Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Syne]

You need to understand that it was used in parody to be able to criticise it as such.
If you did understand that you would realise that criticising my use of it is pathetic.
But you did criticise. You still criticise. Yet you claim that you're not criticising for using it as a parody.
What are people to think, Syne, that you really are here to further discussion?
It is MY position that uses an example of HIS tautology to demonstrate the flaw in HIS argument and how he was actually doing nothing but showing that life is a descriptor for "living" rather than life being added to make something "living".
It is not rocket science, Syne. But you continue to argue for nothing and continue to demonstrate your own pettiness and lack of understanding.
They're not meant to have explanatory power - it is meant to highlight that they are merely WORDS... one being a descriptor for the other.

The only argument you offered in support of your semantics of "descriptor" of new phenomena versus "added" phenomena ("additional" and "new" are synonyms) is trivial. So how does that distinguish your point from his? It does not. Are we to simple take your word that your semantic distinction is valid or relevant? So far, that has been all you have offered. But go right ahead and pretend that you are somehow being wronged by people not accepting your poor proclamations as gospel.

Where is the distinction you feel makes your point? Neither the semantics nor the exact same tautology do so. You are right to feel that I "argue for nothing" as that is what your argument amounts to. And if it is never going to amount to anything else, as is apparent, then you are right, there is no further point in discussing it.

Emergent phenomena is necessarily new ("radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems)"), and cannot be defined otherwise than additional to the sum of constituents.

And yet not a post previously you state: "You are also arguing a straw man, as no one has claimed something added to the 'underlying activity'". Am I meant to assume that you consider there a difference between the terms "constituents" and "underlying activity" as they apply to emergent properties? I don't see any - either the constituents are there and are constituent of the underlying activity, or they are not... they are therefore synonymous here.
Yet your position changes. And I'm still meant to take you seriously?
And "necessarily new" is with regard our understanding of the system - that it is an already existent property of the system that emerges only at a certain level of complexity etc. Nobody adds anything to the system for the emergent property to arise.

Apparently you cannot differentiate the "constituents/underlying activity" (of course these are synonymous) with "the sum of constituents". If an emergent property were added to the constituents then it would trivially be one of those constituents, and by no means emergent. Emergent properties are additional to the sum of constituents, which is simply how we distinguish emergent phenomena.

So it is a straw man that you claim my position has changed (or just you poor comprehension). And where did I say "[someone] adds anything to the system"? Again, emergent properties are unaccounted for, so you cannot support any proclamation that they are already existent. They do not exist until the higher order in which they are evident, otherwise we would not distinguish them as emergent. And if the only thing new is "our understanding" then how do emergent properties have effects of their own? They must have physical consequences to have an effect.

Are you now proclaiming all emergent properties illusory?

Yes, I am saying that emergent phenomena are illusory in nature.

So things like friction, natural patterns, biological organization, etc. are all illusions? Then why do you balk when I say that considering consciousness illusory does that same for anything inferred to exist by that consciousness?

They are determinate (in a probabilistic way) in line with the rest of the universe. But the systems are far too complex for us to identify the specific interactions that give rise to the property we only observe at the macro level. Until such time as we can (if at all) understand how they arise, they remain emergent.

You assume more than is empirically supportable. Just pie-in-the-sky philosophizing and "science of the gaps" (appeal to ignorance).

Western science has proceeded by filling gaps, but in filling them, it has created gaps all over again. The process is inexhaustible. … Understanding has improved, but within the physical sciences, anomalies have grown great, and what is more, anomalies have grown great because understanding has improved. -David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008)​

But even just assuming emergent properties to be illusion, we are forced to admit that, being itself emergent from quantum indeterminacy, determinism is illusory. The probabilistic is an emergent phenomena from the indeterministic underlying activities. So you cannot arbitrarily claim determinism your port of harbor, as you have already argued against its reality.

The inconsistency here seems to be in your arguments.

