so i was listening to an athiest-vs-christian argument, and what came up was the soul.

the athiest said something, from which the christian used against him. Here's what the christian used and said:

"'make an exception when it comes to the brain, no the chemical processes are NOT forced... they don't move forward, inorexably you have some sort of immaterial control over them,' and that really sounds like a soul or spirit to me"

i've seen/heard this more than once lately, where the one who argues for christianity uses the term "immaterial control" for reason, which leads to our behaviour/personality.


would you guys agree?

i really can't grasp why i haven't seen athiests argue against this point!
in my years of study, i've learned how genetics, brain development, and general growth leads to the personality of a human being!

as far as i can see, there is no "soul" to represent our personality behind the body.

our personality is a mere reflection of our biology!


ps
is there any other information that would identify the soul?

in relation to the subject (sorta),

scientists have managed to teleport an atom.
but their teleportation isn't really teleportation (like star trek).
rather, it is an instant replication of the atom in a different location, while the real atom is destroyed.

if somehow, scientists progress to a form of teleportation for humans and say it was me who decided to teleport.

the issue is that I myself am destroyed in the process.
so the real me is destroyed, while a new one of me is replicated instantaneously in a new location... but it isn't me. however,
he does everything the same fashion that i would do, even has the
same memory as me.

in essence, a perfect replica of me, but the real me is destroyed.

what's the case for the soul here?

so i was listening to an athiest-vs-christian argument, and what came up was the soul.

the athiest said something, from which the christian used against him. Here's what the christian used and said:

"'make an exception when it comes to the brain, no the chemical processes are NOT forced... they don't move forward, inorexably you have some sort of immaterial control over them,' and that really sounds like a soul or spirit to me"

i've seen/heard this more than once lately, where the one who argues for christianity uses the term "immaterial control" for reason, which leads to our behaviour/personality. welcome to sciforums a step in the right direction.

firstly the issue of the soul has been refuted on numerous occasion on this site.
here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45636)
here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60398)
etc etc.
you could try getting answers from these, however I must ask do you understand what immaterial actually means, as it seems not. the arguement is flawed, that which is immaterial, can have no control over anything material, unless it is, or becomes material.i really can't grasp why i haven't seen athiests argue against this point!probably because you haven't been here.
in my years of study, i've learned how genetics, brain development, and general growth leads to the personality of a human being!

as far as i can see, there is no "soul" to represent our personality behind the body. and you are perfectly correct.
is there any other information that would identify the soul?none.

welcome to sciforums a step in the right direction.

firstly the issue of the soul has been refuted on numerous occasion on this site.
here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45636)
here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60398)
etc etc.
you could try getting answers from these, however I must ask do you understand what immaterial actually means, as it seems not. the arguement is flawed, that which is immaterial, can have no control over anything material, unless it is, or becomes material.probably because you haven't been here. and you are perfectly correct.none.
I think what you miss is that he is addressing the awareness that enables life as the soul and not the physical counterparts of corporeal existence (which are insufficient to be established as the cause of life)

welcome to sciforums a step in the right direction.

firstly the issue of the soul has been refuted on numerous occasion on this site.
etc etc. you could try getting answers from these,

thanks! not many replies here, i suppose for good reason.
still trying to figure the jist of this forum as a noob. :p

however I must ask do you understand what immaterial actually means, as it seems not. the arguement is flawed, that which is immaterial, can have no control over anything material,

i understand what you're saying with the proper definition of immaterial.

however, my interpretation of the term's use was that
the immaterial control is the soul; the soul is immaterial according to the christian.
and even if it was a misused term, the reason for my interpretation is because the christian further summed the argument up with the soul conducting control through reason, and moreover conducting through to behaviour.

the case in point wasn't the definition, but rather in the context.

ps. i'll check links. gracias.

I think this is another case of God of the gaps. Any gap in scientific knowledge is percieved as a place God's control can enter. There can be brain controlling mechanisms based on information. Perhaps each hemisphere controls the other. Why is it that with one hemisphere removed, a person can still live, apparently fairly normally. Is the soul present in the half that was removed or the half that remains?

I think this is another case of God of the gaps. Any gap in scientific knowledge is percieved as a place God's control can enter. There can be brain controlling mechanisms based on information. Perhaps each hemisphere controls the other. Why is it that with one hemisphere removed, a person can still live, apparently fairly normally. Is the soul present in the half that was removed or the half that remains?

Its more a question of whats the difference between a dead person and a living person sincethey are composed of the exact same organic structure

is there any other information that would identify the soul?
this one www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

Its more a question of whats the difference between a dead person and a living person sincethey are composed of the exact same organic structure

Not exactly.

Not exactly.
then please tell what compound a living person has that a dead person does not (and then you can sell it and make lots of money bringing dead people back to life)

I think this is another case of God of the gaps. Any gap in scientific knowledge is percieved as a place God's control can enter. There can be brain controlling mechanisms based on information. Perhaps each hemisphere controls the other. Why is it that with one hemisphere removed, a person can still live, apparently fairly normally. Is the soul present in the half that was removed or the half that remains?

well, one notices that there are detrimental effects when a hemisphere removed. the half-hemisphere human being, of course, would be able to live almost normally. the reason for the detrimental effects are obvious, when it comes to studying the brain.
moreover, i think the brain also tries to adapt over time.
like i said before, how the individual behaves/acts/responds is a direct reflection of biology.

and when the brain is suffering alzheimer's...
the patient often suffers extreme personality change.
where the hell is the soul there?

and when the brain is suffering alzheimer's...
the patient often suffers extreme personality change.
where the hell is the soul there?
the conceived self undergoes a change but not the self as context

then please tell what compound a living person has that a dead person does not (and then you can sell it and make lots of money bringing dead people back to life)

There might be some, but that's not what I was thinking about. The body only stops working for certain functional reasons. The difference between a car that's running and a car that's off is certain conditions that aren't being met that characterize a running car (or a living being).

There might be some, but that's not what I was thinking about. The body only stops working for certain functional reasons. The difference between a car that's running and a car that's off is certain conditions that aren't being met that characterize a running car (or a living being).
the key one being that if there is no driver, the car doesn't run at all, no matter in how good a condition it is mechanically

then please tell what compound a living person has that a dead person does not (and then you can sell it and make lots of money bringing dead people back to life)
It's usually the dead people that have the extra bits - clots and fluid that shouldn't be there.
the key one being that if there is no driver, the car doesn't run at all, no matter in how good a condition it is mechanically
The driver being a functioning brain?

It's usually the dead people that have the extra bits - clots and fluid that shouldn't be there.
chemically its still the same bag of jolliness

as for the brain, it doesn't leave the building when a person dies either

Everyone dies for the same perfectly good physiological reason: lack of oxygen. Why mystify this unnecessarily?

the conceived self undergoes a change but not the self as context

hmm that's a good one.
okay so we undergo a subject of consciousness?
that one is always debatable for the soul, i suppose.

in terms of consciousness, i believe that that consciousness is a result of information filtration for purposes of survival.

Everyone dies for the same perfectly good physiological reason: lack of oxygen. Why mystify this unnecessarily?
I wasn't aware there was a shortage of oxegyn (except perhaps in NYC)

hmm that's a good one.
okay so we undergo a subject of consciousness?
that one is always debatable for the soul, i suppose.

in terms of consciousness, i believe that that consciousness is a result of information filtration for purposes of survival.
then what are the information filtration processes of a rock?

i used to think that if there was a soul,
it would be the pilot of the brain in itself,
and if something in the brain fucked up, or if a body mechanism fucked up,

the soul cannot control it properly.


the issue that leads me to doubt this, however, is the fact that the more i look into the science of the body and how we behave, the more i learn that disproves something about it.

what was previously said about it... proven false.

the idea of the soul was provided by someone who made it up with presumptions.
unless you follow the word of god.


if there is something else behind strict biology, i wouldn't call it a soul either.
that again, just seems to presumptious to me. i believe that if there is some sort of force behind the living, then it is a result of an explanation of reason.
a reason within limits, excepting that limits are beyond what we know now.
this force may not be living, but may even be a dimensional imprint from our life; just bullshit things up.
if it seems plausible that i left a dimensional imprint in time, which leads to an image that seems like a spirit or ghost, that would shut down the idea of a soul? especially if the ghost has the idea of "i" in it, but remains in that area until god knows what, and just disappears into atoms.
the idea of its being plausible, but all the same given the knowledge that i just bullshitted that, and could keep on rolling with information...
makes me think that the soul is bullshit too.

then what are the information filtration processes of a rock?

hrm, from a human perspective?
strictly environment.
if i'm going to move somewhere, i need to know where objects are.
or perhaps, a place of a potential seating place, etc.
what use of the rock may i have for it?

may i have to watch out for it, if i have to run?

pardon the language. :D

It's more a question of what's the difference between a dead person and a living person since they are composed of the exact same organic structure.No they are not. It is like the difference between a "living house" and a "dead house," i.e. a disorganized pile of bricks. In a dead human the disorganization is simply too fine at first to observe with our senses. But tissues are beginning to lose their cellular integrity from lack of oxygen and, most critically, the synapses in the brain have irretrievably lost their polarity after a few minutes without oxygen. In other words, the thoughts, memories, instincts and character are gone: everything that makes a person not just a person but a specific person, instead of a hunk of DNA. The dead body (not a "dead person") lacks the key elements of organic structure that differentiates it from a living person.

