This is disgusting [modified]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or the heart, or the liver... all evovled to adapt to physical properties of the environment.
I don't even know what you mean. I suspect you don't either.
Stan Shannon wrote:
None of them are generating something from nothing.
The brain doesn't.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
don't even know what you mean. I suspect you don't either.
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The brain doesn't.
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
don't even know what you mean. I suspect you don't either.
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The brain doesn't.
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
OK.
Stan Shannon wrote:
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all. In fact, YOU'RE the one saying that. Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the simple fact of the matter is that there exists no theory which explains consciousness.
Yes, that of 100 trillion neuronal connections in the brain. Maybe you should start by defining "mind" and "consciousness." Because it seems like you're looking awfully hard for a way to make them more complicated then they really are. Quarks? Reducing to "basic properties?" No mathematical formula exists? You're working hard to attach unnecessary conditions to the understanding of human behaviour for no reason other than to obfuscate the issue. Hell, I could just as easily say that I don't accept that this computer works with electricity alone because nobody has figured out what an electron is made of. So I'll start: We store memories of the input of the five senses using neuronal plasticity via the hippocampus - and can also generate new neurons and new connections in the hippo. Some memories are stronger than others (and are therefore more influential in planning) as mediated by adjacently triggered emotional/physical stimuli. We recall those memories in order to plan actions. How does this not satisfactorily explain human behaviour?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Maybe you should start by defining "mind" and "consciousness."
And that is precisely the point. Does consciousness exist or doesn't it? If it does, what the hell is it? Is it a form of energy? A state of matter? You are trying to oversimplify the issue by dismissing the core question - What the fuck am I? And you are doing it precisely because you are vested philosphically in promoting a purposeless, mechanistic universe. Any thing that might possibly conflict with that is to be swept under the carpet and ignored. If my mind is the result of purely mindless mechanisitc processess, I want an explanation that isn't based on some magic number of neurons.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain.
No, it's neither simple, nor explained. To point to something and say, "That's where it happens," is not an explanation; it's geography. The problem you and Ravel face in arguing with Stan by the way, is that he (like me) does not claim to have T.H.E. A.N.S.W.E.R. But, unlike too many folks who think that everything there is to know has already been discovered, he does not let the fact that he does not know it, mean that he dismisses the question.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
is that he (like me) does not claim to have T.H.E. A.N.S.W.E.R. But, unlike too many folks who think that everything there is to know has already been discovered, he does not let the fact that he does not know it, mean that he dismisses the question.
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed. We force things to conform to some predefined rationality. But there can be no true progress unless you are capable of stepping outside that box.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
OK.
Stan Shannon wrote:
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all. In fact, YOU'RE the one saying that. Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all.
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was. All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
The conscious part - you know - being awake.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all.
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was. All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
The conscious part - you know - being awake.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was.
It has the same physical reality as a traffic jam. It doesn't exist until you have traffic, and it depends on how many cars you have and how they're arranged.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
I think that that's extremely unlikely. Why would there be a completely undetectable 'mind field' extending throughout all of space and only interacting with a particular arrangement of matter? Why would people have separate consciousnesses if they were all interacting with the same field? And what 'property of reality' did the gallbladder adapt to?
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
How does that make me closed-minded? He made a statement to me that I have made to people like you, therefore it sounded familiar.
Ah, OK. You weren't very clear. I thought you were referring to the prejudice that you undoubtedly harbour against cognitive neuroscience.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Laugh
Seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I thought you were referring to the prejudice that you undoubtedly harbour against cognitive neuroscience.
:sigh: I harbour no prejudice against neuroscience (or any science), nor have I expressed any in this thread. Science is a tool that is useful in explaining things to which it has a view, i.e. the physical world. I believe there are things that exist apart from (or outside of) the physical world and, as such, can't be explained by science.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Seriously
That's what's so funny!
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain.
No, it's neither simple, nor explained. To point to something and say, "That's where it happens," is not an explanation; it's geography. The problem you and Ravel face in arguing with Stan by the way, is that he (like me) does not claim to have T.H.E. A.N.S.W.E.R. But, unlike too many folks who think that everything there is to know has already been discovered, he does not let the fact that he does not know it, mean that he dismisses the question.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
He uses scientific terms like quark to formulate his purely philosophical questions and reject existing knowledge while insisting that we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand. That's pseudoscientific. That kind of thinking is not pragmatically useful. The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises. Denying that is essentially rejecting empirical evidence-based thinking in favour of what amounts to wishful thinking and death denial. That's fine. It's reprehensibly lazy thinking, but it's fine. And it has consequences - like denying a PVS patient the right to die comfortably, insisting that "she's still in there." Perhaps that's beyond the scope of our discussion, though.
