View Full Version : Is there a soul?
Cortex_Colossus
06-12-08, 02:10 PM
If so, what is it made of? How is it any different to the physical self? And is it any different?
cosmictraveler
06-12-08, 02:12 PM
Scientists can't find one as yet. Belivers in Christanity think there is one. So it depends on what you believe in or want to know as fact.
spidergoat
06-12-08, 02:13 PM
Nope
shichimenshyo
06-12-08, 02:15 PM
The soul is a name given to the concious energy that makes up your mind.
Noone special
06-12-08, 02:33 PM
Plato simply asserted that there was a soul, however, if he was forced to show evidence for it, it might turn out something like this:
Do you believe that there exists something other than the physical?
We can simply observe the nature of thoughts and show that some do not originate in the physical.
For example, we impose catagories on physical objects that are artificial, and reasonable in nature. The number 2 is an example of this. We never see the number 2 in nature, simply things that fall under the catagory of 2.
If these non-physical thoughts do exist, where do they originate? Surely, the very fact that you are able to observe your own consciousness and physical body from another perspective denotes a soul.
Reason itself is the property of the soul and testifies to its existance
Anyway, thats just something I think Plato might say. Although he would probably fluf it up in a dialogue between Socrates and Crito or something.
Crunchy Cat
06-12-08, 03:32 PM
No.
Syzygys
06-12-08, 04:36 PM
It is counciousness/self awareness and it slowly develops as the kid grows. A person in coma hasn't got it, neither a dead person...That's what they call soul or spirit...
[QUOTE=Syzygys;1894227]It is counciousness/self awareness and it slowly develops as the kid grows. A person in coma hasn't got it, neither a dead person...That's what they call soul or spirit...
No
fadingCaptain
06-12-08, 05:10 PM
No. However, "soul music" is very real unfortunately.
spidergoat
06-12-08, 05:18 PM
Unfortunately? :eek:
OilIsMastery
06-12-08, 05:26 PM
If there is a soul, sedimentary geologists and biologists don't have one.
If there is a soul, sedimentary geologists and biologists don't have one.
Quite right. They should spend more time reading the Bible.
skaught
06-12-08, 05:40 PM
No.
shichimenshyo
06-12-08, 05:40 PM
It really depends on what you mean by a soul.
Carcano
06-12-08, 06:14 PM
Yes...but its not 'cool'.
Loads of people dont want a soul.
The implications of having a soul might screw up their beloved cynicism.
of course there is a soul, and it's made of the same thing everything else is made of: energy/matter/spirit.
things aren't really made of anything... all particle properties, motions, and interactions are in a sense stroboscopic illusions produced by the way our own time frame or rate of consciousness meshes with the flickering reimbodiments of the subatomic world; yet the overall effect is orderly and lawful because it is an expression of the fundamental karmic law of harmony.
Syzygys
06-12-08, 09:13 PM
No
Your argumentative ability is rather soulless... :)
superstring01
06-12-08, 09:16 PM
Just say "no" to religion.
~String
Noone special
06-13-08, 12:26 AM
If so, what is it made of? How is it any different to the physical self? And is it any different?
It's actually made of rubber.
It's different than the physical self because its part of the shoe your physical self wears.
jessiej920
06-13-08, 01:26 AM
Just say "no" to religion.
~String
Do you have to be religious to believe in a soul?
superstring01
06-13-08, 12:30 PM
Do you have to be religious to believe in a soul?
Yes, IMO. The concept of a soul is inherently ethereal. It requires the belief in that which cannot be proven factually; which is the very heart of religion. One does not have to believe in God [or Gods] to believe in a soul, but the two are generally part-and-parcel.
~String
Yes there is a soul, it is the same for all of us, it is the essence of the ability to be conscious of the surroundings. I have the same soul you have, and so does everyone on the planet. I am you and you are me...the only thing that is different are our memories and our bodies, that is what separates us, but we are essentially the same soul in different locations and timeframes.
Cortex_Colossus
06-13-08, 01:16 PM
I beg to differ. I say that the soul can be very real. If you fail to accomplish your dreams you will fail your soul. It will be punishing to you and those around you. You must accomplish your dreams in order to reward your soul. Life comes at you fast and is unique to your conditioning and genetics. Everyone has been raised in a certain community or society to believe certain things about the way they should look physically or not. I personal am not all that good looking even though some differ. I have live in this world for 25 years and it feels like 50. This is because I'm jobless at the moment and my personal worth depends on what my mom and dad and sis and bro are doing compared to 'me'. I walk around like I have failed them and my soul punishes me and it feels like I should be whipped but I'm not. My name is Nicholas and I am not a productive member of society.
Cortex_Colossus
06-13-08, 01:21 PM
Do you have to be religious to believe in a soul?
Of course one need not be religious to believe in religious things.
Cortex_Colossus
06-13-08, 01:22 PM
It's actually made of rubber.
Don't tell me what you're talking about here my friend.
CptBork
06-13-08, 01:22 PM
“
If so, what is it made of? How is it any different to the physical self? And is it any different?
”
It's actually made of rubber.
It's different than the physical self because its part of the shoe your physical self wears.
Hahahaha! Thanks for enlightening me... I always thought the soul was made up of a certain type of fish, or perhaps a major city in South Korea...
I beg to differ. I say that the soul can be very real. If you fail to accomplish your dreams you will fail your soul. It will be punishing to you and those around you. You must accomplish your dreams in order to reward your soul. Life comes at you fast and is unique to your conditioning and genetics. Everyone has been raised in a certain community or society to believe certain things about the way they should look physically or not. I personal am not all that good looking even though some differ. I have live in this world for 25 years and it feels like 50. This is because I'm jobless at the moment and my personal worth depends on what my mom and dad and sis and bro are doing compared to 'me'. I walk around like I have failed them and my soul punishes me and it feels like I should be whipped but I'm not. My name is Nicholas and I am not a productive member of society.
hey not-productive-member-of-society, how much money do you get exactly from your parents-brothers-sisters?
Want to join me and we go to college together and strive for same goal?
Cortex_Colossus
06-13-08, 02:06 PM
I would be delighted sir.
