what is your evidence that it can be explained as an emergent property of the brainSarkus said:You are saying nothing other than "There is a sense of 'I' for those that have a sense of 'I'."
I am sorry that you can not see that this is what you are doing.
And you are saying NOTHING about that sense of 'I' that can not be explained as an emergent property of the complexity of our brain.
The joys of life without God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Remove brain. Destroy brain. No sense of "self" or "I" left.lightgigantic said:
What more do you need?
If you want to come up with another explanation then it is up to you to provide evidence. Onus of proof etc.
And to be a preferable explanation it must satisfy Occam's Razor.
Sarkus said:
In the same way you can disable a car by taking out the engine - the fact is that it is driven by a driver though.
IN other words you still have not explained how the canvas of "I-hood" is emergent from the brain, since all we have in the way of neurology are rough ideas on parts that are related to memory, speaking, motoring etc - otherwise you could just as easily take out the drive shaft, the battery or the tyres of the car, much like you could take out the lungs, heart or kidney and observe similar results of a lack of "I".
You keep harking back to this analogy but it is flawed - for reasons I have explained in previous threads.lightgigantic said:
For it NOT to be flawed, you need to prove that the brain operates in the same way that a car does and needs a separate driver.
If you can not provide evidence to support this then the analogy is flawed.
But you can't provide this evidence, and you merely continue to use this flawed analogy to try to support your idea, almost as if it were evidence itself.
PROVE THE BRAIN WORKS LIKE A CAR!!!
If you can't - DON'T USE THE ANALOGY!
Again you are merely trying to use a current lack of knowledge as evidence in your case. Again, this is flawed on your part.Lightgigantic said:
There are 2 theories here:
1: there is this separate "soul" / "spirit" / "driver" - call it what you will - within the brain that provides a human with a sense of "I".
2: the sense of "I" is nothing more than an emergent property of the complexity of the brain.
Theory 1 requires the introduction of a "thing" for which there is no evidence beyond subjective interpretation of experience.
Theory 2 requires no such "thing" and is entirely reliant on the mechanisms (albeit not fully understood) that have been proven to exist and are studied today.
Theory 1 isn't even a valid scientific theory - as it can NEVER be proven.
Theory 2 is a valid theory and satisfies Occam's Razor.
I don't need to for it to be a preferable theory to the non-valid-scientific-theory of "soul".Lightgigantic said:
Well the only instances where brain damage is sufficient to make one devoid of "I-hood" is when it is fatal- the same conditions can be met through any number of fatal conditions applied to the body
On the contrary theory two is not proven
so in other words you want to back down from your previous statement in response to
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what is your evidence that it can be explained as an emergent property of the brain ”
You - Remove brain. Destroy brain. No sense of "self" or "I" left.
I asked for evidence and you can only give ideas - I can also give equally valid ideas that contradict your idea, thus it violates the requirement for evidence
Man you are WRONG!! it's pathetic to even try to explain to you, where the hell is the sense of "I-Hood" in severe Alzheimer's.
click
If you have ever met someone who was almost completely gone, then you would experience it first HAND! that some of these individuals can't even remember their own name! That's what makes your sense of "I-ness" Self Identity! once an individual looses that, caused by memory LOSS the sense of I-ness is GONE!! and obviously the subject is still alive, and deteriorating for several more years!
Godless
Welcome to "Science" - where there is no proof - just evidence.lightgigantic said:
I gave evidence that supports the theory - a theory that satisfies Occam's Razor - and that is thus preferable to any theory that requires the introduction of an unsubstantiated and, in the case of your "theory", unscientific element.
So given that in your idea the brain is driven by the soul (the same way, as you continue to analogise, that a person drives a car) - what drives the soul? And then what drives that thing? And that thing? And then the thing that drives that? And then that?....
Godless
You don't understand what is meant by "I"- if a person cannot remember their name does that mean they have no "I" or is it sufficient for someone to be thinking, willing and feeling to establish "I-hood"?
