Oh. Thanks..indeed what WAS the question I answered?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:54 pmYou are answering a different question. Maybe you should stick to questions that are asked of you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:50 pm..because it only is a perception (rather recursive in consideration) of what is happening, it does not answer how an arrangement of atoms permits the qualia of the senses that provides consciousness.
A theory of mine that Davo as Charming as he is should consider: - within this universe is the dark matter/energy. It seems rather ineffable almost as much as consciousness (unique qualia provided via a unique arrangement of atoms) itself is....thus it is plausible, that just as an electronic component requires electrons via cathode <----> anode to function, perhaps, for qualia to exist, requires input energy from our 'light' <----> 'dark energy/matter' to function (a theory of mine )
Mind is immortal II
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
Re: Mind is immortal II
If you don't know that then I suggest you do not bother; stop wasting your time.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:42 amOh. Thanks..indeed what WAS the question I answered?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:54 pmYou are answering a different question. Maybe you should stick to questions that are asked of you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 6:50 pm
..because it only is a perception (rather recursive in consideration) of what is happening, it does not answer how an arrangement of atoms permits the qualia of the senses that provides consciousness.
A theory of mine that Davo as Charming as he is should consider: - within this universe is the dark matter/energy. It seems rather ineffable almost as much as consciousness (unique qualia provided via a unique arrangement of atoms) itself is....thus it is plausible, that just as an electronic component requires electrons via cathode <----> anode to function, perhaps, for qualia to exist, requires input energy from our 'light' <----> 'dark energy/matter' to function (a theory of mine )
Re: Mind is immortal II
A theory of mind that does not address consciousness is incomplete. That is true since consciousness is one of the fundamental phenomena in any theory of mind.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
Re: Mind is immortal II
Re: Mind is immortal II
Re: Mind is immortal II
Re: Mind is immortal II
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!
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
Nothing is immortal!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.
No ontological existent is infinite or eternal. To exist, a thing must have some attributes (qualities, characteristics, properties), which are its limits.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
Just curious. Do you consider yourself conscious?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:33 pmgreat show me how that works!
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.
Re: Mind is immortal II
Yes, and it is very puzzling. But I have no reason to think that any part of me is immortal. I just can't take that seriously. The universe is all about change. All evidence of consciousness seems to have massive energy requirements to maintain the complexity of thr cerebral structure. And when the physical system of the brain breaks down it is matched by a failure in conscious aptitude.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:05 pmJust 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.
When the brain dies there is zero evidence of consciousness. People do in fact die. The atoms that were collected to make that person are scattered. What made them that particular human is based on the unique construction and organisation of the brain connections. This is not replicable, since it has been intricately built by living.
Taking all the basic empirical facts on the table, where does the idea of immortality come in to play? And bahman has offered nothing in support.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
I totally agree there is no consciousness independent of the physical organisms that have it. Whatever consciousness there is ceases when the organism ceases.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:03 pmYes, and it is very puzzling. But I have no reason to think that any part of me is immortal. I just can't take that seriously. The universe is all about change. All evidence of consciousness seems to have massive energy requirements to maintain the complexity of thr cerebral structure. And when the physical system of the brain breaks down it is matched by a failure in conscious aptitude.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:05 pmJust 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.
When the brain dies there is zero evidence of consciousness. People do in fact die. The atoms that were collected to make that person are scattered. What made them that particular human is based on the unique construction and organisation of the brain connections. This is not replicable, since it has been intricately built by living.
Taking all the basic empirical facts on the table, where does the idea of immortality come in to play? And bahman has offered nothing in support.
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.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
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.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:03 pmYes, and it is very puzzling. But I have no reason to think that any part of me is immortal. I just can't take that seriously. The universe is all about change. All evidence of consciousness seems to have massive energy requirements to maintain the complexity of thr cerebral structure. And when the physical system of the brain breaks down it is matched by a failure in conscious aptitude.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:05 pmJust 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.
When the brain dies there is zero evidence of consciousness. People do in fact die. The atoms that were collected to make that person are scattered. What made them that particular human is based on the unique construction and organisation of the brain connections. This is not replicable, since it has been intricately built by living.
Taking all the basic empirical facts on the table, where does the idea of immortality come in to play? And bahman has offered nothing in support.
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.
Re: Mind is immortal II
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.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:20 pmI 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.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:03 pmYes, and it is very puzzling. But I have no reason to think that any part of me is immortal. I just can't take that seriously. The universe is all about change. All evidence of consciousness seems to have massive energy requirements to maintain the complexity of thr cerebral structure. And when the physical system of the brain breaks down it is matched by a failure in conscious aptitude.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:05 pm
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.
When the brain dies there is zero evidence of consciousness. People do in fact die. The atoms that were collected to make that person are scattered. What made them that particular human is based on the unique construction and organisation of the brain connections. This is not replicable, since it has been intricately built by living.
Taking all the basic empirical facts on the table, where does the idea of immortality come in to play? And bahman has offered nothing in support.
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.
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?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mind is immortal II
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:16 pmUltimately 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.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:20 pmI 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.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 4:03 pm
Yes, and it is very puzzling. But I have no reason to think that any part of me is immortal. I just can't take that seriously. The universe is all about change. All evidence of consciousness seems to have massive energy requirements to maintain the complexity of thr cerebral structure. And when the physical system of the brain breaks down it is matched by a failure in conscious aptitude.
When the brain dies there is zero evidence of consciousness. People do in fact die. The atoms that were collected to make that person are scattered. What made them that particular human is based on the unique construction and organisation of the brain connections. This is not replicable, since it has been intricately built by living.
Taking all the basic empirical facts on the table, where does the idea of immortality come in to play? And bahman has offered nothing in support.
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.
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?
Exactly. If it's physical, let's see it. 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.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.
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.