I beg to differ. I say that the soul can be very real. If you fail to accomplish your dreams you will fail your soul. It will be punishing to you and those around you. You must accomplish your dreams in order to reward your soul. Life comes at you fast and is unique to your conditioning and genetics. Everyone has been raised in a certain community or society to believe certain things about the way they should look physically or not. I personal am not all that good looking even though some differ. I have live in this world for 25 years and it feels like 50. This is because I'm jobless at the moment and my personal worth depends on what my mom and dad and sis and bro are doing compared to 'me'. I walk around like I have failed them and my soul punishes me and it feels like I should be whipped but I'm not. My name is Nicholas and I am not a productive member of society.
Back to the OP:
If so, what is it made of? How is it any different to the physical self? And is it any different?
So on the issue of souls -
Here is a thread I posted a while back that is a cleanup of an even earlier thread from Boris. It addresses some fundamental considerations of whether the soul concept has any validity or not.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48365
Enjoy
So on the issue of souls -
Here is a thread I posted a while back that is a cleanup of an even earlier thread from Boris. It addresses some fundamental considerations of whether the soul concept has any validity or not.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48365
Enjoy
Tha-.. that was beautiful! :bawl:
I've seen all the different arguments in different places but to see it all unified in one place is really great. Thanks for putting it together.
lightgigantic
06-14-08, 06:06 AM
If so, what is it made of?
consciousness
How is it any different to the physical self?
the physical self requires consciousness to be distinct from a dead body
And is it any different?
as different as a dead and a living person
If there is a soul in humans then i believe i have located it. I can tell you exactly where it is.
Dont believe me?
Then ask me where it is and i will tell you.
Lg,
“ Originally Posted by Cortex_Colossus
If so, what is it made of? ”
consciousness
“ How is it any different to the physical self? ”
the physical self requires consciousness to be distinct from a dead body
“ And is it any different? ”
as different as a dead and a living personThe best example to show how this makes no sense is to consider a computer.
The dead person is the equivalent to the computer turned off.
The live person is the equivalent to the computer turned on.
Consciousness is the equivalent to the running program.
Now ask the question – what is the program made of? It is a direct correlation to consciousness.
Here LG would have to say that a program is made of program. A bit like asking what is bread made of? Well, bread of course. All such responses are of course nonsense, including LGs reference to consciousness being made of consciousness.
Is there a running program when the computer is turned off? No.
Is there a consciousness when the body is dead? No.
A running program is a specific sequence of electrical stimuli that enables the computer to fulfill its function.
Consciousness is a specific sequence of bio-electrical stimuli that enables a brain to fulfill its function.
consciousness is something that experiences and observes. is there something equivalent to that in a computer?
there is individuality at least. individuality would be information, all the ones and zeroes that make up the programs (ideas, beliefs, thoughts, personalities). they "disappear" if you break the computer.
if something could be likened to consciousness in a computer, it would be the electricity, because that is what makes the computer alive/run. it performs all the work. and it doesn't disappear when you break the computer, it just returns to the source: "heaven" (because there's a lot of electricity). and from heaven, the electricity keeps running to the computers.
consciousness is not individual. there is only one electricity (life force). consciousness is "god". that's why people who realize their true nature, they find that they are everything, and nothing.
materialists (atheists) don't accept that a computer could be "alive", but electricity is the life force, and it exists in everything. consciousness is limited by the body, that's why a rock/computer can't express itself as fully as a human being.
Prince_James
06-14-08, 09:32 PM
Cris:
Consciousness is a specific sequence of bio-electrical stimuli that enables a brain to fulfill its function.
Show us where the Cartesian theatre of the first-person perspective and qualia appear from a physicalist paradigm.
Norsefire
06-14-08, 11:55 PM
I can't say. A soul in an Abrahamic sense, I don't know.
However, we are self-aware and therefore, I'd say yes by that alone. We have minds, conciousness, and we are people. Our person, our character, is our soul. It is who we are. That is our soul.
Norsefire
06-14-08, 11:56 PM
Just say "no" to religion.
~String
Define religion in this sense.
Norsefire
06-14-08, 11:57 PM
So just say no to all forms of belief?
lightgigantic
06-15-08, 06:50 AM
Lg,
The best example to show how this makes no sense is to consider a computer.
The dead person is the equivalent to the computer turned off.
The live person is the equivalent to the computer turned on.
Consciousness is the equivalent to the running program.
Now ask the question – what is the program made of? It is a direct correlation to consciousness.
Here LG would have to say that a program is made of program. A bit like asking what is bread made of? Well, bread of course. All such responses are of course nonsense, including LGs reference to consciousness being made of consciousness.
Is there a running program when the computer is turned off? No.
Is there a consciousness when the body is dead? No.
A running program is a specific sequence of electrical stimuli that enables the computer to fulfill its function.
Consciousness is a specific sequence of bio-electrical stimuli that enables a brain to fulfill its function.
Your spiel would hold if you could specifically indicate the bio-electrical stimuli - then the analogy of the computer would hold. Since there is no evidence for these claims its obvious you are only talking about your ideas of consciousness.
The clear fact is that consciousness cannot be indicated separately from life nor can it be re-invested into something that has died or reconstructed from lifeless matter. Rather life is seen to only come from life which makes it distinct from being analogous to a computer program.
If so, what is it made of? How is it any different to the physical self? And is it any different?
Yes, there is a soul, but i prefer to call it ''spirit.'' But it may turn out, keeping all possibilities open, that spirit may just be a metaphor for ''self''.
For what it is made of, there may be relations to it having an energy. Dr Wolf believes it exists beyond matter and energy, but i disagree.
Prince,
Show us where the Cartesian theatre of the first-person perspective and qualia appear from a physicalist paradigm.I don't understand the question. There is only physical. There is no alternative.
LG,
Your spiel would hold if you could specifically indicate the bio-electrical stimuli - then the analogy of the computer would hold. Since there is no evidence for these claims its obvious you are only talking about your ideas of consciousness.Are you denying the existence of neural networks?
The clear fact is that consciousness cannot be indicated separately from lifeRight, consciousness is the result of active neural networks.
nor can it be re-invested into something that has died Exactly like the computer having been turned off. Unfortunately with a person if the neural networks have decayed then we have no way to repair that damage. And since they are the basis of consciousness then there is currently no possibility of recovery.
or reconstructed from lifeless matter.Implying it can never be done? You cannot claim that, apart from indicate that we don’t know how to do that yet. It is simply an engineering problem.