To me, a person's soul is simply his personality separate from all input and reference. Take a human mind, cut of its 5 senses, and erase it's memory (cerebellum too). There will still remain a part of the mind that is responsible for your basic instincts, drives and preferences. That's my definiton of the soul.

Note: My definition is still based on material components of the brain.

Well this in interesting argument...

The atheistic can use the neural-correlate argument by which neural processes directly correlate to memory, experiences, etc....to equate the mind, soul, brain as the samething.

However, the theist can mix Quantum Mechanics into it, claiming that there must be something independant of matter behind the brain because of the results of the double-slit experiment, in other words the cause cannot be the brain made of matter, because it is in superposition until observed (so the observer isn't made of matter).

The theist can also argue that neurologists have yet to understand consciousness...but thats not really a good argument

The theist can also argue

as for the brain, it doesn't leave the building when a person dies eitherneither does a car engine, leave the car, when it stops working.
when a car is dead, no amount of drivers are going to get it working.
so a driver is irrelevant, unless everything is functioning.
the driver[key] is only needed for the initial spark, much like your mum and dad, once the car has been started provided its fed and looked after it will keep working until it wears out.

in relation to the subject (sorta),

scientists have managed to teleport an atom.
but their teleportation isn't really teleportation (like star trek).
rather, it is an instant replication of the atom in a different location, while the real atom is destroyed.

if somehow, scientists progress to a form of teleportation for humans and say it was me who decided to teleport.

the issue is that I myself am destroyed in the process.
so the real me is destroyed, while a new one of me is replicated instantaneously in a new location... but it isn't me. however,
he does everything the same fashion that i would do, even has the
same memory as me.

in essence, a perfect replica of me, but the real me is destroyed.

what's the case for the soul here?Only one way to find out...

hrm, from a human perspective?
strictly environment.
if i'm going to move somewhere, i need to know where objects are.
or perhaps, a place of a potential seating place, etc.
what use of the rock may i have for it?

may i have to watch out for it, if i have to run?
the point is that a rock doesn't have consciousness - have you ever heard of anyone exploiting rocks by treating them in inhumane ways?

No they are not. It is like the difference between a "living house" and a "dead house," i.e. a disorganized pile of bricks. In a dead human the disorganization is simply too fine at first to observe with our senses. But tissues are beginning to lose their cellular integrity from lack of oxygen and, most critically, the synapses in the brain have irretrievably lost their polarity after a few minutes without oxygen. In other words, the thoughts, memories, instincts and character are gone: everything that makes a person not just a person but a specific person, instead of a hunk of DNA. The dead body (not a "dead person") lacks the key elements of organic structure that differentiates it from a living person.
interesting the actual distinction between a pile of bricks and a house is a living person - like for insatnce if someone asked how was a house built and the reply was 'actually its just a pile of randomly placed bricks" they wouldn't believe them

neither does a car engine, leave the car, when it stops working.
when a car is dead, no amount of drivers are going to get it working.
wrong
a a car mechanic can fix it - but no amount of functioning engines can solve the problem of not having a driver


so a driver is irrelevant, unless everything is functioning.
the driver has the possibility to instigate functionability - without the driver, the car has no possibility of functioning


the driver[key] is only needed for the initial spark, much like your mum and dad, once the car has been started provided its fed and looked after it will keep working until it wears out.
therefore you see that life comes from life and not dull matter, much like cars move because of sentient intelligence and not a well maintained engine (the engine is necessary but not sufficient - the driver is both necessary and sufficient)

wrongrubbish you do talks some rot, please try and show you have at least an ounce of intelligence.
a car mechanic can fix it not a right off, he cant.but no amount of functioning engines can solve the problem of not having a driver we're not talking about functioning engines, dead ones, yes. drivers are irrelevant.the driver has the possibility to instigate functionability - without the driver, the car has no possibility of functioning.with the help of a key, just like your mum needed your dad to instigate you.therefore you see that life comes from life, life is formed from life, but the spark that original ignited it is another story at the moment. the driver is both necessary and sufficient)however if the engine of a car was infact a brain, you could teach it to run by itself, without the need of a driver, this is why human babies are not born as adults.

therefore you see that life comes from life and not dull matter

I think you need to define what 'life' is before you engage in such a debate.

chemically its still the same bag of jollinessYou keep using the same old tired argument.
Following your argument, water is just the same bag of jolliness as a mixture of two parts gaseous Hydrogen to one part gaseous Oxygen (by number of molecules).
And if you're dying of thirst - just breath in a lungful of air - it contains both Hydrogen and Oxygen! You should be just dandy!

What's missing in this scenario?
Are the two (Water on one side and the gasses on the other) really just the "same bag of jolliness"?

What's missing?

Is graphite "still the same bag of jolliness" as diamond?
What's missing between the two? Afterall, one is very hard, the other surprisingly soft. But hey! It's all the same bag of jolliness.


WHEN WILL YOU EVER LEARN THAT A DEAD BODY IS NOT THE SAME AS A LIVING BODY ON A CHEMICAL LEVEL.

Cells break down.
Irreversible chemical reactions occur.
Totality of the breakdowns = DEATH.

In biological terms, the 'driver' is part of the bodywork. I hate to state the obvious to you fairyists.

geeser
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
wrong
”
rubbish you do talks some rot, please try and show you have at least an ounce of intelligence.
and displays of ad homs do justice?
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a car mechanic can fix it
”
not a right off, he cant.
why not?
If you ever travel to third world countries you can see first hand how there is no such thing as a written off car (since labour is deemed more cheaper than manufactured goods)
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but no amount of functioning engines can solve the problem of not having a driver
”
we're not talking about functioning engines, dead ones, yes. drivers are irrelevant.
“
the point is that a driver, especially if he is a mechanically astute, can take a car from its status of disrepair to moving locomotion and that no number of mechanically sound vehicles or their constitutent parts can induce locomotion in a driverless vehicle

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the driver has the possibility to instigate functionability - without the driver, the car has no possibility of functioning.
”
with the help of a key,
not necessarily - people steal cars at every second without keys - another example of something that is no sufficient I'm afraid

just like your mum needed your dad to instigate you.
but they need to be alive to be successful
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
therefore you see that life comes from life,
”
life is formed from life, but the spark that original ignited it is another story at the moment.
you brought it up with the mother/father thing? My point is that dull matter cannot act independant of consciousness - two people uniting to produce a child is evidence for this, not against it
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the driver is both necessary and sufficient)
”
however if the engine of a car was infact a brain, you could teach it to run by itself,
a dead person also has a brain - what prevents you from teaching them?

without the need of a driver, this is why human babies are not born as adults.
its not clear what argument you are making?
that infants suffer from a lesser self of context or begin life without consciousness and somehow develop it later by dint of the brain or something?

I think you need to define what 'life' is before you engage in such a debate.
inspect a dead man
inspect a living man


get back to us with your observations

You keep using the same old tired argument.
Following your argument, water is just the same bag of jolliness as a mixture of two parts gaseous Hydrogen to one part gaseous Oxygen (by number of molecules).

if something can be constructed out of its base properties, you have eveything you need - similarly to say that life is material begs the q why life does not form when every material requirement for its existence is met and why life ceases in the presenceof such a fully equipped environment

And if you're dying of thirst - just breath in a lungful of air - it contains both Hydrogen and Oxygen! You should be just dandy!
yes - for some living entities that is a possibility

What's missing in this scenario?
Are the two (Water on one side and the gasses on the other) really just the "same bag of jolliness"?

What's missing?

Is graphite "still the same bag of jolliness" as diamond?
What's missing between the two? Afterall, one is very hard, the other surprisingly soft. But hey! It's all the same bag of jolliness.


WHEN WILL YOU EVER LEARN THAT A DEAD BODY IS NOT THE SAME AS A LIVING BODY ON A CHEMICAL LEVEL.
what is the chemical difference?

Cells break down.
cells are not chemicals

Irreversible chemical reactions occur.
then the question is "why" since you advocate that life is essentially dull matter to begin with - what chemicals does a living person have that a dead person doesn't? Why can't dead persons be revived or persons expectant of death be saved by applying these chemicals?
Totality of the breakdowns = DEATH.
so since everyone knows they will die, why don't they keep a stock pile of living person chemicals on hand to avoid this scenario?