It is only arbitrary if you think your perception is arbitrary, and as such you hold no reliance on your perception.
Otherwise, if your perception actually conforms at first to a practical reality (i.e. a level of reality that holds firm for practical reasons) then this gives you your first contrast to what might be considered illusory... e.g. the magician on stage sawing his assistant in half.
IF the practical reality upon which you have relied is also found to be an illusion (maybe you have been living in a virtual world all your life) then the reference point changes and you may conclude that everything is a layer of illusion upon layer of illusion. As long as the layers are distinguishable then there is always a contrast.

If perception is not arbitrary then what makes the perception of consciousness illusory? That perception holds universally for humans, just as the perception of an objective reality. You have yet to show how you would consider these "layers of illusion" distinguishable, as you have yet to define what particulars those of the analogy relate to. You basically just keep saying "the magician's illusion is an illusion". How does that tautology explain anything? Apparently you think simple semantics has explanatory power.

It does not beg the question at all. I did not define illusion so that anything and everything can be deemed illusory. I saw the inconsistency and concluded that, given the understanding of "illusion" that I had, it seemed free will was illusory. That the logic of the underlying assumptions might lead one to conclude that everything we perceive is also illusory is neither here nor there, and certainly is not begging the question.

You have yet to detail this supposed inconsistency, other than inconsistent arm-waving, and if the logic you claim to employ could "lead one to conclude that everything we perceive is also illusory" then either your logic or your argument is flawed.

I have never admitted any such thing. Stop lying.
The illusion CAN be distinguished, not arbitrarily but specifically, through logic.

Sorry, but consistent failure to demonstrate anything but bare assertions is an admission, whether you are too deluded to see it or not. You just admitted that "the logic of the underlying assumptions might lead one to conclude that everything we perceive is also illusory". Why not simply explain the "specific logic" already?

There are plenty of grounds, but it also depends at what level of activity you are discussing. Whether we consider everything illusion also does not mean that there are not distinct layers of illusion, and one illusion might only be considered as such in reference to a lower level of activity. As long as there is consistency within the layer then there is no illusion at that level. Where there is inconsistency there is an illusion. Again, are we not able to identify a magician's trick as illusion despite watching it on television - a layer of illusion upon a layer of illusion?

Vacuous arm-wavery.

Again, I said "specifically". I was not requesting "elaboration", I was telling you that you simply did not provide a "specific" answer, i.e. there was nothing to elaborate on (as you have so successfully shown). I did not ask, "how do you go about distinguishing illusion", I asked, "how do you specifically distinguish illusion". IOW, I did not ask about your general methodology, but your specific reasoning. And I am not asking which species of logic either. I am asking for your specific chain of reasoning.

Disregarding the belligerent tone you generally use, try to be more specific in your wording, as the way I "specifically distinguish illusion" is no different than I "specifically distinguish" one thing from anything else: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, yet is built of cogs and wheels, then the "duck" is illusion.
There really is nothing more specific than that.

Man, the appeals to emotion are getting thick.

Yet you do nothing but string together analogies you never manage to actually get around to connecting to the specific subjects of this discussion. If that is as "specific" to this discussion as you can manage to get then it really is a lost cause.

Where has anyone, but you, claimed causality violated? Every effect is necessarily a future cause, and this includes the higher order effects of lower order constituents potentially being cause, in turn, over those same constituents.

Genuine free will necessitates it, as the "ability to do otherwise" other than merely the "perception of the ability to do otherwise" requires that consciousness is the initial cause of an action.
If it is not the initial cause, and all effects at the lowest level are probabilistically determined (no "ability" to do otherwise) or that the only uncaused effects are likewise probabilistically determined (e.g. radioactive decay), then everything is caused and the effects are thus probabilistically determined.
It is the inability to understand how such interactions can, at far higher levels of complexity, give rise to properties not seen at those lower levels that we deem them emergent. But those emergent properties have no actual causative power beyond those of the underlying activity. They may appear to, but to do so then the emergent property must somehow become an initial cause in a non-random manner... i.e. violate cause and effect.