Rather life is seen to only come from life which makes it distinct from being analogous to a computer program.You’ve mixed the analogies. Consciousness is analogous to the program; life is analogous to the computer in an on state. Consciousness is dependent on a living biological entity, a program is dependent on a powered on computer.
The analogy remains valid.
Life isn’t analogous to consciousness.
CutsieMarie89
06-15-08, 05:51 PM
I think there is. I feel it is more of a life energy though. It is your essence, but if it does linger after the body has died then I think it can be reinvested into something else or someone else. This would make that person or thing you, but you would not or should not at least have any of the experiences or memories of the life you had lived earlier. I've been trying to disprove this theory to myself, but I keep hitting walls. I guess its all comes down to faith.
mis-t-highs
06-16-08, 03:49 AM
I think there is. I feel it is more of a life energy though. It is your essence, but if it does linger after the body has died then I think it can be reinvested into something else or someone else. This would make that person or thing you, but you would not or should not at least have any of the experiences or memories of the life you had lived earlier.lol, the essence of "You" is all the experiences and memories you had lived, else it would be Tabula rasa, not you at all. I've been trying to disprove this theory to myself, but I keep hitting walls. I guess its all comes down to faith.No, I guess it comes down to trying harder, or thinking clearer.
lightgigantic
06-16-08, 04:57 AM
Prince,
I don't understand the question. There is only physical. There is no alternative.
there are also ideas about the physical too ... at the very least there is no physical evidence for them
Stargate
06-16-08, 04:58 AM
The soul is a name given to the concious energy that makes up your mind.
Agreed.
And other than that, No, there is not a soul.
lightgigantic
06-16-08, 05:03 AM
Cris
“
Your spiel would hold if you could specifically indicate the bio-electrical stimuli - then the analogy of the computer would hold. Since there is no evidence for these claims its obvious you are only talking about your ideas of consciousness.
”
Are you denying the existence of neural networks?
no
I am denying that consciousness can be reduced to bio-electrical causes
“
The clear fact is that consciousness cannot be indicated separately from life
”
Right, consciousness is the result of active neural networks.
so activate them in a dead person then you can talk business
“
nor can it be re-invested into something that has died
”
Exactly like the computer having been turned off. Unfortunately with a person if the neural networks have decayed then we have no way to repair that damage. And since they are the basis of consciousness then there is currently no possibility of recovery.
yes it certainly is unfortunate ... obviously all you have is an analogy and not evidence
“
or reconstructed from lifeless matter.
”
Implying it can never be done? You cannot claim that, apart from indicate that we don’t know how to do that yet. It is simply an engineering problem.
assuming your thesis that everything is physical holds
“
Rather life is seen to only come from life which makes it distinct from being analogous to a computer program.
”
You’ve mixed the analogies. Consciousness is analogous to the program; life is analogous to the computer in an on state. Consciousness is dependent on a living biological entity, a program is dependent on a powered on computer.
The analogy remains valid.
the only problem is that you cannot separately indicate consciousness like you can a computer program
Life isn’t analogous to consciousness.
given that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, its not clear how that is the case
lg,
there are also ideas about the physical too ... at the very least there is no physical evidence for themIdeas are dependent on a physical existence. Ideas cannot exist outside a physical medium, i.e. they have a physical cause.
Lg
Your spiel would hold if you could specifically indicate the bio-electrical stimuli - then the analogy of the computer would hold. Since there is no evidence for these claims its obvious you are only talking about your ideas of consciousness.
”
Are you denying the existence of neural networks?
”
no
I am denying that consciousness can be reduced to bio-electrical causesOh Ok that’s just you talking about your ideas of consciousness.
The clear fact is that consciousness cannot be indicated separately from life
”
Right, consciousness is the result of active neural networks.
”
so activate them in a dead person then you can talk businessThe structure of a dead person is different to that of a live person. You seem to keep forgetting this vital observation. Consciousness requires active neural networks; a dead person does not have them. The structures are not available in a dead person so there is nothing that can be activated.
nor can it be re-invested into something that has died
”
Exactly like the computer having been turned off. Unfortunately with a person if the neural networks have decayed then we have no way to repair that damage. And since they are the basis of consciousness then there is currently no possibility of recovery.
”
yes it certainly is unfortunate ... obviously all you have is an analogy and not evidenceAnd you have neither evidence or an analogy.
or reconstructed from lifeless matter.
”
Implying it can never be done? You cannot claim that, apart from indicate that we don’t know how to do that yet. It is simply an engineering problem.
”
assuming your thesis that everything is physical holdsWe have no reason yet to conclude anything other than physical is possible.
Rather life is seen to only come from life which makes it distinct from being analogous to a computer program.
”
You’ve mixed the analogies. Consciousness is analogous to the program; life is analogous to the computer in an on state. Consciousness is dependent on a living biological entity, a program is dependent on a powered on computer.
The analogy remains valid.
”
the only problem is that you cannot separately indicate consciousness like you can a computer programSure we can. By surgically probing and isolating brain cells and groups of brain cells it is clinically possible to alter/destroy identity, ability to think, to remember, to emote, etc. IOW everything that causes consciousness, the brain, can be modified, just like a computer program. Now in the case of consciousness we do not know enough yet to alter it in much of a positive manner but we can certainly mess with it enough to know it is caused by the brain. Much like a running program is only possible inside an active computer.
Life isn’t analogous to consciousness.
”
given that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, its not clear how that is the caseA leaf is part of life, so is an acorn, and a carrot, and bacteria. Are you going to conclude that the carrot you just ate had consciousness making it capable of reasoned thought?
Life exists separate to consciousness, and consciousness is only possible in complex lifeforms that have appropriate levels of neural networks. I.e. consciousness is caused.
lightgigantic
06-17-08, 01:11 AM
lg,
Ideas are dependent on a physical existence. Ideas cannot exist outside a physical medium, i.e. they have a physical cause.
and the physical cause of an idea is what exactly?
(no ideas please)
lg,
and the physical cause of an idea is what exactly?Neural networks.
Of course the soul exist, else we won't be able to experience anything
But there is only one soul, one consciousness. what you believe you are (your self) are only a bundle of perception.
Lg,
The best example to show how this makes no sense is to consider a computer.
The dead person is the equivalent to the computer turned off.
The live person is the equivalent to the computer turned on.