In biological terms, the 'driver' is part of the bodywork. I hate to state the obvious to you fairyists.
then please tell what is the biological evidence of this driver - it certainly doesn't appear to be revealed by reductionist theories of molecules, neurons and electrons - unless of course you want to attribute the fairy tale status to science (commonly known as sci-fi, and a boundary that is frequently traversed on site like this)

then please tell what is the biological evidence of this driver - it certainly doesn't appear to be revealed by reductionist theories of molecules, neurons and electrons - unless of course you want to attribute the fairy tale status to science (commonly known as sci-fi, and a boundary that is frequently traversed on site like this)

it's a partial driver.
there's no doubt behind that.
i mean, the simple case of a reflex to pain is a clear and concise example of that.
in addition, the nature of dna is biological evidence.
stem cells in the bone marrow?
there's another one.

what else, blood...
the leukocytes are the the full-blown eukaryotes of blood's buffy coat layer.
they attack foreign objects. and the type of leukocytes vary depending on the foreign material. much of their actions have nothing to do with our personality, but they act on their own terms.


in terms of personality-driving properties... an error in the dna, that creates an issue with the body, which leads to properties of our personality, behaviour, and everything that may seem to be the soul, but in reality is the effect on our brain to adapt.

of course, a theist may argue that the soul is adapting itself, as it's the pilot of the body, but can't quite control what happens, hence adapation.
but i think the biology of us is far too mechanical.

maybe i wasn't too clear on what you meant though. but the body certainly does have a drive for the us.

if something can be constructed out of its base properties, you have eveything you need - similarly to say that life is material begs the q why life does not form when every material requirement for its existence is met and why life ceases in the presenceof such a fully equipped environment

what is the chemical difference?

well for starters, the heart stopped working. or there's been an issue in the brain. or perhaps a disease, virus, etc., totally messed up a bodily process that lead to death.

cells are not chemicals

to be specific, an example of the red blood cell...
it is 97% hemoglobin without water.
meaning that the RBC has lots of iron (Fe), a heme portion, and a globin portion.
the globin are grouped up amino acids, while the heme portion will attach to albumin when the red blood cell dies and turn into bile.
..
or the fact that we carbon-based.

then the question is "why" since you advocate that life is essentially dull matter to begin with - what chemicals does a living person have that a dead person doesn't? Why can't dead persons be revived or persons expectant of death be saved by applying these chemicals?

dead persons can be revived, depending on how far into clinical death they're in. 4 minutes of oxygen-deprivation before the brain starts dying!


so since everyone knows they will die, why don't they keep a stock pile of living person chemicals on hand to avoid this scenario?

that's a question of the ability to attach the nerves to every part of the body properly, without a scratch, and ever-so-perfectly.. to be blunt.

the point is that a rock doesn't have consciousness - have you ever heard of anyone exploiting rocks by treating them in inhumane ways?

well, rocks are mere forms of geography.
they don't feel pain, because they aren't living.

plants may not feel pain, but they're living, and can certainly sense a harmful touch.
so one can see that some ferns, for example, retract (as if in pain) when hit.

and to add to information processes...
that was for the brain.
we are living, and we want to live as a biological being.
i still can't really grasp how the soul has to do with filtering information processes.
filtering information processes helps to keep us sane.

it's a partial driver.
just like the engine is the partial driver of a car, but the actual driver is the pilot
there's no doubt behind that.
i mean, the simple case of a reflex to pain is a clear and concise example of that.
it just indicates an information system
in addition, the nature of dna is biological evidence.
stem cells in the bone marrow?
there's another one.
again just the chemical information life utilizes - dna is not life

what else, blood...
the leukocytes are the the full-blown eukaryotes of blood's buffy coat layer.
they attack foreign objects. and the type of leukocytes vary depending on the foreign material. much of their actions have nothing to do with our personality, but they act on their own terms.

and the brake fluid of a car also has its application - as does the oil, the radiator and the water pump etc etc

in terms of personality-driving properties... an error in the dna, that creates an issue with the body, which leads to properties of our personality, behaviour, and everything that may seem to be the soul, but in reality is the effect on our brain to adapt.
the soul is more than just a mere personality - it is the 'amness" of "I think therefore I am"

of course, a theist may argue that the soul is adapting itself, as it's the pilot of the body, but can't quite control what happens, hence adapation.
but i think the biology of us is far too mechanical.
at last I wouldn't argue like that - seems you are confusing the conceived self (how we awarded a greater or lesser mode of life according to environment) as the same as teh self as context (the nature of being alive, distinct from being dead)

maybe i wasn't too clear on what you meant though. but the body certainly does have a drive for the us.
thats why I used the car analogy - it also has its system of locomotion - bu tthe most integral element is the driver himself, without which, even the most perfectly mainatined vehicle will remain motionless

well, rocks are mere forms of geography.
they don't feel pain, because they aren't living.

plants may not feel pain, but they're living, and can certainly sense a harmful touch.
so one can see that some ferns, for example, retract (as if in pain) when hit.
therefore plants have life and rocks do not - it also explains why the bodies of dead people are just like rocks

When a battery runs out of "juice" or shorts out, what's the functional difference between the good battery vs the "dead" battery?

When a battery runs out of "juice" or shorts out, what's the functional difference between the good battery vs the "dead" battery?
the dead battery requires re-juicing, which can be applied at any stage of the process of becoming juiceless
If life could be rejuiced in a similar fashion, the argument that life is a material phenomena would be evidential as opposed to theoretical

the dead battery requires re-juicing, which can be applied at any stage of the process of becoming juiceless
If life could be rejuiced in a similar fashion, the argument that life is a material phenomena would be evidential as opposed to theoretical
It can. People have been dead for many minutes and "re-juiced". A lithium battery can not be "re-juiced". It's born, it serves a useful purpose, then it dies. Does it have a soul? If not, by what measure do you determine this to be the case?

the reason why i went so specific, is because
there are so many processes and issues that happen in the body,
that it goes with adaptation.

everything we do, everything that happens to us influences our mind, which creates our personality. how we behave, etc.
being schizophrenic is a multifactorial trait, for example.
it's in your genes. it can change you.
you have all the factors for it, but you need this extra process to make it happen... to change your personality.
so you smoke too much weed one day,
and voila you're schizophrenic and thinking delusionally, being ridiculously happy, and at times thinking just thinking radically.

-------------------------------------------------------

when you talk to someone, say a friend.
you're talking to him in a manner in which you believe you're being completely yourself.
and you are.

but you find yourself talking to another friend talking in a totally different manner, but you're believing you're being completely yourself.
and you are.

and you do this when you're by yourself. you're being yourself, and you really are.

and then look into it, you find that you really ARE yourself the whole time with yourself, and the two very good friends you have.

and you find that, wow i'm a good adapter.
you look at the conscience, and notice, man it must shift though.
you're behaving in matters of adaptation in order to survive,
you're learning how to survive.
the gift of the easy, unnoticeable shifts of mind, doesn't happen to everyone,
not because of the soul, but your biological make up.
how were you raised? how are you genes?
dahdahdah.

----------------------------------------------------------

monozygotic twins... 100% similar dna.
separated with different adopting parents.
the twins have many of the same gestures, movements, behaviours to each other.
in essence, at this point of young age, before they hit more influential stages in their life, they're very similar in personality.
it's as if they're the same soul!

but you know, they live their environment (one is popular and wealthy, another is the opposite), and their personalities separate.
they're totally different.

from the odd occurence of meeting each other every few years.
they find they used to love each other, but in the end despise each other.

genes and the environment developing the personalities here.
the idea of a soul here is awkard, whereas
the personality seems to make much more sense when it comes to discussing multifactorial questions aka genes and environment.

It can. People have been dead for many minutes and "re-juiced". A lithium battery can not be "re-juiced". It's born, it serves a useful purpose, then it dies. Does it have a soul? If not, by what measure do you determine this to be the case?
the battery thing is not an argument for the soul - it is an argument about the soul's non -existence - as for humans being rejuiced, its more an issue of medical practioners and the like being totally bewildered and being delivered an unexpected result, rather than the process of applying a process to get a result (which is what science is) - in other words when a dead person comes back to life it is an issue of undetermined variables coming into play as opposed to scientific proceedure (sometimes people wake up in the morgue)

therefore plants have life and rocks do not - it also explains why the bodies of dead people are just like rocks


ahhh!
so tell me the relation of this to the soul argument.
i'm confused!

good debate, i'll be back tomorrow or later tonight.
i gotta get back to my studies. a;sdlkfj

the battery thing is not an argument for the soul - it is an argument about the soul's non -existence - as for humans being rejuiced, its more an issue of medical practioners and the like being totally bewildered and being delivered an unexpected result, rather than the process of applying a process to get a result (which is what science is) - in other words when a dead person comes back to life it is an issue of undetermined variables coming into play as opposed to scientific proceedure (sometimes people wake up in the morgue)
When someone has cardiac arrest, doctors use a well established process to restart the heart.

therefore plants have life and rocks do not - it also explains why the bodies of dead people are just like rocks

Just out of curiosity, would you say fire is "alive?"

It's funny. Every time I "debate" with LG it proves that he is a selfish coward. He will never pursue a logical line of questioning to it's conclusion. He always dismisses the questions when they start to lead somewhere he dosen't want to go. Poor, intellectually fraudulent LG.

Aye..