Aside from the no true Scotsman fallacy (the ad hoc "genuine free will"), emergence necessitates that the causes of emergent behavior be unaccounted for in the constituents of the system. And since you have already claimed the emergent illusory, determinism is an illusion of the underlying quantum indeterminism. The infinite regress necessitated by reductionism attribute ultimate cause to the origin of existence, a no more provable proposition than consciousness, although equally apparent. But that also ignores the myriad of examples of downward causation, including evolution, central nervous systems, etc..

"[E]mergent properties have no actual causative power beyond those of the underlying activity" is a bare assertion you cannot support. Every effect is a new cause, otherwise causation would not propagate. Again, you are only proclaiming things illusory.

This still implies that the emergent property is actually "added" to the system for it to do what it does. I don't agree - and consider emergent properties merely properties of that system but that are not explainable by the constituents etc.

IOW, you have no explanation consistent with your argument.

That is not an "ability to do otherwise" other than at a level of perception, a level at which I have always accepted and agree that "free will" exists.
There is no actual "ability to do otherwise". While the constituents might cause the effects on themselves, this is merely in accordance with the underlying laws of the universe, still being probabilistically determined in how each effect comes from the cause etc.

Again, by your own reasoning, determinism is an illusion of the underlying quantum indeterminism. Indeterminism means that one input can have more than one possible output, which is contrary to determinism, hence the name.

You need to look up what begging the question means.

I know what it means, thanks.
Unfortunately it seems you accuse it merely where you can not accept what would not make it such, even while highlighting that such might be possible.

More vacuous arm-wavery.

As explained, it is possible, logically, to distinguish between layers of illusion: and as such it is a flawed assumption on your part to think that because the lower levels might be illusion that it negates any distinguishing at higher levels.

You have yet to detail this logic.

No, you just assume that all causes can only be bottom up, even when we cannot account for higher order emergent phenomena.

Yet you do not even realise that such an assumption requires free will, defined as "the ability to do otherwise", be the initial cause of an action.

Top-down causation does not, itself, necessitate free will, so that is an obvious false dilemma.

And if we consider that "reality" merely to be a lower level of illusion it does not negate the identification of the magician's trick as an illusion in contrast to the lower level. Whether we call that lower level "reality" or merely another, lower, level of illusion is irrelevant.
We certainly perceive it as such, and intuition is a perception - so again, despite going round the houses you are back to saying "we perceive we have the ability to do otherwise", which is what I have always agreed with. It is just whether we consider the perception to be more than that, and whether we genuinely do have the ability - which requires consciousness to be the ultimate cause of an action.

We also perceive free will and consciousness to be equally, if not more directly, real than anything else, so your distinction is still arbitrary.

How does it defeat my own analogy? I have distinguished the illusion, not on a practical level but on a logical one - wtf do you think I've been explaining for the last 10 pages or so, on this and other threads.

It is only at a practical level that any logic can be verified. You can make up any number of self-consistent systems of logic that have absolutely no bearing on the world addressed by science, so it is your burden to show where your specific reasoning is relevant, in practice, to the subject at hand. Otherwise I can dismiss it as simple idealism.

How many times do you want me to define the terms that I consider to be applicable, and how quick have you been to offer definitions for those terms you accuse me of equivocating on? Which one do you not agree with? Provide an alternative!

I have not made any claim about things being illusory. I have told you, countless times, that you need to concisely differentiate between "illusion" and "other than perceived". You have consistently defined illusion as "not as perceived" without ever defining what "other then perceived" may be, as it relates to the subject at hand. Here is a start:

ILLUSION
1
b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception


REAL
2
b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality <saw a real live celebrity> <a story of real life> (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities <left school to live in the real world> (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard <a real gas> — compare ideal 3b
c : having objective independent existence <unable to believe that what he saw was real>

-http://www.merriam-webster.com​

But I suppose you will scoff at the use of a common dictionary.

How many times do I need to say that the criteria is logic, applied to our understanding and our perception?
And the lines are arbitrary only in as much as if there is a line that highlights an inconsistency then the line can be drawn. One such line is logically between perception of free will and the genuineness of that free will (as explained) and another is between our perception of the underlying nature of the universe, the "reality", and any objective reality (if one holds to the existence of an objective reality) - in that we can only perceive it subjectively. But that illusory "reality" is, for all practical purposes, as close to any objective reality as we'll get.