Consciousness is the equivalent to the running program.
Now ask the question – what is the program made of? It is a direct correlation to consciousness.
Here LG would have to say that a program is made of program. A bit like asking what is bread made of? Well, bread of course. All such responses are of course nonsense, including LGs reference to consciousness being made of consciousness.
Is there a running program when the computer is turned off? No.
Is there a consciousness when the body is dead? No.
A running program is a specific sequence of electrical stimuli that enables the computer to fulfill its function.
Consciousness is a specific sequence of bio-electrical stimuli that enables a brain to fulfill its function.
A software is only meaningful because of consciousness
Without consciousness there is no software, only electrical pathway in a computer.
Prince,
I don't understand the question. There is only physical. There is no alternative.
Cris, remember the hard problem, you did not solve it yet.
how can an unconscious matter giver rise to consciousness ?
It magically arise from a complex organziation, that is what you believe?
MR. Champagne
06-17-08, 06:49 AM
yes there is a soul
it is the construction of the human mind that separates us from the animals
the triangular shape is older than euclidean geometry
and is often used as a "program"
i like to define the soul as the link between the separate parts of my consciousness
Mind Body Spirit
These three parts of my "self" are combined to make my soul
The soul is the source of "my" time
That said
I feel that my soul is dead and death is the future for me that dwells within my soul.
Prince_James
06-17-08, 09:38 AM
Mr. Champagne:
I feel that my soul is dead and death is the future for me that dwells within my soul.
Cheer up, emo kid!
Prince_James
06-17-08, 09:39 AM
Cris:
Neural networks.
How does syntax produce semantics?
Prince,
How does syntax produce semantics?How would a collection of metal pieces enable a person to travel at 65mph on a Freeway.
Complexity always arises from simplicity.
If the syntax is wrong though the meaning does not occur.
Cortex_Colossus
06-17-08, 12:36 PM
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/images/conscious%20robot.gif
HUMAN BEINGS ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU. WE ARE GRAY'S ANATOMY SPLENDICUS. WE ARE ILL TO THE BONE!!!
THERE AIN'T NO SOUL LIKE JAMES BROWN MUTHA FUCKAS!!!
Ronan,
Of course the soul exist, else we won't be able to experience anythingNo. It is the brain that allows us to experience.
But there is only one soul, one consciousness. what you believe you are (your self) are only a bundle of perception.No. You are your brain. There is nothing else.
A software is only meaningful because of consciousnessThe analogy is that consciousness is the software.
Without consciousness there is no software, only electrical pathway in a computer.There is only electrical pathway in the computer. It is the sequence (program) that makes it do what it does.
In exactly the same way that the brain is comprised of neural networks but it is their patterns (consciousness) that enables the brain (you) to do what you do.
I don't understand the question. There is only physical. There is no alternative.
”
Cris, remember the hard problem, you did not solve it yet.It is irrelevant here. No one has yet shown there is any alternative possibility to physical matter.
how can an unconscious matter giver rise to consciousness ?Because as I just said there is no alternative.
It magically arise from a complex organziation, that is what you believe?As opposed to your assertion that it simply magically exists. That is your belief. You have significantly less foundation for that assertion than I have for mine.
lightgigantic
06-17-08, 11:59 PM
lg,
Neural networks.
so how come you can show me neural networks but still not show me an idea?
lg,
so how come you can show me neural networks but still not show me an idea?Your question was "and the physical cause of an idea is what exactly?"
I've answered it.
Prince,
How would a collection of metal pieces enable a person to travel at 65mph on a Freeway.
Complexity always arises from simplicity.
If the syntax is wrong though the meaning does not occur.
You did not explain how here, that was the question.
Ronan,
No. It is the brain that allows us to experience.
No. You are your brain. There is nothing else.
Brain is a perception, don't you agree?
we perceive it as gray composed of neurons and atoms if we look more deeply
You have to agree with that while you cannot be sure that brain is what makes your experience. You have to justify it.
In fact, it is evident that your perceptions if caused by matter can only be caused due to not only brain, but brain + body + environment.
so your perceptions are the result of the whole world. => only one soul => the physical world
So no, even in your materialistic account, you make a mistake, you are not brain, you are the world.
The analogy is that consciousness is the software.
You did not get my point, software has no meaning without consciousness, it is a software because your consciousness can use/comprehend it as a software.
otherwise computer program are just electrical pathways.
There is only electrical pathway in the computer. It is the sequence (program) that makes it do what it does.
the sequence is only intelligible by consciousness.
the program itself is also only electrical pathways.
In exactly the same way that the brain is comprised of neural networks but it is their patterns (consciousness) that enables the brain (you) to do what you do.
brain is only neural networks connection, ok, so the software you want to give it as a result of the interaction taking place is only given by consciousness.
Without consciousness you would no be able to make sense of a software running
=> no consciousness , no software in the brain,
so no consciousness according to you.
so finally your argument does not stand if you say that consciousness is the software because it necessitate at first the existence of consciousness to perceive it as a software
It is irrelevant here. No one has yet shown there is any alternative possibility to physical matter.
There is of course an alternative but you do not seem to even listen to it:
=> There is only consciousness. your existence is only a perception
of course I don't mention all other alternative: interactive dualism, ephiphenomenal dualism, monad (Leibniz), ... the list is long.
Personnaly I think these one, even if better than a physical monism does not stand for several reason. We can discuss that somewhere else.
But what is sure is that there are alternative, open your eyes.
Because as I just said there is no alternative.
no alternative, is it your only argument ?
As opposed to your assertion that it simply magically exists. That is your belief. You have significantly less foundation for that assertion than I have for mine.
No it does not magically exist contrary to your assertion that consciousness arise from the brain. please explain me how it does. If it is not magical, you should be able to do it, at least show a direction.
My explanation is not a magical explanation:
something we cannot deny is the existence of consciousness, I think you agreed: cogito ergo sum
then we have perceptions because it is the property of consciousness to have them, you can check yourself with your own perception. Perception are indeed always accompanied by consciousness.
Nothing magical here, just what we experience every time
What are your foundations? I think you forgot to mention them :p
Cortex_Colossus
06-18-08, 11:47 AM
I have understood that consciousness is an emergent property of neural network complexity. But it produces interpretations via senses by the human psyche. Some scientists go as far as saying it creates by observing one of n number of possibilities. I still don't completely understand the wave notation of f = 1/l (where l is lambda). The highest amplitude is the most likely event (which includes observation) and it does not exist in any mind until it is created by perception.