Just out of curiosity, would you say fire is "alive?"
No - Matter is essentially an insentient substrate from which temporary forms can be constructed by atomic combinations

It's funny. Every time I "debate" with LG it proves that he is a selfish coward. He will never pursue a logical line of questioning to it's conclusion. He always dismisses the questions when they start to lead somewhere he dosen't want to go. Poor, intellectually fraudulent LG.
therefore I assert that logic has its limitations - if it didn't there would be no need for prac

No - Matter is essentially an insentient substrate from which temporary forms can be constructed by atomic combinations

Of course, this is a complete bullshit answer. So are you saying you aren't comprised of matter?

I dont think you even need to invoke a soul to supose that the human mind is part of something larger than itself.
The universe work's in a series of systems and sub-systems, theres no reason to believe that humans and human society isnt part of something bigger.
We're all essentially part of the huge fuck off entity that is 'the universe' and if you can forget youre human for long enough it will become apparent.
Shit, if a human cell could reason it would most likely argue reason that it was a singular individual and argue with anyone who dared to suggest that it was actually a small cog in much larger sentient whole.

just like the engine is the partial driver of a car, but the actual driver is the pilot
yesh, the brain!
i suppose yours is the soul!

it just indicates an information system

yes, indeed, but nevertheless it shows it has a drive of its own.
pain reflex in that the spine reacts before the brain does.

again just the chemical information life utilizes - dna is not life
dna is a huge factor in influencing life!
that's how we evolve!
from metazoan worms to crawling beings to humans!
that's how we die of cancer!
how's there to say it isn't life?
it pretty much structures our life.

and the brake fluid of a car also has its application - as does the oil, the radiator and the water pump etc etc

:) i was being annoyingly specific. cells are chemicals! which makes everything about us chemicals, and products of their reactions!


the soul is more than just a mere personality - it is the 'amness" of "I think therefore I am"

i realise that, to me that's the brain.
and as said before, the "amness" being the information filtration process to keep us at at a good adaptive stance in nature.


at last I wouldn't argue like that - seems you are confusing the conceived self (how we awarded a greater or lesser mode of life according to environment) as the same as teh self as context (the nature of being alive, distinct from being dead)

nature of being alive, is a reflection of what i'm saying.


thats why I used the car analogy - it also has its system of locomotion - bu tthe most integral element is the driver himself, without which, even the most perfectly mainatined vehicle will remain motionless

i used to think that, with the whole I, amness, and whatnot.
but i there is a better explanation for it, and it is straightforward to me.
the driver itself is a working machine, not the soul.
the driver this the driver that.
what are the mechanics of the driver?
that's our brain!
the brain drives the body!
but the brain needs the body to survive!
i mean, the brain takes up most of our glucose intake anyway. :p

I also believe dividing the universe into 'living' and non-living matter is the a really pointless and foolish exercise.
Theres no magical point at which dead matter non-sentient matter suddenly takes on the quality of 'aliveness'.

Of course, this is a complete bullshit answer.
another emmotional response from yours truly
:rolleyes:

So are you saying you aren't comprised of matter?
no - I am saying life comes from life, as opposed to the reassembling of inert atomic particles

I also believe dividing the universe into 'living' and non-living matter is the a really pointless and foolish exercise.
Theres no magical point at which dead matter non-sentient matter suddenly takes on the quality of 'aliveness'.
its not clear what your stance is - that there is no essential distinction between life and matter?

I dont think you even need to invoke a soul to supose that the human mind is part of something larger than itself.
The universe work's in a series of systems and sub-systems, theres no reason to believe that humans and human society isnt part of something bigger.
We're all essentially part of the huge fuck off entity that is 'the universe' and if you can forget youre human for long enough it will become apparent.
Shit, if a human cell could reason it would most likely argue reason that it was a singular individual and argue with anyone who dared to suggest that it was actually a small cog in much larger sentient whole.

i second the human cell thing.
to use an analogy...
a leukocyte can reason what not to attack, and what to attack.
but the say the myeloblasts fuck up, and now the human is inflicted with leukemia.
uh oh.
the leukocytes have lost their reason!

the brain works together similarly, and as a whole, reasons.
but say the brain fucks up, and you think delusionally and cannot thinking reasonably.
uh oh,
he's gone insane!

i apply the soul to this,
we might as well have a ridiculous amount of driving souls.
they drive the leukocytes, but the cell is fucked up!
with reason must mean i?
you wouldn't think that, because they have no brain.
they dont think on their own.
but they can reason!
tahthathatah

okay i really have to get back studing. a;sdlkfj

another emmotional response from yours truly

Funny. I didn't feel any emotion. If you're referring to the word "bullshit," this is simply the most apt and parsimonious description of your response. Or, perhaps by "yours truly" you meant that in the sense one would close a note or letter.


no - I am saying life comes from life, as opposed to the reassembling of inert atomic particles

Fire is *not* inert. It is very reactive. It breathes oxygen. It consumes fuel. It reproduces. In fact, I would bet that any legitimate definition of "alive" you can come up with, I can say fire is alive.

its not clear what your stance is - that there is no essential distinction between life and matter?
Sort of, or rather i dont believe theres much point in arguing anything inbetween 'everything is dead' or 'everything is alive'.

there is no essential distinction between life and matter?

Mycoplasma genitalium is probably the simplest modern life form that we know of today. It has a genome of only 400 units..

So Light, what is it at 350? 300? Where exactly is that "essential distinction"? When does a puppy become a dog?

"At what point do we say something is a life form and not just a chemical reaction that causes molecules to replicate?"

Well?

skinwalker
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
another emmotional response from yours truly
”
Funny. I didn't feel any emotion. If you're referring to the word "bullshit," this is simply the most apt and parsimonious description of your response. Or, perhaps by "yours truly" you meant that in the sense one would close a note or letter.
your posts hardly ring of dispassion
;)


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no - I am saying life comes from life, as opposed to the reassembling of inert atomic particles
”
Fire is *not* inert. It is very reactive. It breathes oxygen. It consumes fuel. It reproduces. In fact, I would bet that any legitimate definition of "alive" you can come up with, I can say fire is alive.
fire is however is a temporary form from an insentient substrate constructed by atomic combinations

Sort of, or rather i dont believe theres much point in arguing anything inbetween 'everything is dead' or 'everything is alive'.
so what is the problem withthe idea that there is a distinction between life and matter - in other words adopting a dualistic approach to the phenomenal world

Mycoplasma genitalium is probably the simplest modern life form that we know of today. It has a genome of only 400 units..

So Light, what is it at 350? 300? Where exactly is that "essential distinction"?

the essential distinction is not one of size or scale but of quality

Here is one offerred by a Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry)

MATTER

1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (material) energy
3. Eternal
4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent
5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose


LIFE

1. The superior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy
3. Eternal
4. Non -physical and non-chemical
5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose

He also offers th e phenomena by which we can detect the difference between matter and matter associated with life --like a dead tree and a living tree

Matter by itself

1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)

Matter associated with Life

1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles

When does a puppy become a dog?
a puppy is quite an arbitrary designation - states of death and life are quite clear cut
there are three things you cannot be a "little bit" of

pregnant
wrong
dead

then please tell what is the biological evidence of this driver - it certainly doesn't appear to be revealed by reductionist theories of molecules, neurons and electrons -

You do realize that there is practically nothing at an atomic level (at least nothing that we are evolved to notice); no consciousness, no pulse, no eyesight, no red spot on Jupiter, etc.

Your main point seems to be that we don't understand how the fundamental particles of the universe cooperate to form large scale objects that we are familiar with, in which case, consciousness is just one of many things. The only difference is that people can't stomach the fact that our very sentience is a material process just like anything else.

so what is the problem withthe idea that there is a distinction between life and matter - in other words adopting a dualistic approach to the phenomenal worldA dualistic view is all well and good in assisting with understanding of complex, not-understood phenomena (e.g. consciousness etc) of the (material) world - but it is quite another to go from there to the idea that there are actually TWO elements - one of which obviously has to be beyond the scope of detection and observation.

someone should explain to me the meaning of 'I' and the soul in the following case

when an individual is on lsd, where his self-perception of 'I'
can be above floating above his body.

however, the brain activity is in his brain.
everything in his body is running.

the feeling that 'I am outside my body and i can see my body'
is merely brain chemistry.

the whole idea of 'I' and 'amness' IS brain chemistry.

the drug controls the whole 'I' and 'amness'
as it dies down, you find 'yourself' back in your body.

that's your mind, that's your brain chemistry... period.
the awareness of 'I' is not a soul.

so what is the problem withthe idea that there is a distinction between life and matter - in other words adopting a dualistic approach to the phenomenal world
Its not so much as distinction between life and matter, its the reasoning that some matter is dead and some matter is alive which i find pretty absurd.
The problem is you have to pick a finite point at which matter suddenly takes on the quality of aliveness. Where does this sudden change occur?
Id argue that even if you pick a finite point at which dead matter becomes alive/consciousness (which i believe is absurd in itself) youre frequently setting yourself up for the likelyhood of comming across matter which can demonstrate aliveness despite falling bellow your finite point at which matter becomes 'alive'.




the essential distinction is not one of size or scale but of quality
by using quality as a critera youre just muddying the waters even more, you might as well judge aliveness on the basis of matter being what you percieve as 'hardy' or 'wonderous' or any other number of subjective qualities.


