HUMAN BEINGS ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU. WE ARE GRAY'S ANATOMY SPLENDICUS. WE ARE ILL TO THE BONE!!!
THERE AIN'T NO SOUL LIKE JAMES BROWN MUTHA FUCKAS!!!
Is there a soul?
- Thread starter Cortex_Colossus
- Start date
HUMAN BEINGS ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU. WE ARE GRAY'S ANATOMY SPLENDICUS. WE ARE ILL TO THE BONE!!!
THERE AIN'T NO SOUL LIKE JAMES BROWN MUTHA FUCKAS!!!
Ronan,
In exactly the same way that the brain is comprised of neural networks but it is their patterns (consciousness) that enables the brain (you) to do what you do.
No. It is the brain that allows us to experience.
No. You are your brain. There is nothing else.
The analogy is that consciousness is the software.
There is only electrical pathway in the computer. It is the sequence (program) that makes it do what it does.
In exactly the same way that the brain is comprised of neural networks but it is their patterns (consciousness) that enables the brain (you) to do what you do.
It is irrelevant here. No one has yet shown there is any alternative possibility to physical matter.
Because as I just said there is no alternative.
As opposed to your assertion that it simply magically exists. That is your belief. You have significantly less foundation for that assertion than I have for mine.
so how come you can show me neural networks but still not show me an idea?
You did not explain how here, that was the question.
Brain is a perception, don't you agree?
we perceive it as gray composed of neurons and atoms if we look more deeply
You have to agree with that while you cannot be sure that brain is what makes your experience. You have to justify it.
In fact, it is evident that your perceptions if caused by matter can only be caused due to not only brain, but brain + body + environment.
so your perceptions are the result of the whole world. => only one soul => the physical world
So no, even in your materialistic account, you make a mistake, you are not brain, you are the world.
You did not get my point, software has no meaning without consciousness, it is a software because your consciousness can use/comprehend it as a software.
otherwise computer program are just electrical pathways.
the sequence is only intelligible by consciousness.
the program itself is also only electrical pathways.
brain is only neural networks connection, ok, so the software you want to give it as a result of the interaction taking place is only given by consciousness.
Without consciousness you would no be able to make sense of a software running
=> no consciousness , no software in the brain,
so no consciousness according to you.
so finally your argument does not stand if you say that consciousness is the software because it necessitate at first the existence of consciousness to perceive it as a software
There is of course an alternative but you do not seem to even listen to it:
=> There is only consciousness. your existence is only a perception
of course I don't mention all other alternative: interactive dualism, ephiphenomenal dualism, monad (Leibniz), ... the list is long.
Personnaly I think these one, even if better than a physical monism does not stand for several reason. We can discuss that somewhere else.
But what is sure is that there are alternative, open your eyes.
no alternative, is it your only argument ?
No it does not magically exist contrary to your assertion that consciousness arise from the brain. please explain me how it does. If it is not magical, you should be able to do it, at least show a direction.
My explanation is not a magical explanation:
something we cannot deny is the existence of consciousness, I think you agreed: cogito ergo sum
then we have perceptions because it is the property of consciousness to have them, you can check yourself with your own perception. Perception are indeed always accompanied by consciousness.
Nothing magical here, just what we experience every time
What are your foundations? I think you forgot to mention them
I have understood that consciousness is an emergent property of neural network complexity. But it produces interpretations via senses by the human psyche. Some scientists go as far as saying it creates by observing one of n number of possibilities. I still don't completely understand the wave notation of f = 1/l (where l is lambda). The highest amplitude is the most likely event (which includes observation) and it does not exist in any mind until it is created by perception.
I am the universe experiencing itself as a conscious being. My perception is that my past exists, but my future does not. And thus hope must be foresaken in order for me to have hope.
I am the universe experiencing itself as a conscious being. My perception is that my past exists, but my future does not. And thus hope must be foresaken in order for me to have hope.
Ronan,
The analogy holds – software is to computer what consciousness is to the brain.
The question concerned syntax > symantics. I have answered it.
The brain is a physical biological organ.
Countless clinical experiments and surgery from brain damaged patients confirm that experience deteriorates, altered, or is destroyed if parts of the brain are altered/damaged. This is direct affirmation that experience and hence consciousness is caused by the brain.
We all live in a long chain of dependencies on our environment. In this case, as part of the chain, consciousness is directly dependent on a functioning brain.
Stupefying nonsense.
You don’t have a point.
The analogy holds – software is to computer what consciousness is to the brain.
No. The sequence is consciousness.
Close enough. In the same way that consciousness is only neural networks.
No. Consciousness is the patterns generated by the neural networks, just a like a program is the patterns of electrical pathways in a computer.
Consciousness is the software.