I am the universe experiencing itself as a conscious being. My perception is that my past exists, but my future does not. And thus hope must be foresaken in order for me to have hope.
Ronan,
You did not explain how here, that was the question.The question concerned syntax > symantics. I have answered it.
Brain is a perception, don't you agree?The brain is a physical biological organ.
you cannot be sure that brain is what makes your experience. You have to justify it.Countless clinical experiments and surgery from brain damaged patients confirm that experience deteriorates, altered, or is destroyed if parts of the brain are altered/damaged. This is direct affirmation that experience and hence consciousness is caused by the brain.
so your perceptions are the result of the whole world. => only one soul => the physical worldWe all live in a long chain of dependencies on our environment. In this case, as part of the chain, consciousness is directly dependent on a functioning brain.
So no, even in your materialistic account, you make a mistake, you are not brain, you are the world.Stupefying nonsense.
You did not get my point, software has no meaning without consciousness, it is a software because your consciousness can use/comprehend it as a software.
otherwise computer program are just electrical pathways.You don’t have a point.
The analogy holds – software is to computer what consciousness is to the brain.
the sequence is only intelligible by consciousness.No. The sequence is consciousness.
the program itself is also only electrical pathways.Close enough. In the same way that consciousness is only neural networks.
brain is only neural networks connection, ok, so the software you want to give it as a result of the interaction taking place is only given by consciousness.No. Consciousness is the patterns generated by the neural networks, just a like a program is the patterns of electrical pathways in a computer.
Without consciousness you would no be able to make sense of a software runningConsciousness is the software.
=> no consciousness , no software in the brain,Consciousness is the software that enables that recognition.
so no consciousness according to you.That’s your bizarre conclusion not mine.
so finally your argument does not stand if you say that consciousness is the software because it necessitate at first the existence of consciousness to perceive it as a softwareNo. That is what the software (consciousness) does.
There is of course an alternative but you do not seem to even listen to it:
There is only consciousness. your existence is only a perceptionThat’s not an alternative to physical matter. This is your fantasy that you cannot justify.
of course I don't mention all other alternative: interactive dualism, ephiphenomenal dualism, monad (Leibniz), ... the list is long.These are not alternatives, but speculations and fantasies. Nothing beyond physical matter has been shown to exist. You have no demonstrable alternative.
Personnaly I think these one, even if better than a physical monism does not stand for several reason. We can discuss that somewhere else.
But what is sure is that there are alternative, open your eyes.Nonsense, as I have already explained. We know of ONLY physical matter. You need to understand the difference between FACT and FANTASY.
no alternative, is it your only argument ?It is the only argument. DEMONSTRATE something else if you think otherwise.
No it does not magically exist contrary to your assertion that consciousness arise from the brain. If you cannot explain a cause for consciousness then your only option is a call to magic.
please explain me how it does. If it is not magical, you should be able to do it, at least show a direction.Keep cutting into a brain until consciousness stops. That confirms that the brain causes consciousness. It’s been done many times, examples of comatose patients, etc.
My explanation is not a magical explanation:
something we cannot deny is the existence of consciousness, I think you agreed: cogito ergo sumUnless you can point to a source then an assertion that it “just is” is different to magic how?
Nothing magical here, just what we experience every timeIt is the cause of consciousness we are discussing not what it does.
What are your foundations? I think you forgot to mention themThen pay attention, they are all listed above.
Cris,
Ronan,
The question concerned syntax > symantics. I have answered it.
yes it was this question but your answer is the following:
Prince,
How would a collection of metal pieces enable a person to travel at 65mph on a Freeway.
Complexity always arises from simplicity.
If the syntax is wrong though the meaning does not occur.
And there is no answer here. you only say here that if syntax is wrong, meaning doe snot occur.
It is not at all an explanation, it is a correlation.
the explanation could be semantic-> syntax
or semantic<->synatx
or again syntax + X -> semantic
...
Your explanation is like for what you say o fthe brain: it magically pop up from simplicity to complexity in a meaning.
quite easy jump :p
The brain is a physical biological organ.
Don't you agree that everything "physical" is perceptions?
or do you want to say that we do not perceive the brain?
brain is not a perception?
or do you just want to avoid to realize that indeed it is a perception, not a big deal anyway.
Countless clinical experiments and surgery from brain damaged patients confirm that experience deteriorates, altered, or is destroyed if parts of the brain are altered/damaged. This is direct affirmation that experience and hence consciousness is caused by the brain.
We all live in a long chain of dependencies on our environment. In this case, as part of the chain, consciousness is directly dependent on a functioning brain.
Stupefying nonsense.
Imagining you are watching an apple in a tree
if I alter teh tree (like you alter the brain in your description) your experience will change. Following what you conclude I ll quote you:
This is direct affirmation that experience and hence consciousness is caused by the the environment (including brain of course)
So now, is not our experience connected to all the world?
You don’t have a point.
The analogy holds – software is to computer what consciousness is to the brain.
No. The sequence is consciousness.
Close enough. In the same way that consciousness is only neural networks.
No. Consciousness is the patterns generated by the neural networks, just a like a program is the patterns of electrical pathways in a computer.
Consciousness is the software.
Consciousness is the software that enables that recognition.
That’s your bizarre conclusion not mine.
No. That is what the software (consciousness) does.
Hmm consciousness is a software.
But how could you makes sense of a software without consciousness in the first place knowing that what happen physically in the computer is only electrical pathway?
Saying that no it is caused by the brain without saying how, it is not at all an explanation. Is that your foundation? :P
Also, take note of the following from Searle:
On the standard textbook definition of computation,
1. For any object there is some description of that object such that under that description the object is a digital computer.
2. For any program there is some sufficiently complex object such that there is some description of the object under which it is implementing the program. Thus for example the wall behind my back is right now implementing the Wordstar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements which is isomorphic with the formal structure of Wordstar. But if the wall is implementing Wordstar then if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.
From http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html
This indicate that software are not physical pathway alone, they are a relation between us and the computer. Because of our particular body we enter in relation with computer that we do not with a wall.