Here is one offerred by a Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry)

MATTER

1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (material) energy
3. Eternal
4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent
5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose


LIFE

1. The superior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy
3. Eternal
4. Non -physical and non-chemical
5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose


Wow hes really mixing up subjective qualities he percieves in things with objective measurable attributes, are you sure this man is a scientist?




a puppy is quite an arbitrary designation - states of death and life are quite clear cut
there are three things you cannot be a "little bit" of

pregnant
wrong
dead

When an organism 'dies' the chemicals and cellular structure simply cease to coperate as a coherent whole, however even after clinical death individual chemicals and cells are very much alive in isolation.
Death in most cases simply relates to a sharp decrease in collective order of the constituent parts, matter doesnt just suddenly dispose of the quality of 'aliveness'.

How do we know that consciousness is immaterial? By observation, it is self-evident.

You do realize that there is practically nothing at an atomic level (at least nothing that we are evolved to notice); no consciousness, no pulse, no eyesight, no red spot on Jupiter, etc.

Your main point seems to be that we don't understand how the fundamental particles of the universe cooperate to form large scale objects that we are familiar with, in which case, consciousness is just one of many things. The only difference is that people can't stomach the fact that our very sentience is a material process just like anything else.
just further illustrates the limitations of reductionist paradigms - if not even matter can be determined what can it ultimately determine?

(BTW - I had thought of posting a comment by a reputed reductionist that they don't even know what matter is, but I thought it would be too much of a struggle to communicate that to the audience here - looks like you did it for me - thanks)

A dualistic view is all well and good in assisting with understanding of complex, not-understood phenomena (e.g. consciousness etc) of the (material) world - but it is quite another to go from there to the idea that there are actually TWO elements - one of which obviously has to be beyond the scope of detection and observation.
who said it was not detectable
The point of the dualistic paradigm is that there are two substances - matter (which can be perceived on teh strength of one's empirical endeavour) and spirit (which can be perceived according to one's consciousness) - in other words one is the substance of dull matter and the other is the substance of consciousness - for instance when you say 'hello' to someone, what part of the form you are seeing before you do you address it to? (the nose, the eyebrows, the little toe?)

someone should explain to me the meaning of 'I' and the soul in the following case

when an individual is on lsd, where his self-perception of 'I'
can be above floating above his body.

however, the brain activity is in his brain.
everything in his body is running.

the feeling that 'I am outside my body and i can see my body'
is merely brain chemistry.

the whole idea of 'I' and 'amness' IS brain chemistry.

the drug controls the whole 'I' and 'amness'
as it dies down, you find 'yourself' back in your body.

that's your mind, that's your brain chemistry... period.
the awareness of 'I' is not a soul.
this is all changes of conceived self (whether one thinks one is a person or a floating banana skin is all merely a change in conception)
if the person who takes drugs dies then you would have a difference between the self a s context (the self is no longer visible in the corporeal body, reagrdless whether they were thinking they were a person or a floating banana peel at the time of death)
the self as context is the "am" in "I think therefore I am" - in other words there are so many things I can doubt (am I a person? am I a floating banana skin?) but I can not doubt my process of thinking, since that is the mechanism doubt operates within

the essential distinction is not one of size or scale but of quality

It is not quite as simple as you would seemingly like people to believe, which was my point - and Dr Singh hasn't really said anything of value. I would ask if possible if I could be given his first name or a link to a webpage concerning him. I looked up a Dr Singh with the relevant qualifications but couldn't find anything of interest. Thanks in advance.

I find viruses of interest in this discussion and offer this quote from carleton edu:

""Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

By this alone, "life" becomes quite a fuzzy thing. Would you consider a virus 'life'? Most likely not, would you consider a virus 'matter'? Most likely not. Your good old Dr Singh, (whom I would like to know more about), has put it under "matter associated with life", which is trying to say what exactly? That it isn't matter and it isn't life.. so what exactly is it?

How about a self replicator? It isn't "alive", but it self replicates. So what exactly is it. Dr Singh seemingly puts it down as 'matter that moves'. Interesting..

a puppy is quite an arbitrary designation

No it isn't.

states of death and life are quite clear cut

But they're not.. Hell, even Dr Singh is having problems - having to make an new section for those that are seemingly in between.

Heliocentric has made a few pointers worth noting.

Two different people can look at a 11 month old dog and be in disagreement about whether or not it is still a puppy...neither will be right or wrong because it is an arbitrary judgement. But, if the same two people are arguing about whether or not a dog is living or dead, one of them will be right and one will be wrong. Get it?

Two different people can look at a 11 month old dog and be in disagreement about whether or not it is still a puppy...neither will be right or wrong because it is an arbitrary judgement.

In this instance neither can accurately show whether it is a puppy or a dog - by that same token, the example I used with concerns to "matter that moves" becomes relevant. It isn't matter, it isn't life.. (people could argue either way) and thus the definition that actually constitutes exactly what is or isn't life is an equally arbitrary judgement, (also given my earlier statements concerning mycoplasma genitalium).

But, if the same two people are arguing about whether or not a dog is living or dead, one of them will be right and one will be wrong. Get it?

This of course on the basis that they can distinguish the difference - unlike the earlier cited examples that leaves PHDs in organic chemistry trying to put it somewhere in the middle. It's not as simple as "right and wrong" I'm afraid.

Snakelord
“
the essential distinction is not one of size or scale but of quality
”

I find viruses of interest in this discussion and offer this quote from carleton edu:

""Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

By this alone, "life" becomes quite a fuzzy thing. Would you consider a virus 'life'? Most likely not, would you consider a virus 'matter'? Most likely not. Your good old Dr Singh, (whom I would like to know more about), has put it under "matter associated with life", which is trying to say what exactly? That it isn't matter and it isn't life.. so what exactly is it?
its not clear why you think viruses are not examples of life according to Dr Singh's defintions

How about a self replicator? It isn't "alive", but it self replicates. So what exactly is it. Dr Singh seemingly puts it down as 'matter that moves'. Interesting..
check out the 6 qualtiies of life and the 7 qualities of matter and get back to us with your thoughts

“
a puppy is quite an arbitrary designation
”
No it isn't.
I think grover evidenced that it is

“
states of death and life are quite clear cut
”
But they're not.. Hell, even Dr Singh is having problems - having to make an new section for those that are seemingly in between.
if you can't tell whether a person is dead or alive then further pursuits of knowledge will not bear much

Yes, life vs . non-life exists on a continuum. Alot, of this is just a rehash of the pro-life right to life debate and why it will always be debated. It's pretty hard to make a black and white distinction between something being "just a bunch of cells" or being a live human. On the other hand there are always pretty clear instances of when we can say something isn't alive - a rock, or something is alive - you sitting there typing.
This alive debate vs. not-alive debated started I think because of consciousness being the distinguishing element between an alive human and a dead one. But, the question then is, is consciousness necessary for life? And, if so, do all living things have consciousness? I think most people would agree that consciousness isn't necessary for life, and that all life forms are not conscious. So for me the really big question is why is there consciousness at all?

Two different people can look at a 11 month old dog and be in disagreement about whether or not it is still a puppy... neither will be right or wrong because it is an arbitrary judgement. But, if the same two people are arguing about whether or not a dog is living or dead, one of them will be right and one will be wrong. Get it?

*************
M*W: An eleven-month old dog is a teenager, and all the teenager crap goes with it. He's frisky, he's rebellious, he's vindictive. I know, because I've had a teenage dog! They're not unlike human teenagers!

just further illustrates the limitations of reductionist paradigms - if not even matter can be determined what can it ultimately determine?

(BTW - I had thought of posting a comment by a reputed reductionist that they don't even know what matter is, but I thought it would be too much of a struggle to communicate that to the audience here - looks like you did it for me - thanks)

Bravo, LG. Matter is a mystery. Quite why it is a mystery that invokes souls, heavens, gods, devils etc. I do not know.

Also, bravo for noticing that we are indeed limited in finding answers through scientific examination, but if you are suggesting that superstitious mumbojumbo should replace it, or fill in the gaps, you have some explaining to do.

Actually, spare me your rose-tainted explanations.

Bravo, LG. Matter is a mystery. Quite why it is a mystery that invokes souls, heavens, gods, devils etc. I do not know.

Also, bravo for noticing that we are indeed limited in finding answers through scientific examination, but if you are suggesting that superstitious mumbojumbo should replace it, or fill in the gaps, you have some explaining to do.

Actually, spare me your rose-tainted explanations.
still doesn't explain why you hold reductionist paradigms as absolute - guess its just a matter of faith then eh?

Reductionist?

Listen. Life is animated matter. This much is obvious. The complexities of life result in emergent phenomena - like consciousness - that clearly are insufficiently explaind by chemistry alone. This is no way means that they are not rooted in chemistry however.