Consciousness is the software that enables that recognition.
That’s your bizarre conclusion not mine.
No. That is what the software (consciousness) does.
That’s not an alternative to physical matter. This is your fantasy that you cannot justify.
These are not alternatives, but speculations and fantasies. Nothing beyond physical matter has been shown to exist. You have no demonstrable alternative.
Nonsense, as I have already explained. We know of ONLY physical matter. You need to understand the difference between FACT and FANTASY.
It is the only argument. DEMONSTRATE something else if you think otherwise.
If you cannot explain a cause for consciousness then your only option is a call to magic.
Keep cutting into a brain until consciousness stops. That confirms that the brain causes consciousness. It’s been done many times, examples of comatose patients, etc.
Unless you can point to a source then an assertion that it “just is” is different to magic how?
It is the cause of consciousness we are discussing not what it does.
Then pay attention, they are all listed above.
Cris,
And there is no answer here. you only say here that if syntax is wrong, meaning doe snot occur.
It is not at all an explanation, it is a correlation.
the explanation could be semantic-> syntax
or semantic<->synatx
or again syntax + X -> semantic
...
Your explanation is like for what you say o fthe brain: it magically pop up from simplicity to complexity in a meaning.
quite easy jump
or do you want to say that we do not perceive the brain?
brain is not a perception?
or do you just want to avoid to realize that indeed it is a perception, not a big deal anyway.
if I alter teh tree (like you alter the brain in your description) your experience will change. Following what you conclude I ll quote you:
So now, is not our experience connected to all the world?
But how could you makes sense of a software without consciousness in the first place knowing that what happen physically in the computer is only electrical pathway?
Saying that no it is caused by the brain without saying how, it is not at all an explanation. Is that your foundation?
Also, take note of the following from Searle:
This indicate that software are not physical pathway alone, they are a relation between us and the computer. Because of our particular body we enter in relation with computer that we do not with a wall.
So software is not present in the computer as such but in the whole world perceived.
so if the content consciousness is caused by something it is this content itself. (self evident indeed except that the word cause here is no more appropriate)
cogito ergo sum
everything else are perceptions
consciousness is not a fantasy. are you not conscious?
physical matter is an unjustified assumption
(justified only by induction, which is not a logical justification)
would you say in your framewwork taht matter popped up by magic?
no consciousness => no brain
why the reverse?
also we cannot know that there is consciousnes or not, we only know taht the body does not respond. Do not jump on conclusion without justifying.
Please read again Harnad. maybe you will understand more the hard problem.
if something exist for sure (consciousness) why need to say that it come by magic,
It is always there, was always there, will be always there, no need of magic
You are not explaning anything
yes it was this question but your answer is the following:
And there is no answer here. you only say here that if syntax is wrong, meaning doe snot occur.
It is not at all an explanation, it is a correlation.
the explanation could be semantic-> syntax
or semantic<->synatx
or again syntax + X -> semantic
...
Your explanation is like for what you say o fthe brain: it magically pop up from simplicity to complexity in a meaning.
quite easy jump
Don't you agree that everything "physical" is perceptions?
or do you want to say that we do not perceive the brain?
brain is not a perception?
or do you just want to avoid to realize that indeed it is a perception, not a big deal anyway.
Imagining you are watching an apple in a tree
if I alter teh tree (like you alter the brain in your description) your experience will change. Following what you conclude I ll quote you:
the environment (including brain of course)
So now, is not our experience connected to all the world?
Hmm consciousness is a software.
But how could you makes sense of a software without consciousness in the first place knowing that what happen physically in the computer is only electrical pathway?
Saying that no it is caused by the brain without saying how, it is not at all an explanation. Is that your foundation?
Also, take note of the following from Searle:
From http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html
This indicate that software are not physical pathway alone, they are a relation between us and the computer. Because of our particular body we enter in relation with computer that we do not with a wall.
So software is not present in the computer as such but in the whole world perceived.
so if the content consciousness is caused by something it is this content itself. (self evident indeed except that the word cause here is no more appropriate)
I justified it:
cogito ergo sum
everything else are perceptions
No physical matter have been proved to exist, only perceptions.
consciousness is not a fantasy. are you not conscious?
No, we do not know about physical matter, we have theories that predict but first of all they are changing everytime and currently the description of matter we have is not a description but a theorical framwork that give us prediction thro0ugh probabilities alone.
physical matter is an unjustified assumption
(justified only by induction, which is not a logical justification)
cogito ergo sum
no magic here,
would you say in your framewwork taht matter popped up by magic?
correlations alone.
no consciousness => no brain
why the reverse?
also we cannot know that there is consciousnes or not, we only know taht the body does not respond. Do not jump on conclusion without justifying.