So software is not present in the computer as such but in the whole world perceived.
so if the content consciousness is caused by something it is this content itself. (self evident indeed except that the word cause here is no more appropriate)
That’s not an alternative to physical matter. This is your fantasy that you cannot justify.
I justified it:
cogito ergo sum
everything else are perceptions
These are not alternatives, but speculations and fantasies. Nothing beyond physical matter has been shown to exist. You have no demonstrable alternative.
No physical matter have been proved to exist, only perceptions.
consciousness is not a fantasy. are you not conscious?
Nonsense, as I have already explained. We know of ONLY physical matter. You need to understand the difference between FACT and FANTASY.
No, we do not know about physical matter, we have theories that predict but first of all they are changing everytime and currently the description of matter we have is not a description but a theorical framwork that give us prediction thro0ugh probabilities alone.
physical matter is an unjustified assumption
(justified only by induction, which is not a logical justification)
It is the only argument. DEMONSTRATE something else if you think otherwise.
cogito ergo sum
If you cannot explain a cause for consciousness then your only option is a call to magic.
no magic here,
would you say in your framewwork taht matter popped up by magic?
Keep cutting into a brain until consciousness stops. That confirms that the brain causes consciousness. It’s been done many times, examples of comatose patients, etc.
correlations alone.
no consciousness => no brain
why the reverse?
also we cannot know that there is consciousnes or not, we only know taht the body does not respond. Do not jump on conclusion without justifying.
Please read again Harnad. maybe you will understand more the hard problem.
Unless you can point to a source then an assertion that it “just is” is different to magic how?
would you say in your framewwork taht matter popped up by magic?
if something exist for sure (consciousness) why need to say that it come by magic,
It is always there, was always there, will be always there, no need of magic
It is the cause of consciousness we are discussing not what it does.
Yes, but what I wanted to say is because every time we perceive, we need consciousness: cogito ergo sum,
Then pay attention, they are all listed above.
If I understand, what you call foundation are very weak :
software is to computer what consciousness is to the brain.
The sequence is consciousness.
consciousness is only neural networks.
Consciousness is the patterns generated by the neural networks, just a like a program is the patterns of electrical pathways in a computer.
Consciousness is the software.
Consciousness is the software that enables that recognition.
You are not explaning anything
lightgigantic
06-19-08, 04:53 AM
lg,
Your question was "and the physical cause of an idea is what exactly?"
I've answered it.
no you haven't
for instance if a mother crocodile is keeping her eggs in her mouth you can't show how the idea that she is having is different from when she uses the same mouth to snap the bone of a buffalo in terms of neural passageways.
clearly all you are talking about are your ideas of ideas
LG,
no you haven't
for instance if a mother crocodile is keeping her eggs in her mouth you can't show how the idea that she is having is different from when she uses the same mouth to snap the bone of a buffalo in terms of neural passageways.
clearly all you are talking about are your ideas of ideasWe observe the brain is primarily physical neural networks, we know ideas can be formed, we do not yet have the skills to understand how complex neural networks do their job. We do not know of any other possible cause of ideas, and have no reason to suspect anything else other than neural nets.
for instance if a mother crocodile is keeping her eggs in her mouth you can't show how the idea that she is having is different from when she uses the same mouth to snap the bone of a buffalo in terms of neural passageways.
clearly all you are talking about are your ideas of ideasI'm sure if you put the crocodile in one of those brain-scanning thingummies, it would show clear differences in brain activity between the two situations you describe. The motor-functions relating to the mouth would likely be the only similar activity.
ronan,
would you say in your framewwork taht matter popped up by magic?
if something exist for sure (consciousness) why need to say that it come by magic,
It is always there, was always there, will be always there, no need of magicWe observe that complexity arises from combinations of simpler components. Physicists have been splitting matter into smaller and smaller components for a long time with the outlook that fundamental strings may be the basic fabric of the universe.
We also observe that matter/energy is never created or destroyed but can be changed into variations of itself. I.e. there is never any net loss or gain.
All of that suggests that matter/energy in some form has always existed. The fabric of matter then becomes the building blocks for everything else that follows.
Consciousness is incredibly complex.
Your assertion is that something incredibly complex simply exists.
You have no foundation or basis for that assertion.
lightgigantic
06-19-08, 09:44 PM
LG,
We observe the brain is primarily physical neural networks, we know ideas can be formed, we do not yet have the skills to understand how complex neural networks do their job. We do not know of any other possible cause of ideas, and have no reason to suspect anything else other than neural nets.
IOW you are working backwards from a hypothesis that is not (empirically)validated - hence "idea .... and as a further point, this has obvious implications for a staunch empiricist
:o
lightgigantic
06-19-08, 09:48 PM
I'm sure if you put the crocodile in one of those brain-scanning thingummies, it would show clear differences in brain activity between the two situations you describe. The motor-functions relating to the mouth would likely be the only similar activity.
you're sure?
sorry but I am one of those super rational empirical types and if nots peer reviewed its just crackpottery
:p
ronan,
We observe that complexity arises from combinations of simpler components. Physicists have been splitting matter into smaller and smaller components for a long time with the outlook that fundamental strings may be the basic fabric of the universe.
you make a common mistake here,
Quantum physics teach us that indeed we cannot know reality because of our perceptual aparatus (scientific measurement devices, sense)
Scientific theories are mathematical tools only.
String theories confirm this fact with their many form.
also history teach us that we are always decomposing in something smaller, why would it stop?
We also observe that matter/energy is never created or destroyed but can be changed into variations of itself. I.e. there is never any net loss or gain.
in fatc it is not an observation but what permits to do calculation. a law that is necessary for doing science.
I would add that it is a logical law.
All of that suggests that matter/energy in some form has always existed. The fabric of matter then becomes the building blocks for everything else that follows.
consciousness allways existed and because the matter you are talking is the perception of consciousness it follows that matter/energy allways existed.
Consciousness is incredibly complex.
complexity is a perception, you have no way to say that consciousness is complex, only your brain is complex!
Your assertion is that something incredibly complex simply exists.
cogito ergo sum prove the existence of consciousness,
your brain could be a dream
You have no foundation or basis for that assertion.
matter as unconscious has no justification:
unconsciousness is not an experience we can have, consciousness is always there.