Why do people like you (mystics) always backpedal as our understanding of life grows? It started with souls and "vital essences". Then we discovered that the body is a network of nerves and a brain that controls it. Then we discovered that there is a nicely functioning biochemistry of cells that are the foundation for our structure. Then we figured out the very plans for life - DNA. When will you mystics accept that this is just the way it is? Certain types of molecules can replicate. And if they make mistakes once in a while, they can evolve. Just like certain kinds of molecules grow in regular geometric shapes. I don't see you complaining about salt crystals needing a soul???

Life is just another of a myriad of inherent properties of matter.

What you call "faith" is simply the most rational approach to growing our understanding of life.

The ultimate point though, is that without any hard evidence to support it, you feel the need to construct gods and souls just because you're too lazy (or frightened) to get a better grip on reality.

-First, I'd just like to clarify that I think when christian mystics talk about soul or buddhists talk about mind what they are talking about is consciousness.
-The reason I believe that consciousness is immaterial is because it self-evidently is. Now, you claim that that which appears to be immaterial is actually physical, and you claim this without any hard physical evidence to support this, none. There is not a single experiment ever conducted in the history of the world that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is physical, and yet it is insisted that consciousness is physical. It is not science that holds that consciousness is physical because no experiments have ever been done to prove this hypothesis. Rather it is nothing but the dogma of scientific materialism which holds as a matter of faith that the only matter exists. Scientific materialism is and religous fundamentalism havein common that they are both rooted in the fear of uncertainty.

-First, I'd just like to clarify that I think when christian mystics talk about soul or buddhists talk about mind what they are talking about is consciousness.
-The reason I believe that consciousness is immaterial is because it self-evidently is.
Consciousness is a concept and is therfore immaterial. So what? So is pain. So is love. All of these "conceptual sensations" derive from the functioning of the brain. We have huge masses of hard evidence of this since it's so easy to damage a brain and loose the sensations of pain, love, and consciousness.

Now, you claim that that which appears to be immaterial is actually physical, and you claim this without any hard physical evidence to support this, none.
Wrong. See above.

There is not a single experiment ever conducted in the history of the world that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is physical, and yet it is insisted that consciousness is physical.
It is a manifestation of physical processes. There is immense proof of this in the medical history of brain damage.

It is not science that holds that consciousness is physical because no experiments have ever been done to prove this hypothesis. Rather it is nothing but the dogma of scientific materialism which holds as a matter of faith that the only matter exists. Scientific materialism is and religous fundamentalism havein common that they are both rooted in the fear of uncertainty.
False hypothesis to begin with, followed by blathering.

-Consciousness is a concept? No, it is isn't. Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon.
-So quit your blathering and point me in the direction of some of this "huge mass of hard evidence" that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is the manifestation of physical processes.

-Consciousness is a concept? No, it is isn't. Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon.
-So quit your blathering and point me in the direction of some of this "huge mass of hard evidence" that supports the hypothesis that consciousness is the manifestation of physical processes.
You mean to tell me you have no idea that physical brain damage can alter or destroy consciousness in an individual? Really?

Google on "consciousness brain damage" and tell me what you find.

-Consciousness is a concept? No, it is isn't. Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon.
Is it? Prove to me that you have what I think of as "consciousness". You could be a crude AI for all I know. Can you hold consciousness in your hand? Can you paint it? No? I guess that qualifies it as an immaterial concept. Consciousness is thought by many to be simply an illusion born of the complex self-referential nature of brain function.

No you can't hold consciousness, paint it, or do any of the other things with it that you can do with physical things precisely because it is not a physical thing - it is immaterial.

I don't understand why you keep referring to it as a concept. A concept is an idea. But, since you do agree with me that it is immaterial I don't see where we disagree.

And since we both agree that it is immaterial how can it be destroyed? How can you destroy something that isn't physical?

And, I can't prove to you that I have consciousness. Nor can you prove to anyone that you have consciousness. Nor can it be proven that someone that appears to be a vegetable is not conscious. So, consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon that is knowable through direct experience but not provable throught scientifc investigation that one is in posession of it. I would go further and say that consciousness by its nature can only be studied through direct observation and I don't see anyway that science can be applied to when we can't even so much as prove that we are in posession of it.

No you can't hold consciousness, paint it, or do any of the other things with it that you can do with physical things precisely because it is not a physical thing - it is immaterial.

I don't understand why you keep referring to it as a concept. A concept is an idea. But, since you do agree with me that it is immaterial I don't see where we disagree.

And since we both agree that it is immaterial how can it be destroyed? How can you destroy something that isn't physical?

And, I can't prove to you that I have consciousness. Nor can you prove to anyone that you have consciousness. Nor can it be proven that someone that appears to be a vegetable is not conscious. So, consciousness is an immaterial phenomenon that is knowable through direct experience but not provable throught scientifc investigation that one is in posession of it. I would go further and say that consciousness by its nature can only be studied through direct observation and I don't see anyway that science can be applied to when we can't even so much as prove that we are in posession of it.



"the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics)

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi (exemplary scientist in the field of medicine)

the difficulty is in seeing what we are seeing with

No you can't hold consciousness, paint it, or do any of the other things with it that you can do with physical things precisely because it is not a physical thing - it is immaterial.

I don't understand why you keep referring to it as a concept. A concept is an idea. But, since you do agree with me that it is immaterial I don't see where we disagree.Your - and LG's for that matter - idea of immateriality is screwy (note the highly technical term :D).

Consciousness is not an "immaterial thing" in the way you seem to understand it. To call something "immaterial" suggests that it has similar properties of material things, but because it is "immaterial" it is undetectable.

Consciousness is no more a thing than a football match is a "thing"?

A football match is nothing more than a term we use to describe a series of interactions that happen to follow certain rules.
Likewise consciousness is nothing different - other than our understanding of those rules and the complexity of the interactions.

Consciousness is not an "immaterial thing" but a (emergent) property of the complexity of our brains.

Immaterial / Material are properties of "things".
But properties do not themselves have properties.

If you think they do, please tell me the temperature of height, or the width of strength.

So please stop referring to consciousness as "immaterial" - it makes no sense - unless you truly believe consciousness to be a "thing" - like a brick that but which happens to be immaterial?
Then do you see a football match as the same? As a brick that happens to be immaterial?

"the results of the scientific search in which during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born (one of the founders of quantum physics)

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi (exemplary scientist in the field of medicine)Ah - your old classic logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

You should have learnt by now that this rightly doesn't work here.

Your - and LG's for that matter - idea of immateriality is screwy (note the highly technical term :D).

Consciousness is not an "immaterial thing" in the way you seem to understand it. To call something "immaterial" suggests that it has similar properties of material things, but because it is "immaterial" it is undetectable.
I think grover established how it was detectable - but it is not detectable by empirical standards - for instance when you say hello to someone, which part of the body do you say it to (the nose, the eye brow, the bellybutton?)

Consciousness is no more a thing than a football match is a "thing"?

A football match is nothing more than a term we use to describe a series of interactions that happen to follow certain rules.
Likewise consciousness is nothing different - other than our understanding of those rules and the complexity of the interactions.
with a football match you can break it down to its constituent parts and reassemble them to form a "football match" - if you could do the same in regards to consciousness your argument wouldn't be flawed


Immaterial / Material are properties of "things".
But properties do not themselves have properties.

If you think they do, please tell me the temperature of height, or the width of strength.
This appears to be th proper situation to apply that technical term you opened with - perhaps I am not getting your point, but isn't the property of height something like centimetres,and isn't the property of temperature degrees celcius?

Ah - your old classic logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

You should have learnt by now that this rightly doesn't work here.
my mistake - I will have to remember not to post the conclusions of persons who have contributed major developments to the fields of scientific evidence that deal specifically with the issu ebeing discussed since they are obviously not sharp enough to post on sciforums

I think grover established how it was detectable - but it is not detectable by empirical standards - for instance when you say hello to someone, which part of the body do you say it to (the nose, the eye brow, the bellybutton?)You say it to the entirety - much as when you see a football match you watch the entirety - not the grass, not the posts, not the players individually.

with a football match you can break it down to its constituent parts and reassemble them to form a "football match" - if you could do the same in regards to consciousness your argument wouldn't be flawedAh yes - your God of the Gaps.
"We can't do it yet - so it must be God".

Pathetic argument on your part.

...perhaps I am not getting your point, but isn't the property of height something like centimetres,and isn't the property of temperature degrees celcius?LOL!
No.
Centimetres, Celcius etc are merely the units of measurement of the property.
They, themselves, are not properties.

But good try.

my mistake - I will have to remember not to post the conclusions of persons who have contributed major developments to the fields of scientific evidence that deal specifically with the issu ebeing discussed since they are obviously not sharp enough to post on sciforumsWhen you post nothing but the conclusion as the argument, and rely on the strength of the person's authority - that is the classic APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

Look at it.
Understand it.
Learn from it.

