is criticise others but offered nothing in return.
The physical properties of the whole are functions of properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence/magic.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:01 pm
No. The hard problem of consciousness is not answered yet. Do you know what is the hard problem of consciousness is?


I am a dualist and idealist so the mind is fundamental to me and it has properties such as consciousness.
great show me how that works!
Just curious. Do you consider yourself conscious?

I'm not quizzing you--I don't like it one it's done to me. I'm only interested in what people mean when they use the word, "conscious." Bahman's meaning is obviously some kind of mystic nonsense. I'm sure yours isn't.
My definition is not mystic nonsense. Consciousness simply is the state of being aware and it is a property of the mind. That is materialism which is mystic nonsense when it comes to consciousness.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:35 am My definition is not mystic nonsense. Consciousness simply is the state of being aware and it is a property of the mind. That is materialism which is mystic nonsense when it comes to consciousness.
To claim anything is, "immortal," is mystic nonsense.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:19 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:15 am
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am
I don't understand why you evade answering my question. I think it is clear that if the mind is needed for change then it follows that we are dealing with a regress if the mind is subject to change. Regress is impossible therefore the mind is time-independent. The mind exists and it is time-independent therefore it is immortal.
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
You are making no sense.
Please stop evading the questions.
You started the thread.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:59 am
You first said neuroscience was where the answer is. I asked for some research to back up this claim. Now you seem to be saying it doesn't have the answer. You said 'it doesn't have to.' Sure, it doesn't have to. But does it or doesn't have the answer? Is there an answer to the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience research? If yes, please link us to it? If not, please say not, or if you don't know, please say that.

This all stems from you saying that the answer to the hard problem of consciousness is in Neuroscience. That sounded like they have an answer, great. Link us to it. But perhaps you meant, if an answer comes it will come within neuroscience. Is that what you meant? Something else?
I gave you my assessment of how physicalism has the answer:
Ultimately we have no real handle on how things come to be as they are. With science we can give finer and finer descriptions but when all is said and done we can only throw our hands up in wonder.
I regard consciousness as a secondary or emergant property of neural matter. We know from science that matter and energy in combination produce special qualities. Add carbon to iron under extreme heat and you make steel which does not rust. COmbine pig shit with charcoal in the right quantities and you can blow stuff up. For some reason that can never be stated all matter in the universe exerts a force on all other matter such that all things are attracted one to the other. We can call that gravity but there is no explanation for it.
What bahman has done on this thread is that he has effectively invoked magic. If he were talking about gravity it would be a magical fairy pushing the Moon round the earth.
You can trace dualism from way before Descartes to ancient times. This "theory" has progressed precisely zero steps in all that time. It has offered a poor and unfalsifyable description but has not begun to answer any questions. It's a dwead end street with nothing on it.
On the other hand neuroscience is making great progress, and continues to astound us.
Is there ever going to be an ultimate explanation? What would it even look like? As most answers we have tend to be metaphorical even for the most complex scientific theories - they tend to say what it is "like" - I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
If there is a ghost in the machine behind it all, it puzzles me what it is supposed to be doing.
As an emergent property of the complexity of neurones and electrical charges, hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters: consciousness is physical.
You have to ask if it is not physical then what the fuck do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?


Now where is YOURS.????
Stop avoiding the question and contrinute something. All you have done is criticise others but offered nothing in return.
The physical properties of the whole are functions of properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence/magic.
You are the one making the claims.
Now put up or shut up.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Mind is immortal II

Post by Iwannaplato »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:13 am I gave you my assessment of how physicalism has the answer:
Ultimately we have no real handle on how things come to be as they are. With science we can give finer and finer descriptions but when all is said and done we can only throw our hands up in wonder.
I regard consciousness as a secondary or emergant property of neural matter. We know from science that matter and energy in combination produce special qualities. Add carbon to iron under extreme heat and you make steel which does not rust. COmbine pig shit with charcoal in the right quantities and you can blow stuff up. For some reason that can never be stated all matter in the universe exerts a force on all other matter such that all things are attracted one to the other. We can call that gravity but there is no explanation for it.
What bahman has done on this thread is that he has effectively invoked magic. If he were talking about gravity it would be a magical fairy pushing the Moon round the earth.
You can trace dualism from way before Descartes to ancient times. This "theory" has progressed precisely zero steps in all that time. It has offered a poor and unfalsifyable description but has not begun to answer any questions. It's a dwead end street with nothing on it.
On the other hand neuroscience is making great progress, and continues to astound us.
Is there ever going to be an ultimate explanation? What would it even look like? As most answers we have tend to be metaphorical even for the most complex scientific theories - they tend to say what it is "like" - I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
But one thing is for sure ALL reasonable, effective and responsive descriptions are going to be "physical", since that is all that can ever be demonstrated.
If there is a ghost in the machine behind it all, it puzzles me what it is supposed to be doing.
As an emergent property of the complexity of neurones and electrical charges, hormones, enzymes, and neurotransmitters: consciousness is physical.
You have to ask if it is not physical then what the fuck do we need with all those ganglia and synapses?
OK, so neuroscience does not have an answer yet and it seems you are saying perhaps it will not or perhaps it will be metaphorical. You say you....
doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory descrption or explanation that satisfies those amongst us who want to beleive in magic.
leaving open the question of whether a satisfactory description will satisfy those who do not believe in magic. It seems implice that, so far, we do not have that answer, but you assume consciousness will be demonstrated to be an emergent property of neurons, etc.

It seems like you have finally answered what was first a question. I asked a question. I wanted to know if Neuroscience has an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. Your answers were unclear, it seems now, but fine, we have reached what I think really could have been handled earlier without the 'fucks' and snarling in a rather short answer.

And of course the answer in science will be a physical one. The properties that something can have and be considered phyiscal have been expanding. Massless particles, fields, particles, even objects in superposition and so on are now all considered physical. Physical just means real and anything determined to be real by scientific consensus will be called physical.
Now where is YOURS.????
Stop avoiding the question and contrinute something. All you have done is criticise others but offered nothing in return.
I asked a question and you avoided or wrote unclearly and unpleasantly in post after post and you continue to do so. You seem to represent yourself as on the rational team. Well, great. Why not be polite, be direct and not play the games of your last posts. The rest is just noise blotting out any signal you have to offer.

Questions and even just critique, in a philosophy forum, is just peachy. At least as peachy as your guesses about what future scientific research will demonstrate.

You understand that no reputable journal will publish your guesses about what future scientific research will demosntrate right?

So, if there's room for your speculation, in a philosophy forum, there is room for people asking people to back up claims or explain what they mean.
Post Reply