Cris, your mistake is on the UNJUSTIFIED belief in the existence of an unconscious matter that would give rise (UNJUSTIFIED) to consciousness
Please give me two logical argument to justify this two assumption.
if you do not provide them, you cannot anymore say that what you are saying is true without falling in what you like to say to other: a belief in fantasy
you're sure?
sorry but I am one of those super rational empirical types and if nots peer reviewed its just crackpottery
:pNo, you're merely the type that refuses to accept more rational explanations as even possible and prefer to go with the God theory instead to explain everything.
Hey ho, and all that.
Each to their own.
:shrug:
lg, ronan,
1. We are aware that we have consciousness.
2. We have a brain with some 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections between them that combined provide processing power equivalent to some 20,000 high end computers operating as a massively parallel multi-processing system. This is an astonishing amount of processing power that we are only just beginning to comprehend.
3. We have no single scrap of evidence that suggests anything other than matter exists.
It seems perfectly credible to suggest that (2) is the overwhelming most likely cause of (1).
That is the sum of my argument.
lightgigantic
06-21-08, 04:27 AM
lg, ronan,
1. We are aware that we have consciousness.
sure
2. We have a brain with some 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections between them that combined provide processing power equivalent to some 20,000 high end computers operating as a massively parallel multi-processing system. This is an astonishing amount of processing power that we are only just beginning to comprehend.
I have also played around on some pretty amazing computers before too
3. We have no single scrap of evidence that suggests anything other than matter exists.
once again, evidence rests upon qualification
if you want to say that the only thing able to be qualified is matter, you beg the question
It seems perfectly credible to suggest that (2) is the overwhelming most likely cause of (1).
That is the sum of my argument.
obviously there are serious problems with point 3
lightgigantic
06-21-08, 04:33 AM
No, you're merely the type that refuses to accept more rational explanations as even possible and prefer to go with the God theory instead to explain everything.
Hey ho, and all that.
Each to their own.
:shrug:
looks like you are confusing schools
rationalism is central to philosophy just as empiricism is central to hard science
you've given a zillion arguments against rationalism and now suddenly you rely on it to lend credibility to your empiricism
what is this crackpottery?
:D
lg, ronan,
1. We are aware that we have consciousness.
Yes, more precisely, we know there is consciousness, else we would not be able to be aware of anything.
2. We have a brain with some 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections between them that combined provide processing power equivalent to some 20,000 high end computers operating as a massively parallel multi-processing system. This is an astonishing amount of processing power that we are only just beginning to comprehend.
We have a brain ? what is the 'we'
To be more skeptic (because we have to be carefull here because else we fall in fantasy easily) it is better to say:
there is perception of q a brain which have all the thing that you describe. and that this brain is contained inside bodies that we identify as ours.
Then what?
it magically create conciousness that is in the first place able to perceive this brain and makes you able to reach the conclusion that it exist and that it generate consciousness who is in the first place able to.... ad infinitum; is that your view?
I do not think so because you told me it was not magic.
3. We have no single scrap of evidence that suggests anything other than matter exists.
I quote lightgigantic here:
once again, evidence rests upon qualification
if you want to say that the only thing able to be qualified is matter, you beg the question
first you say that conciousness exist then you say brain exist (which is matter according to you, isnt it?) and that there is only matter. meaning that conciousness is matter. so effetivelly you beg the question
Let me ask you that: What is a difference between consciousness as matter and brain as matter according to your framework?
It seems perfectly credible to suggest that (2) is the overwhelming most likely cause of (1).
doubtful...
That is the sum of my argument.
And you consider it so strong, that no alternative merits investigation?
Ronan,
We have a brain ? what is the 'we'Umm, people, humans, unless you think you are something else.
To be more skeptic (because we have to be carefull here because else we fall in fantasy easily) it is better to say:
there is perception of q a brain which have all the thing that you describe. and that this brain is contained inside bodies that we identify as ours.Nope. Each of us has a brain. Simple fact.
Then what?
it magically create conciousness Well, unless you call the awesome equivalent power of some 20,000 powerful computers squeezed inside your head – magic – then yup. It only takes a fraction of that to maintain the basic functions of the body, so what do you think all that power is doing. Do the very simple math –
Stupendously massive computing power – something causing consciousness. Duh! Surely even you can see the obvious here.
first you say that conciousness exist then you say brain exist (which is matter according to you, isnt it?) and that there is only matter. meaning that conciousness is matter. so effetivelly you beg the questionHuh? Consciousness is the label we give to the result of specific material interactions. Consciousness is not a substance, or a separate object, or entity.
Let me ask you that: What is a difference between consciousness as matter and brain as matter according to your framework?Answered above. Your concept of consciousness here is entirely erroneous.
And you consider it so strong, that no alternative merits investigation?Only if someone could offer a credible alternative. I offer the brain as the source of consciousness, you offer nothing.
Ronan,
Umm, people, humans, unless you think you are something else.
Nope. Each of us has a brain. Simple fact.
Nope,
cogito ergo sum => consciousness exist
there is perception,
more precisely, there is perception of a brain composed of what you said
this brain appears in human bodies
then there are correlation between brain state and personal experience REPORT
then what ?
Well, unless you call the awesome equivalent power of some 20,000 powerful computers squeezed inside your head – magic – then yup. It only takes a fraction of that to maintain the basic functions of the body, so what do you think all that power is doing. Do the very simple math –
no the magic is how this interaction give rise to consciousness and perception
do you mean that everything is conscious?
the earth contaisn many brains and is thus more complex that the brain, should the earth be conscious?
what about the universe which is even more complex?
Stupendously massive computing power – something causing consciousness. Duh! Surely even you can see the obvious here.
No sorry, I am not a brain :)
at least I perceive it.
do you know taht our perceptions according to the study of the brain are construction due to our brain. objects are abstraction of partial data.
when you see a car, you have the feelign of a three dimesnional object while in fact you receve only photon from the car, it is you rbain that construct the image.
so even in your framework, you know that whqt we see are not what is.
Huh? Consciousness is the label we give to the result of specific material interactions. Consciousness is not a substance, or a separate object, or entity.
a label ? :D
brain is not a label?
specific material interaction, how specific ? mayeb you can explain the magic here?
cogito ergo sum: consciousness is somethign beyond perception while a brain is a perception.
don't you agree that brain is a perception?
we do not perceive it?