I think grover established how it was detectable - but it is not detectable by empirical standards - for instance when you say hello to someone, which part of the body do you say it to (the nose, the eye brow, the bellybutton?)

so the consciousness saying hello to someone by empirical standards?
would this included evidence and observations?

saying hello is a mere form of communication... a greeting which usually informs friendly acknowledgement; simple case of adaptation of the mind here.

consciounesness is detectable indeed, by empirical evidence/observations...
hence, the brain waves during sleep during being awake.
the correlation between the waves versus awareness of oneself provides an standard for which we can understand.
REM sleep is one form of it; and thus, an empirical standard, no?

when you are greeting someone, which party are you saying it to?
psychology studies this, even in first year.
eyes, nose, and mouth are the most common parts that the individual is talking to.
that's empirical evidence of which party ou are saying it to.
then the question why?
you look at new factors now.
you look at factors as to why the individual is doing so.
is it self-esteem?
is he depressed?
etc.
how do genes effect this?
etc.

and there definitely studies with observations.

Sarkus
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think grover established how it was detectable - but it is not detectable by empirical standards - for instance when you say hello to someone, which part of the body do you say it to (the nose, the eye brow, the bellybutton?)
”
You say it to the entirety - much as when you see a football match you watch the entirety - not the grass, not the posts, not the players individually.
how about when you use the phone?

“
Originally Posted by LG
with a football match you can break it down to its constituent parts and reassemble them to form a "football match" - if you could do the same in regards to consciousness your argument wouldn't be flawed
”
Ah yes - your God of the Gaps.
"We can't do it yet - so it must be God".

Pathetic argument on your part.

Its not clear how we moved on to god???

You were saying consciousness is like a football game because it can be broken down into constituent parts and I challenged that you cannot actually do that with consciousness

- this has nothing to do with god
“
Originally Posted by LG
...perhaps I am not getting your point, but isn't the property of height something like centimetres,and isn't the property of temperature degrees celcius?
”
LOL!
No.
Centimetres, Celcius etc are merely the units of measurement of the property.
They, themselves, are not properties.

But good try.
and doesn't the units of measurement indicate the property?
like for instance if I tell you it is minus 40 degrees at the beach doesn't it suggest that the property of the beach is "coldness"

When you post nothing but the conclusion as the argument, and rely on the strength of the person's authority - that is the classic APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

Look at it.
Understand it.
Learn from it.
so you disagree with the body of evidence these researchers have behind them that points to the difficulty of seeing what we are seeing with?

or do you mean that we should just chuck it all out the window and play cat and mouse for a couple of hundred posts until you give up the game of alluding to some body of empirical work that establishes the material constituent parts of consciousness?

if you were to look at their work you too could understand it and learn from it

how about when you use the phone?I am still speaking to the entirety. I might not be able to visually see them - but that is who I am speaking to - their entirety. How that entirety chooses to manifest itself through technological medium is irrelevant.

Its not clear how we moved on to god???"God of the Gaps" is a metaphor - not a literalism - which alludes to the fact that you seem to paste over the current lack of understanding of the brain / biology etc with the "soul" / "consciousness" or whatever else you want to call it.

This "consciousness is an immaterial thing blah blah blah" is your "God of the Gaps" with respect to biology / life.

and doesn't the units of measurement indicate the property?
like for instance if I tell you it is minus 40 degrees at the beach doesn't it suggest that the property of the beach is "coldness"Are you being serious with this question or do you truly fail to see how ridiculous you are being?

When you say "it is -40 degrees" you are actually saying "The temperature is -40 degrees".

The fact that we omit the actual property, and that the property is implied by the unit of measurement, is just a matter of simplifying the language without distorting the meaning!
It does not mean that the "-40 degrees" is the property, but a measurement of the property!

And as for the the property of the beach is "coldness"?? The coldness is an interpretation of the property. The property is the temperature - the interpretation is "that means cold".

If I said I had built something that was 30cm tall - would you say that was tall or short, or about right?
You couldn't say - for if I was building a house to live in it would be short. If I had built a mug for my coffee that would be tall.

I am still speaking to the entirety. I might not be able to visually see them - but that is who I am speaking to - their entirety. How that entirety chooses to manifest itself through technological medium is irrelevant.
not really, because you can't perceive their entirety

"God of the Gaps" is a metaphor - not a literalism - which alludes to the fact that you seem to paste over the current lack of understanding of the brain / biology etc with the "soul" / "consciousness" or whatever else you want to call it.
therefore I challenged you to establish what are the constituent parts of consciousness that can be reassembled to produce consciousness

This "consciousness is an immaterial thing blah blah blah" is your "God of the Gaps" with respect to biology / life.
to which you side tracked by talking about god/ the soul or something and are quickly moving into new horizons of properties/qualities, but it snot clear why
.
Its a straight forward request - you allude to their being a means to reduce consciousness to its base elements - i am asking to say exactly what those elements are and also show how consciousness can be established by reassembling those elements

Its a straight forward request - you allude to their being a means to reduce consciousness to its base elements - i am asking to say exactly what those elements are and also show how consciousness can be established by reassembling those elementsWE DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND THE WORKINGS OF LIFE, OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND A GAZILLION OTHER THINGS, AND ARE CURRENTLY UNABLE TO DO WHAT YOU ASK.

My conclusion: This is just science - and we will continue to strive toward an understanding. And we might just never be able fully understand. Until that time we will go with current theories until such time as they are proven inaccurate or wrong, and then we will work with the new information and create new theories.

Your conclusion: God of the Gaps. "If we don't yet know, and if we can't do it now - it must be immaterial and be beyond what is posible with the material world alone." (or words to that effect).

Sarkus-
You said: "Consciousness is not an "immaterial thing" but a (emergent) property of the complexity of our brains.

Immaterial / Material are properties of "things".
But properties do not themselves have properties.

If you think they do, please tell me the temperature of height, or the width of strength."

You are saying here that consciousness is like other properties like height. The thing is is that other properties can be measured. Consciousness cannot be measured, so it is you not me, that seems to have some sort of fundamental misunderstandong of the nature of the phenomenon we are talking about.


WE DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND THE WORKINGS OF LIFE, OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND A GAZILLION OTHER THINGS, AND ARE CURRENTLY UNABLE TO DO WHAT YOU ASK.

My conclusion: This is just science - and we will continue to strive toward an understanding. And we might just never be able fully understand. Until that time we will go with current theories until such time as they are proven inaccurate or wrong, and then we will work with the new information and create new theories.

Your conclusion: God of the Gaps. "If we don't yet know, and if we can't do it now - it must be immaterial and be beyond what is posible with the material world alone." (or words to that effect).

Your real conclusion: You say we will go with the "current theories." That's the whole thing: there are no current scientific theories on consciousness, because a theory used in the scientific method of the word means that tests have been performed that prove a hypothesis to be true. NO tests have been performed, not a single one. So it is really you that has the "god of the gaps" problem because you are in essence stating consciousness must be physical because Scientific materialist dogma states that only material exists.

My real conclusion: Consciousness is immaterial, we know this because it is directly observable by each individual that his or her consciousness is immaterial. By the way, if science someday proves that consciousness is physical I will believe it, but currently there is no science backing up the claim, no tests have been done or can currently be done, and no one currently has an idea even how to go about doing any tests. Observation is however a legitmate means of knowledge and by my observation consciousness is immaterial.

You are saying here that consciousness is like other properties like height. The thing is is that other properties can be measured. Consciousness cannot be measured,....That is just you applying your understanding of the term exclusive to "measurable property".
Property = characteristic.

And even if I use your understanding, if consciousness can not be measured - then how do we know it is there?
The fact that, unlike your other properties, it is purely binary in nature, means that we do not have, nor need, units. It is either present, or it is not.
Or are you expecting there to be scales of consciouness?

Your real conclusion: You say we will go with the "current theories." That's the whole thing: there are no current scientific theories on consciousness, because a theory used in the scientific method of the word means that tests have been performed that prove a hypothesis to be true. NO tests have been performed, not a single one.Excuse me????

The same test is performed every time you die, or every time someone has damage to their brain.

Remove brain - no consciousness.
Damage brain - damage consciousness.

No tests?? Good one.

So it is really you that has the "god of the gaps" problem because you are in essence stating consciousness must be physical because Scientific materialist dogma states that only material exists. Where to start on this...
1. I am not saying consciousness is physical - I am saying it is a property of the physical. Have you ever seen a property that is physical? Please provide me with a lump of height. Please. Go on. To that extent, consciousness is not material - because a property does not, itself, have properties.

2. Scientific dogma? Please provide evidence of something that is non-material that actually exists. Until you can, I will happily go with everything being explainable by the physical.

My real conclusion: Consciousness is immaterial...The same way that height is immaterial. Not the thing that has the height - but "height" itself.

...we know this because it is directly observable by each individual that his or her consciousness is immaterial.You are not observing consciousness but the multitude of interactions within the brain and, more importantly, the outward manifestations of those interactions, that we group together and assign the property of CONSCIOUSNESS.

If you can directly observe something then, by definition, IT IS NOT IMMATERIAL - but entirely physical and thus measurable and MATERIAL.