Yadda-yadda, so "logic" "(as explained)". Completely vacuous. You continually gloss over this "inconsistency". You just keep making bare assertions that one bit of semantics supports another without any practical considerations entering into it. That is called idealism, or cognitive bias. You keep making the no true Scotsman fallacy based solely on your own bare assertion that free will necessitates a violation of causality.

FREE WILL
1
: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will​

"Not determined by prior causes" does not mean "uncaused". It only means not deterministically caused, i.e. one influence not having only one possible outcome.

What is more precise or concise than "not as perceived"?
Again you are just seem to be trying to find excuses for your lack of comprehension, but doing so in as belligerent manner as possible.

"Not as perceived" requires defining what "other than perceived" actually may be. What is actually there that the perception is in error about? You have even said, "any objective reality ... - in that we can only perceive it subjectively", which provides no differentiation from the subjectively perceived consciousness or free will.

If you cannot see how that is very far from a precise distinction then I wish you bliss in your ignorance.

You have outlined what you consider to be imprecision, vagueness and equivocation, none of which are taken at face value merely on your claims, nor have you been able to support those accusations other than to yourself.

I am sure that is your illusion, I mean perception, of the matter.

 

[Syne]

Relativistic mass isn't really a property inherent to light though is it? It has more to do with changes in the structure of spacetime. There's alot of physicists who don't like using the word "mass" in this way as it confuses it with its standard reference to invariant rest mass.

It is generally better to talk about the energy of light (frequency, which includes its momentum), rather than relativistic mass. And yes, such energy is frame-dependent.

 

[hansda]

No. The "life process" is a sub group of physical processes.

Can you prove this that, "The "life process" is a sub group of physical processes"?

'Process in the living cell' and 'process in the dead cell' are opposite, in terms of entropy. How can both these processes be part of physical process?

Thus these parts of your post are without foundation, other than your unjustified beliefs:

Till you prove the previous statement, this statement of yours does not hold true.

Most processes that continued for years accumulate "wear and tear" that introduces increasing inefficiencies. For example, the chain of your bicycle will eventually cease to function (break) but like a failing heart, it can be replaced. However, eventually so many parts are failing that, for example in the bicycle case, the wheel bearings of the bicycle are shot and the frame is corroding (or in the human case, the blood vesicles are clogged and cancer is eating away at organs) that repair is no longer feasible.

Do you mean to say that, "Entropy of a living cell is increasing."?

Desert sand storms are even increasing the entropy of the pyramids which not being alive can not resist this entropy increase by themselves.

This is a physical process. Why its entropy should decrease?

- Nothing last forever - not even the sun. In the very long run, everything decays but only for that sub group of physical processes we call "life" do we call this decay "death."

Do you think energy can be destroyed?

"Life process" is balancing the "physical process" of decaying. So, no need to worry. Things will last. Nature has a perfect mechanism of balancing .

Light has relativistic mass. It has zero "at rest" or invariant mass, but is non-zero relativistic mass. It is not self-contradictory, rather just unintuitive - but that is a matter of understanding as opposed to logic. And a matter of semantics.

What is the non-zero relativistic mass for a photon particle?

The dead cell is more readily treated as a closed system. Where do you draw the thermodynamic system boundary around a cell?

The cell membrane can be considered as boundary.

You mean, you simply observe that it's eating, respiring?

The mass particles in the living cells are more organised than in the dead cells.

A fungus is non-physical? It obeys all the laws of physics, doesn't it?

Or, a mistake was made drawing the system boundary, and therefore the premise for applying entropy to an organism does not follow.

Or do you really believe a fungus has a soul?

A fungus is a living being. So, it has a soul.

No, it suggests there is no physical difference in substance. It tells us nothing about the difference in configuration, which is where the difference lies. There is no need to insert non-physical causal forces such as a 'soul' to explain the difference between a dead cell and a living one.

What do you mean by configuration of a cell?

What is the difference in configuration?

 

[Billy T]

Can you prove this that, "The "life process" is a sub group of physical processes"?