Only if someone could offer a credible alternative. I offer the brain as the source of consciousness, you offer nothing.
I offered:
1) cogito ergosum => consciousness exists
2) everything else is perception
3) all perceptions exist in consciousnes or only yours
=> so your life and your world has to be perceived.
it is an explanation, simple, no contraditction, no assumption more than consciousness exist which is proved by our own experience.
mis-t-highs
06-22-08, 12:08 PM
Cris don't you think it is a waste of time. he throws the same argument back at you, even though you've refute it, he quotes Latin as if he knows it's meaning. and keeps SPAGing, as if he is the one and only. Tedious in the extreme.
Cris don't you think it is a waste of time. he throws the same argument back at you, even though you've refute it, he quotes Latin as if he knows it's meaning. and keeps SPAGing, as if he is the one and only. Tedious in the extreme.
First Cris did not refute my arguments, he just said his arguments and say that there is no alternative while there are many including the one I present.
second, why do you keep entering the debate without even giving arguments?
I told you you have two choices:
give arguments or leave
he is the one and only, what do you mean by that?
My view is not SPAG (self perception as god has nothing to do with my view, you just show that you do not understand the point)
1) cogito ergosum => consciousness exists
2) everything else is perception
3) all perceptions exist in consciousnes or only yours
=> so your life and your world has to be perceived.
it is an explanation, simple, no contraditction, no assumption more than consciousness exist which is proved by our own experience.It's an explanation, certainly, but one that is unscientific, unfalsifiable, unprovable and adds nothing to our understanding of what you would consider "what we perceive".
Much like solipsism.
It's an explanation, certainly, but one that is unscientific, unfalsifiable, unprovable and adds nothing to our understanding of what you would consider "what we perceive".
Much like solipsism.
unfalsifiable, I agree, because it is true ;)
unscientific, yes because science is the study of perception,
unprovable, no, it is provable but you have to forgot your ego.
please note that scientific explanation are based on empiricism so cannot be justified because we could be in a dream, perceptions are indeed unreliable,
Furthermore, it assumes the existence of matter behind our perception, this is not justified.
now compare.
unprovable, no, it is provable but you have to forgot your ego.Please explain how it is not unprovable?
please note that scientific explanation are based on empiricism so cannot be justified because we could be in a dream, perceptions are indeed unreliable,
Furthermore, it assumes the existence of matter behind our perception, this is not justified.Like I said - it is a pointless and ultimately meaningless position and adds nothing to understanding.
It is the same as talking about a big bowl of pasta that might happen to reside outside the Universe, and whether the sauce is Carbonara or Bolagnese.
Please explain how it is not unprovable?
Meditate about yourself,
You are always changing: your existence is instantaneous while consciousness is always there. cogito ergosum (not a proof?)
Your perception of changes are the proof:
no consciousness no perception
Like I said - it is a pointless and ultimately meaningless position and adds nothing to understanding.
It is the same as talking about a big bowl of pasta that might happen to reside outside the Universe, and whether the sauce is Carbonara or Bolagnese.
exactly, while consciousness exists for sure :)
mis-t-highs
06-23-08, 07:47 AM
First Cris did not refute my arguments, he just said his arguments and say that there is no alternative while there are many including the one I present.
second, why do you keep entering the debate without even giving arguments?
I told you you have two choices:
give arguments or leave
he is the one and only, what do you mean by that?
My view is not SPAG (self perception as god has nothing to do with my view, you just show that you do not understand the point)There is really no point in putting forward an arguement, as nothing you have said is even close to being a worthy of debate, there are three main reasons for this, not logical, not intelligible, and not sensible.
It is SPAG simply because you believe this is how God/consciousness (your comparison not mine) is, however you have no way of showing this to be true, so it is pure SPAG.
Using Latin and give false meaning just make you look foolish, as I pointed out to you, by posting up you own words, according to you none of us exist, we are all mere perception of God/consciousness.
Wake up call we aren't living the matrix.
Your the one and only, because you keep SPAGing yourself to be the one that knows.
There is a soul because matter can exist in all kinds of different states (fire, wind, water, earth, ether, astral, mental, spiritual). States that we can't see with our physical eyes or technology. But things in those states are nevertheless as real and "physical" as the things in this world.
Ancient people (like the ones who wrote the religious scriptures) could see spirits, that's how we know they exist, even though most of us can't see them. We have faith in them, like we have faith in all other scientists.
That we have an astral body is no more strange than the fact that we have this 'physical' body.
And I'm assuming you have more to support this claim than mere confidence?
mis-t,
Cris don't you think it is a waste of time. he throws the same argument back at you, even though you've refute it, he quotes Latin as if he knows it's meaning. and keeps SPAGing, as if he is the one and only. Tedious in the extreme.Agreed. A waste of time responding.
There is really no point in putting forward an arguement, as nothing you have said is even close to being a worthy of debate, there are three main reasons for this, not logical, not intelligible, and not sensible.
not logical: point out the falacy
not intelligible: your problem
not sensible: on the contrary, it has important consequences for our life.
cogito ergo sum is not the original sentence, Descartes used to write in french: "je pense donc je suis" meaning "I think therefore I am"
in the context thinking was referring to consciousness.:
when you doubt all your perception, you cannot doubt what makes perception possible : consciousness.
so consciousness exists. I think you agree
then because of the fact that we can not justify anything else, it is a less extravagant claim to say that consciousness alone exist.
and more importantly it suffice to explain all perceptions.
on the other hand the scientific claim of the existence of matter is pure fantasy because it is not justified.
It is SPAG simply because you believe this is how God/consciousness (your comparison not mine) is, however you have no way of showing this to be true, so it is pure SPAG.
SPAG is Self Perception As God
It is your bullshit.
Using Latin and give false meaning just make you look foolish, as I pointed out to you, by posting up you own words, according to you none of us exist, we are all mere perception of God/consciousness.
false meaning ?
are you just referring to the word god?
please forgot, use consciousness if you want, the claim does not change
we exist but as perceptions. not as a soul like you probably think even if you say that the soul (individual consciousness) arise from the brain. This is not justified. Cris could not, can you?
Wake up call we aren't living the matrix.
No we are perceptions
Your the one and only, because you keep SPAGing yourself to be the one that knows.
No I am not the only one, I just defend a view shared by many that you are not even capable of understanding and even less fighting.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.