So in this same sentence you are claiming the direct observance (material) of the immaterial. You do realise the absurdity of what you are saying, I hope?

By the way, if science someday proves that consciousness is physical I will believe itConsciousness is a PROPERTY! It is no more material than it is immaterial because those words are meaningless with respect to consciousness.

...but currently there is no science backing up the claim, no tests have been done or can currently be done, and no one currently has an idea even how to go about doing any tests.Remove brain = removal of consciousness.
To me that is a reasonable test.
It is entirely repeatable with the same results each time, I'll wager.
And Occam's Razor would dictate that the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that consciousness is nothing more than a property of the complex nature of interactions within the brain.

But please, prove me wrong.
Please provide me with ONE piece of evidence to support an alternative.

Observation is however a legitmate means of knowledge and by my observation consciousness is immaterial.But your conclusions are fallacious for the simple fact that you fail to realise that immaterial things CAN NOT BE OBSERVED - or they would not be immaterial.

Everything you think you observe is PHYSICAL in nature.
You observe a person, standing before you. He has the characteristic / property of consciousness, but your observations are purely of the physical.

Otherwise, please tell me how this immaterial interacts with your senses.

IT DOESN'T.

Your brain picks up on the purely physical elements that you observe, processes the inputs and assigns to the totality of your observation the characteristic of CONSCIOUSNESS. But at no point to you directly observe Consciousness.

-If you can't directly observe your consciousness then you must not be conscious. Are you fucking with me?
-Death and consciousnss. That's exactly what we are talking about, many people claim to be conscious after death.
-Proof of something not physical that exists: Magnetism, electricity, energy, consciousness.
-Why do you keep comparing height and consciousness?
-You claim consciousness is measurable? What units do we use to measure it?
-But bottom line, this whole conversation is pointless if you can't acknowledge the simple fact that consciousness is directly observable. And by occams razor-it appears to be immaterial and therefore is as opposed to you making ASSUMPTIONS about vague "complex" interactions within the brain. That's my exact question - what are the precise ineractions within the brain that give rise to consciousness? Everything you are saying is mere assumption.
-You claim consciousness is binary. Yet you also claim that it is the result of complex interactions within the brain. So from an evolutionary perspective brains become more and more complex but consciousness is an either or phenomenon? Please explain wy at some point in complexity consciousness arises and what the mechanism is. You're saying that an unconscious being at one point gave birth to a conscious being? This would have to be the case since according to you it is an either or phenomenon that is the paradoxical "emergent phenomenon" of "complex" interactions.

The smell of semantic vomit here is overwhelming.

LG, Consciousness can be broken down into components, just like a football game:

- General Awareness
- Self awareness
- Conscious processes
- Subconscious processes
- Memory
- Imagination
- etc.

I'm sure I've missed a few. The point is that consciousness as the sum of these is an emergent phenomena (look it up) composed of the interactions of all of these components.

Just as the emergent phenomena of a football game is emergent from:

- Quaterbacks
- Line backs
- Yard lines
- footballs
- penalties
- etc.

So, as usual, your arguments are mere vapor and consciousness remains an expression of purely physically interacting processes.

Animals are conscious, right?

-Death and consciousnss. That's exactly what we are talking about, many people claim to be conscious after death.

The brain goes through a series of neural shutdown modes as oxygen deprivation progresses. Odd or atavistic network modes begin to appear. This also happens when the power is gradually removed from electronic neural network devices. Pretty telling if you ask me.

-Proof of something not physical that exists: Magnetism, electricity, energy, consciousness.
Let's be clear here:
Magnetism is a force mediated by massless force carriers. Ok.
Electricity is the flow of very material electrons, so you're wrong here.
Energy is a measure of the capability of systems to do work. Ok.
Consciousness is an experiential phenomena attributed to humans and some other species. Ok.

-Why do you keep comparing height and consciousness?
Height is a measure of some thing. It's an attribute, not a thing itself.
Consciousness is a measure of some thing. It's an attribute, not a thing itself.

It's not an exact analogy, of course, but it seems reasonable to use it illuminate the attribute nature of consciousness.

-You claim consciousness is measurable? What units do we use to measure it?
- Alpha waves
- Beta waves

-But bottom line, this whole conversation is pointless if you can't acknowledge the simple fact that consciousness is directly observable.
All you can directly observe is the outward manifestation of consciousness as an attribute consistion of

- purposeful activity
- environmental interaction
- etc.

This is why researchers still debate the state of self-awareness of non-human animals. You can't directly observe it. Some computer programs easily fool people int thinking they are conscious entities when they are clearly not. Or are they? If consciousness was self evident to observers, why this problem determining if one has it or not?

And by occams razor-it appears to be immaterial and therefore is as opposed to you making ASSUMPTIONS about vague "complex" interactions within the brain. That's my exact question - what are the precise ineractions within the brain that give rise to consciousness? Everything you are saying is mere assumption.
Wrong. There are levels of detail in every branch of science that we still don't understand. That does not mean that all of the leveles of understanding above that are "mere assumption". We understand and use gravitational theory very well, yet the fundamental nature of gravity is still unknown. Gravity is not an "assumption".

-You claim consciousness is binary. Yet you also claim that it is the result of complex interactions within the brain. So from an evolutionary perspective brains become more and more complex but consciousness is an either or phenomenon? Please explain wy at some point in complexity consciousness arises and what the mechanism is. You're saying that an unconscious being at one point gave birth to a conscious being? This would have to be the case since according to you it is an either or phenomenon that is the paradoxical "emergent phenomenon" of "complex" interactions.
I agree with you here. I am sure there are degrees of consciousness. We all experience degrees of consciousness. Many animals are conscious yet exhibit no self-awareness. Examples like this abound.

Animals are conscious, right?
Yes.

Does being conscious imply having a soul?

The smell of semantic vomit here is overwhelming.

LG, Consciousness can be broken down into components, just like a football game:

- General Awareness
- Self awareness
- Conscious processes
- Subconscious processes
- Memory
- Imagination
- etc.

I'm sure I've missed a few. The point is that consciousness as the sum of these is an emergent phenomena (look it up) composed of the interactions of all of these components.


Which is simply what philosophy tells us about consciousness right now, however theres no real empiricalism to back any of it up, as with almost all philosophical ideas it is simply the most 'fashionable' rather than being the most 'tested and verified' as you would have in the scientific framework.
So you really might as well ventrue or entertain any version of consciousness you like.
As i see it, right now its impossible to tell if consciousness is a inherent component of matter or whether it emerges under specific conditions of matter.
Its a pretty hard job to prove much either way, finding consciousness is like trying to find the piece of hay in the haystack.

I agree with you here. I am sure there are degrees of consciousness. We all experience degrees of consciousness. Many animals are conscious yet exhibit no self-awareness. Examples like this abound.
Could you give me an example? i cant think of any living organism that cant demonstrate a knowledge of distinction of the self from the non-self.

If you put a mirror in front of some animals they will attack it as if it is a different animal. I used to own a fish that did this. However, my cat does not attack the mirror as far as I've seen. Interesting to note though that my cat thinks the mirror is a glass door to another room and becomes frustrated because he can't enter it. So you could say cats don't understand the concept of the mirror. I wonder how gorillas or dolphins respond to mirrors?

I think people assume the mirror test proves/disproves a sense of self, it doesnt it just shows which creatures have a complex sense of self.
Worth noting i think :)

The smell of semantic vomit here is overwhelming.
funny - I attributed the aroma to something other than semantics
;)
LG, Consciousness can be broken down into components, just like a football game:

- General Awareness
- Self awareness
- Conscious processes
- Subconscious processes
- Memory
- Imagination
- etc.

I'm sure I've missed a few. The point is that consciousness as the sum of these is an emergent phenomena (look it up) composed of the interactions of all of these components.

the next question is whether these components can be reduced to material compositions (how many electrons in self awareness)
Just as the emergent phenomena of a football game is emergent from:

- Quaterbacks
- Line backs
- Yard lines
- footballs
- penalties
- etc.
after all, for the analogy that consciousness is a material phenomena to be complete, we would expect that both catagories of constituent parts be materially definable - there is certainly no lacking from the football side of things

So, as usual, your arguments are mere vapor and consciousness remains an expression of purely physically interacting processes.
the moment you can define the exact physical nature of the constituent parts you thoughtfully provided for us, your claim will be true

WE DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND THE WORKINGS OF LIFE, OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND A GAZILLION OTHER THINGS, AND ARE CURRENTLY UNABLE TO DO WHAT YOU ASK.

My conclusion: This is just science - and we will continue to strive toward an understanding. And we might just never be able fully understand. Until that time we will go with current theories until such time as they are proven inaccurate or wrong, and then we will work with the new information and create new theories.

Your conclusion: God of the Gaps. "If we don't yet know, and if we can't do it now - it must be immaterial and be beyond what is posible with the material world alone." (or words to that effect).
Its not clear why we need to discuss god at this point - I was just asking you for the evidence you have that consciousness is emergent from matter

Could you give me an example? i cant think o