Probably not to your satisfaction as your faith over rules all facts, but just to mention one example, the actions of drugs on cells is usually well understood in physical terms - never in terms of a "soul." For example several drugs effective against sold tumors halt their growth by preventing them from developing the new blood vesicles they need to grow.

Avastin is designed to directly bind to VEGF extracellularly to prevent interaction with VEGFR on the surface of endothelial cells, thereby inhibiting its biologic activity2. VEGFR is the family of receptors primarily responsible for pro-angiogenic VEGF signaling1,4,5
Extracellular VEGF binding may provide specific inhibition of the VEGF pathway2,3

The mechanism of action of Avastin has been elucidated primarily in preclinical models.

 

[hansda]

Me. - With both zero rest mass and no force field (like EM or nuclear forces) there is zero influence on any mater, including brains (or more simple neural systems) which control behavior of the living bodies.

Why the "living cell" can draw energy from the environment, whereas a "dead cell" can not draw any energy from the environment?

Probably not to your satisfactions as your faith over rules all facts, but just to mention one example, the actions of drugs on cells is usually well understood in physical terms - never in terms of a "soul." For example drug effective against sold tumors halts their growth by preventing them from developing the new blood vesicles needed to grow.

May be the soul does not interfere with other physical interactions.

 

[gmilam]

May be the soul does not interfere with other physical interactions.

Why would this "soul" need to inhabit physical systems in the first place?

 

[Magical Realist]

Ah, you mean the "Something we know is true is really weird! Therefore all things we consider really weird might be actually also be true!" type of argument, as if it lends credence to the concept of "spirit or soul or mind"?

It's just if you or Billy are going to cite the Newtonian law F = M x A as a reason to deny the possibility of a phenomena you should at least acknowledge that that law isn't as universal as you claim. If it doesn't even apply to light, what else might it not apply to?

 

[Sarkus]

What is the non-zero relativistic mass for a photon particle?

Try this: http://www.weburbia.com/physics/photon_mass.html.

 

[Sarkus]

It's just if you or Billy are going to cite the Newtonian law F = M x A as a reason to deny the possibility of a phenomena you should at least acknowledge that that law isn't as universal as you claim. If it doesn't even apply to light, what else might it not apply to?

Why would we cite F=MA? Tip: try not to guess the arguments we'll make and just wait until we make them. Otherwise you might be spending a long time arguing against things people don't have any intention of saying.

 

[Billy T]

Why the "living cell" can draw energy from the environment, whereas a "dead cell" can not draw any energy from the environment?

Dead cells do take energy from the environment. For example to oxidize and to rot. They, however, cannot do what living cells can - use that energy to maintain a highly ordered state (lower entropy).

 

[Magical Realist]

Why would we cite F=MA? Tip: try not to guess the arguments we'll make and just wait until we make them. Otherwise you might be spending a long time arguing against things people don't have any intention of saying.

Here's a tip for you: don't presume to speak for Billy, unless he's your personal sock puppet.

 

[Billy T]

Here's a tip for you: don't presume to speak for Billy, unless he's your personal sock puppet.

I don´t think Sarkus was presuming to speak for me. In post 480 I explained why the postulated (with zero evidence) to exist "soul" cannot have any influence on mater, including brains, by noting it has no mass (hence no gravity field) and none of the other three force fields (two are nuclear and the EM field). I.e. there is no way it can even cause an electron to do other than what the laws of nature require. - I.e. miracles have, like the soul, zero evidence indicting they exist.

The burden of proof that souls exist is upon those claiming that they do (despite total lack of any non-circular evidence). It is impossible to prove that X does not exist. For example, if X = unicorn, they may be pulling plows on a planet orbiting some distant star, as I type. If one claims Y does exist, when there is no evidence that Y does exist, then the burden of proof is on those claiming Y does exist.

 

[AllseeingEye]

Pardon me, I am new to forums and do not mean to intrude.

This may be an oversimplification of a monumental philosophical question or perhaps there has been complication of a simple concept.