You don't understand what is meant by "I"- if a person cannot remember their name does that mean they have no "I" or is it sufficient for someone to be thinking, willing and feeling to establish "I-hood"?
But all the confusion and dysfunctionalism is exhibited through an "I" - I am hungry,I am upset I am confused, I am experiencing something in the absence of apparent stimuli etc etc
Sarkus
You said that there is evidence that the sense of "I" is an emergent factor of the brain - still yet to see that evidence
my point is that you haven't actually entered through that door when you make your statements
You said that there is evidence that the sense of "I" is an emergent factor of the brain - still yet to see that evidence
KennyJC said:
No - just like when you dream its not like you are essentially a different "I" since both dual experiences come under the one consciousness
AS IF I DIDN'T HAVE A PERSONALITY! You are a total idiot! That's your problem, you think we don't know what the hell a sense of "I" is; Let me define it for you so perhaps you may understand it as the rest of us! :bugeye:
I=identity! once a person looses the sense of "self-identity" he has no sense of "I-ness" get it?
feeling hunger, sleepy, etc.. these don't determine the sense of I'ness, dogs feel hungry and sense when it's time for sleep, yet they are not self aware as we are!
Godless said:
How is it possible to feel hungry without a sense of I?
because hunger is something automatic of the body! signals are sent from the stomac to the brain that say hey! there's nothing in here feed me! However Alzheimer's cases do tend to even forget to eat!
**Problems with eating are common in dementia. At times, the person with dementia may refuse to open their mouth, or need to be reminded to do so. Sometimes, they may accept food but will not swallow it, or they may accept it but then spit it out. At other times, they may resist the person who is trying to feed them and push them away, or they may throw their food about or turn their head away.
This can be exasperating or distressing for the person trying to feed them, but it is important not to take it personally. These reactions are not signs that the person is determined to ‘wind you up’ or is being deliberately difficult – they are more likely to be due to discomfort in the mouth, or to be the result of damage to the brain.** click
Mayo Clinic (click)
**Eating:
Eating sometimes can become difficult for a person with Alzheimer's disease. He or she might forget to eat, or forget that he or she has already eaten. For instance, sometimes people forget what to eat and consume a bag of candy for lunch.
Make eating easier by having ready-to-eat food (sandwiches, soup) or by enlisting the help of a meal-delivery service, like Meals on Wheels.
If the person you are caring for constantly eats, have some low-calorie foods around such as carrots, celery, crackers, or butter-less popcorn. Then if he or she wants to eat, these low-calorie, healthy snacks can be given without much hassle.
If the person you are caring for does not eat, do the opposite and provide high-calorie snacks such as a milkshake, cheese and crackers, or a diet-supplement shake.**click
That enough for ya?
**Problems with eating are common in dementia. At times, the person with dementia may refuse to open their mouth, or need to be reminded to do so. Sometimes, they may accept food but will not swallow it, or they may accept it but then spit it out. At other times, they may resist the person who is trying to feed them and push them away, or they may throw their food about or turn their head away.
This can be exasperating or distressing for the person trying to feed them, but it is important not to take it personally. These reactions are not signs that the person is determined to ‘wind you up’ or is being deliberately difficult – they are more likely to be due to discomfort in the mouth, or to be the result of damage to the brain.** click
Mayo Clinic (click)
**Eating:
Eating sometimes can become difficult for a person with Alzheimer's disease. He or she might forget to eat, or forget that he or she has already eaten. For instance, sometimes people forget what to eat and consume a bag of candy for lunch.
Make eating easier by having ready-to-eat food (sandwiches, soup) or by enlisting the help of a meal-delivery service, like Meals on Wheels.
If the person you are caring for constantly eats, have some low-calorie foods around such as carrots, celery, crackers, or butter-less popcorn. Then if he or she wants to eat, these low-calorie, healthy snacks can be given without much hassle.
If the person you are caring for does not eat, do the opposite and provide high-calorie snacks such as a milkshake, cheese and crackers, or a diet-supplement shake.**click
That enough for ya?
godless you may as well be talking to a brick wall, it wont get through.