Please read again Harnad. maybe you will understand more the hard problem.
would you say in your framewwork taht matter popped up by magic?
if something exist for sure (consciousness) why need to say that it come by magic,
It is always there, was always there, will be always there, no need of magic
Yes, but what I wanted to say is because every time we perceive, we need consciousness: cogito ergo sum,
If I understand, what you call foundation are very weak :
You are not explaning anything
no you haven't
for instance if a mother crocodile is keeping her eggs in her mouth you can't show how the idea that she is having is different from when she uses the same mouth to snap the bone of a buffalo in terms of neural passageways.
clearly all you are talking about are your ideas of ideas
LG,
We observe the brain is primarily physical neural networks, we know ideas can be formed, we do not yet have the skills to understand how complex neural networks do their job. We do not know of any other possible cause of ideas, and have no reason to suspect anything else other than neural nets.
I'm sure if you put the crocodile in one of those brain-scanning thingummies, it would show clear differences in brain activity between the two situations you describe. The motor-functions relating to the mouth would likely be the only similar activity.
ronan,
We also observe that matter/energy is never created or destroyed but can be changed into variations of itself. I.e. there is never any net loss or gain.
All of that suggests that matter/energy in some form has always existed. The fabric of matter then becomes the building blocks for everything else that follows.
Consciousness is incredibly complex.
Your assertion is that something incredibly complex simply exists.
You have no foundation or basis for that assertion.
We observe that complexity arises from combinations of simpler components. Physicists have been splitting matter into smaller and smaller components for a long time with the outlook that fundamental strings may be the basic fabric of the universe.
We also observe that matter/energy is never created or destroyed but can be changed into variations of itself. I.e. there is never any net loss or gain.
All of that suggests that matter/energy in some form has always existed. The fabric of matter then becomes the building blocks for everything else that follows.
Consciousness is incredibly complex.
Your assertion is that something incredibly complex simply exists.
You have no foundation or basis for that assertion.
IOW you are working backwards from a hypothesis that is not (empirically)validated - hence "idea .... and as a further point, this has obvious implications for a staunch empiricist
you're sure?
sorry but I am one of those super rational empirical types and if nots peer reviewed its just crackpottery
you make a common mistake here,
Quantum physics teach us that indeed we cannot know reality because of our perceptual aparatus (scientific measurement devices, sense)
Scientific theories are mathematical tools only.
String theories confirm this fact with their many form.
also history teach us that we are always decomposing in something smaller, why would it stop?
in fatc it is not an observation but what permits to do calculation. a law that is necessary for doing science.
I would add that it is a logical law.
consciousness allways existed and because the matter you are talking is the perception of consciousness it follows that matter/energy allways existed.
complexity is a perception, you have no way to say that consciousness is complex, only your brain is complex!
cogito ergo sum prove the existence of consciousness,
your brain could be a dream
matter as unconscious has no justification:
unconsciousness is not an experience we can have, consciousness is always there.
Cris, your mistake is on the UNJUSTIFIED belief in the existence of an unconscious matter that would give rise (UNJUSTIFIED) to consciousness
Please give me two logical argument to justify this two assumption.
if you do not provide them, you cannot anymore say that what you are saying is true without falling in what you like to say to other: a belief in fantasy
No, you're merely the type that refuses to accept more rational explanations as even possible and prefer to go with the God theory instead to explain everything.you're sure?
sorry but I am one of those super rational empirical types and if nots peer reviewed its just crackpottery
Hey ho, and all that.
Each to their own.
:shrug:
lg, ronan,
1. We are aware that we have consciousness.
2. We have a brain with some 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections between them that combined provide processing power equivalent to some 20,000 high end computers operating as a massively parallel multi-processing system. This is an astonishing amount of processing power that we are only just beginning to comprehend.
3. We have no single scrap of evidence that suggests anything other than matter exists.
It seems perfectly credible to suggest that (2) is the overwhelming most likely cause of (1).
That is the sum of my argument.
1. We are aware that we have consciousness.
2. We have a brain with some 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections between them that combined provide processing power equivalent to some 20,000 high end computers operating as a massively parallel multi-processing system. This is an astonishing amount of processing power that we are only just beginning to comprehend.
3. We have no single scrap of evidence that suggests anything other than matter exists.
It seems perfectly credible to suggest that (2) is the overwhelming most likely cause of (1).
That is the sum of my argument.
sure
I have also played around on some pretty amazing computers before too
once again, evidence rests upon qualification
if you want to say that the only thing able to be qualified is matter, you beg the question
obviously there are serious problems with point 3
looks like you are confusing schools
rationalism is central to philosophy just as empiricism is central to hard science
you've given a zillion arguments against rationalism and now suddenly you rely on it to lend credibility to your empiricism
what is this crackpottery?