The fundamental argument seems to be the common one of the chicken or the egg, and which came first. The brain seems to create consciousness and consciousness conceives the reality of the brain. This seems like a circular argument, that is, until you distinguish the logics of truth from the metaphysical.

Logical truths, as I define as philosophy, steeps the argument in a tangible reality. In contrast, metaphysical preponderance drowns the conversation in murky, dare I say, emotional arguments. All the mumbo jumbo about the intangible soul is one not suited for such a discussion, and makes it an inconclusive cluster**** (Sorry I could not resist). The argument on philosophical terms encompasses the logical dissection of the abundant reality of consciousness, and would also imply a conclusion. Reality in its nature is true and conclusive. There can be only one. As I see it, logical arguments must at one point be undisputable, and thus real. Arguments about the spiritual nature of the consciousness cannot be proven, and is merely left to the imagination.

Back to the question of the chicken and the egg, according to my argument there must be one logical end. My intention is not to restrict philosophy to science, which it is certainly not. Reality is not restricted to physics or any other science since there is quite the limit of what they can explain. Without theory there can be no science and vice versa. Philosophy reaches to higher meaning and is one of the greatest feats of the human mind. Consciousness is what makes the human race supreme but there can be no consciousness without the human brain. The egg is the first to give birth to the chicken, thus first is the egg. The brain is where it all begins, without the brain how can there ever be a consciousness?

A different question would be where did it all start? Can science or metaphysics explain or verify the big bang? I don't even think philosophy could really, but it could ponder the meaning of it all.

 

[Robittybob1]

Quantum consciousness! Unicellular organisms without a brain exhibited consciousness.
The brain as a computer?
"Clarifying the Tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Mod"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

 

[Billy T]

Unicellular organisms without a brain exhibited consciousness. ...

I think you mean "awareness of their environment" not consciousness. You can not even know if I am conscious, instead of just a p-zombie.

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).

 

[hansda]

Why would this "soul" need to inhabit physical systems in the first place?

You are questioning the very existence. It is like asking, "Why the existence is existing?" or "Why we are existing in this physical system?".


The Existence exists. We are part of this Existence. This is the NATURE. May be there is some Nature's Law that the soul exists in physical system.

Try this: http://www.weburbia.com/physics/photon_mass.html.

As per your link "relativistic mass for photon" is not at all a real mass. It does not follow Newton's F=M*A principle. It only gives an idea of energy or wavelength of a photon.

Dead cells do take energy from the environment. For example to oxidize and to rot.

This is decaying of dead cell by the environment.

They, however, cannot do what living cells can - use that energy to maintain a highly ordered state (lower entropy).

Environment also try to decay the living cell but does not succeed as long as the cell is alive.

I don�t think Sarkus was presuming to speak for me. In post 480 I explained why the postulated (with zero evidence) to exist "soul" cannot have any influence on mater, including brains, by noting it has no mass (hence no gravity field) and none of the other three force fields (two are nuclear and the EM field). I.e. there is no way it can even cause an electron to do other than what the laws of nature require. - I.e. miracles have, like the soul, zero evidence indicting they exist.

Soul do exert a force on electron but within the membrane of a living cell and not outside the membrane. Otherwise why entropy of the living cell is decreasing.

The burden of proof that souls exist is upon those claiming that they do (despite total lack of any non-circular evidence). It is impossible to prove that X does not exist. For example, if X = unicorn, they may be pulling plows on a planet orbiting some distant star, as I type. If one claims Y does exist, when there is no evidence that Y does exist, then the burden of proof is on those claiming Y does exist.

What is the proof that a force exist?

what is the proof that black-hole exist?

Has anybody seen a force or a black-hole?

But we know that they exist. This proof is from our observation and their logical conclusion. Force causes acceleration and black-hole causes very strong gravity. By observing acceleration and very strong gravity we conclude the existence of force and black-hole.

In the case of soul the fact is that, entropy in the living cell decreases and entropy of dead cell increases. As per your post #467 there is no physical difference between a living cell and a dead cell.---So, from this observation, What conclusion can be made as a cause for decreasing entropy in a living cell?

The brain is where it all begins, without the brain how can there ever be a consciousness?