LG will still come back with an inane reply, I've yet to find one he has actually thought through.
I now tend not to bother with him and is replies, if you can call them that, however he does tend to overwhelm the forum with them.
I think the forum is going down the tubes because of it, there was a time you could at least have a sensible debate.
LG will still come back with an inane reply, I've yet to find one he has actually thought through.
I now tend not to bother with him and is replies, if you can call them that, however he does tend to overwhelm the forum with them.
I think the forum is going down the tubes because of it, there was a time you could at least have a sensible debate.
The ‘I’ the ‘self’ is a generalization pointing to an indefinable process, a unity of phenomena, encompassed within ambiguous boundaries.
The ‘I’ is usually that part of the thinking flow, which turns away from the main mental process to look upon the rest – the eye that cannot look upon itself but only through reflections in the ‘other’.
The ‘I’ is a unity of need, projected outwards and being controlled by a central arbitrating reason, facilitating cooperation and efficiency.
The ‘I’ is an identification derived through negation and discrimination - the more precise and stringent the negation/discrimination the more powerful the sense of identity.
The ‘I’ is an empty shell, Nothingness, striving for fulfillment, satiation, Somethingness - An endless tumbling towards entropic decay, resisting it and dreaming of the absolute singularity.
The ‘I’ is the absent absolute, placed where knowledge ceases, and called God.
The failure to perceive the philosophical problems involved in defining and/or accepting an absolute ‘I’, expose ignorance or an inability to fully comprehend thought/philosophy and it also exposes a lack of courage to accept a distressful uncertainty.
Religious minds love, conceptualizing certainties into absolutes they can neither define nor prove, relying on superficiality to argue on their behalf and then falling back on a fearful extrapolation of the hypothetical absolute they so need to survive.
The ‘I’ is usually that part of the thinking flow, which turns away from the main mental process to look upon the rest – the eye that cannot look upon itself but only through reflections in the ‘other’.
The ‘I’ is a unity of need, projected outwards and being controlled by a central arbitrating reason, facilitating cooperation and efficiency.
The ‘I’ is an identification derived through negation and discrimination - the more precise and stringent the negation/discrimination the more powerful the sense of identity.
The ‘I’ is an empty shell, Nothingness, striving for fulfillment, satiation, Somethingness - An endless tumbling towards entropic decay, resisting it and dreaming of the absolute singularity.
The ‘I’ is the absent absolute, placed where knowledge ceases, and called God.
The failure to perceive the philosophical problems involved in defining and/or accepting an absolute ‘I’, expose ignorance or an inability to fully comprehend thought/philosophy and it also exposes a lack of courage to accept a distressful uncertainty.
Religious minds love, conceptualizing certainties into absolutes they can neither define nor prove, relying on superficiality to argue on their behalf and then falling back on a fearful extrapolation of the hypothetical absolute they so need to survive.
Godless
Not sure what direction you are taking - you responded by saying that being hungry has nothing to do with an "I" but then you explain how such a sensation of hunger is intrinsic to consciousness - alzheimers is a something else, as we will explain next .....
I never said that a person with brain damage has perfect functional eating habits - I did say however that such persons do have a sense of I - the very fact that there are hospice carers for alzheimers patients that actually receive training how to respond to such persons seems to confirm it too
because hunger is something automatic of the body! signals are sent from the stomac to the brain that say hey! there's nothing in here feed me! However Alzheimer's cases do tend to even forget to eat!
Not sure what direction you are taking - you responded by saying that being hungry has nothing to do with an "I" but then you explain how such a sensation of hunger is intrinsic to consciousness - alzheimers is a something else, as we will explain next .....
HOW can a person resist unless they have a sense of I?
I never said that a person with brain damage has perfect functional eating habits - I did say however that such persons do have a sense of I - the very fact that there are hospice carers for alzheimers patients that actually receive training how to respond to such persons seems to confirm it too
geeser said:
Don't fret - I will accept your forfeit
And it is touching that the credit is mine for thinning the chaff here