Will there be consciousness, if the brain is dead?

I think you mean "awareness of their environment" not consciousness. You can not even know if I am conscious, instead of just a p-zombie.

What is the difference between "awareness" and "consciousness"?

 

[gmilam]

You are questioning the very existence. It is like asking, "Why the existence is existing?" or "Why we are existing in this physical system?".

No, I'm asking why you think there is something called a soul.

The Existence exists. We are part of this Existence. This is the NATURE.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

May be there is some Nature's Law that the soul exists in physical system.

And maybe not... It'd be useful if you demonstrate that there is something called a soul before requirng it to inhabit physical systems.

 

[Billy T]

... This is decaying of dead cell by the environment.
Environment also try to decay the living cell but does not succeed as long as the cell is alive.

It almost seems like you understand that living cells/organisms have physical processes that repair damage done to them by the environment. For example skin scratches that bleeds, will soon have blood coagulating in the wound. Then fibrous tissue will form under the coagulated blood. It is laid down with random orientation. Then over the next week or so specialized cells of the blood will begin to "eat away" those fibers that due to useless orientation have never been stretched. Then in less than a month, by your BODY PROCESSES alone, with zero help from unicorns, souls, Martians or other non-existent but postulated beings, you will have skin, nearly "good as new" but some of the uselessly oriented fibers will remain for years (scar tissue).

...What is the difference between "awareness" and "consciousness"?

A thermostat is aware when the temperature of the room it is in is greater (or less than) the temperature it is set for, but is not conscious of anything.

I can´t be sure about you, but know I have sensations, like pain. I.e. that I am not only aware of being stuck by a pin, but feel something I call pain. Perhaps, you when stuck by a pin, you cry out, say "That hurts!" and do other behaviors I might do, but don´t actually feel anything as you are just a p-zombie. - Not conscious, only aware that you have been stuck with a pin.

 

[Sarkus]

As per your link "relativistic mass for photon" is not at all a real mass. It does not follow Newton's F=M*A principle. It only gives an idea of energy or wavelength of a photon.

It is a real mass.
F=M*A uses rest mass - the invariant mass of an object at rest.
When an object moves, however, its Force/Acceleration relationship is no longer constant. The mass of an object changes significantly as it approaches the speed of light, and this is referred to as the relativistic mass.
So it is very wrong to consider it not real simply because it does not follow the non-relativistic notions and laws of Newton.

For a photon it is a measure of the energy, sure, because it has zero rest-mass but does have energy, which has equivalence with relativistic mass through Einstein's E=mc^2. The m in this equation is the relativistic mass.
So if you don't think relativistic mass is real then how do you explain the energy of a particle with zero rest-mass?

Bear in mind that Newton is not the final word on physics and so to rely on his laws to provide that last word on a matter of physics is a precarious policy to adopt.

 

[Syne]

The burden of proof that souls exist is upon those claiming that they do (despite total lack of any non-circular evidence). It is impossible to prove that X does not exist. For example, if X = unicorn, they may be pulling plows on a planet orbiting some distant star, as I type. If one claims Y does exist, when there is no evidence that Y does exist, then the burden of proof is on those claiming Y does exist.

Since you bring up the burden of proof, you do realize that the claim that consciousness/free will are either illusory or do not exist is the one bearing the burden? In science, we do not dismiss a universally agreed upon observation without considerable evidence. Where is the evidence?

I think you mean "awareness of their environment" not consciousness. You can not even know if I am conscious, instead of just a p-zombie.

There is evidence that humans are not philosophical zombies.

When the scientists compared the TMS data on the two groups--those who actually tickled the ivories and those who only imagined doing so--they glimpsed a revolutionary idea about the brain: the ability of mere thought to alter the physical structure and function of our gray matter. -http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580438,00.html


These students also were significantly more likely to believe in determinism compared to the other group, so it seems likely that this increased belief in determinism led directly to the “cheating” behavior. -http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/04/22/changing-belief-in-free-will-c/​

There is no reason to expect a p-zombie capable of altering its physiological structure nor its behavior due to belief/imagination alone.