- F
-
He uses scientific terms like quark to formulate his purely philosophical questions and reject existing knowledge while insisting that we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand. That's pseudoscientific. That kind of thinking is not pragmatically useful. The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises. Denying that is essentially rejecting empirical evidence-based thinking in favour of what amounts to wishful thinking and death denial. That's fine. It's reprehensibly lazy thinking, but it's fine. And it has consequences - like denying a PVS patient the right to die comfortably, insisting that "she's still in there." Perhaps that's beyond the scope of our discussion, though.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand
There are, of course, many people who think that there are no physical processes we do not understand. The technical term for such a perion is "idiot." But I await your attempts to prove that there is nothing left to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Where was the mind - or soul- before there was a brain? Where does it go after the brain ceases to function? Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. To believe that there is nothing in this universe than can be created or destroyed is not particularly unscientific. To assume, for some reason, that the human mind/soul is the only thing that can be destroyed, appears to me to be a belief-structure and not observation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
So it's just semantics?
I would hardly call 'thing that happens' arguing semantics.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, you have no idea?
I have some idea. For example, an infant has about 10 times more synaptic connections than an adult. I was just weakly asserting it, because when I say things with more certainty you always disparage me for it.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it's rediculous. We know exactly how lightbulbs came to exist, why they are created,and who made them. Unless of course, you are saying they just spontaneously came about when lightning struck some primordial chemical soup. You know a lot, grasshopper, but your analogy sucks scissors sideways.
Only because you suck at interpreting them. I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.
But asserting that the energy emitted from the lightbulb ceases to exist simply because you can no longer see it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Dancing is yet to be proven, but it has been linked to accelerated marriage plans.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
It is/was a common refrain in fundamentalist Christian preaching that dancing leads to premarital sex. In keeping with the theme of the sub thread, I was stating the reverse. :)
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand
There are, of course, many people who think that there are no physical processes we do not understand. The technical term for such a perion is "idiot." But I await your attempts to prove that there is nothing left to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Where was the mind - or soul- before there was a brain? Where does it go after the brain ceases to function? Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. To believe that there is nothing in this universe than can be created or destroyed is not particularly unscientific. To assume, for some reason, that the human mind/soul is the only thing that can be destroyed, appears to me to be a belief-structure and not observation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I thought you were referring to the prejudice that you undoubtedly harbour against cognitive neuroscience.
:sigh: I harbour no prejudice against neuroscience (or any science), nor have I expressed any in this thread. Science is a tool that is useful in explaining things to which it has a view, i.e. the physical world. I believe there are things that exist apart from (or outside of) the physical world and, as such, can't be explained by science.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Seriously
That's what's so funny!
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I harbour no prejudice against neuroscience (or any science), nor have I expressed any in this thread. Science is a tool that is useful in explaining things to which it has a view, i.e. the physical world. I believe there are things that exist apart from (or outside of) the physical world and, as such, can't be explained by science.
Yes you do. You believe that the mind is not physical and refuse to acknowledge the significant quantities of evidence that suggests you're wrong. Moreover, you never will change your opinion. That's the definition of prejudice.
-
You're such a "troll" :thumbsup: ... if *I* had been saying essentially the same things you've said in this thread, you would simply *have* to pointlessly (and mindlessly) dispute them. :thumbsup:
Butt out of this, dickface.
-
You're such a "troll" :thumbsup: ... if *I* had been saying essentially the same things you've said in this thread, you would simply *have* to pointlessly (and mindlessly) dispute them. :thumbsup:
Ilíon wrote:
if *I* had been saying essentially the same things you've said in this thread, you would simply *have* to pointlessly (and mindlessly) dispute them.
Don't be silly, Troy. I don't think you have *ever* written a post based on the premise that no-one, not even *you*, could speak definitively about everything. Far more than any of my partners in this discussion, you are someone who asserts the unknowable and unprovable as cosmic truths that the *kiddies* are too blind to comprehend even though you provided a *link* to someone with an *opinion* Have a *nice* day. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.
But asserting that the energy emitted from the lightbulb ceases to exist simply because you can no longer see it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But asserting that the energy emitted from the lightbulb ceases to exist simply because you can no longer see it?
I never said that... :confused:
-
Oakman wrote:
is that he (like me) does not claim to have T.H.E. A.N.S.W.E.R. But, unlike too many folks who think that everything there is to know has already been discovered, he does not let the fact that he does not know it, mean that he dismisses the question.
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed. We force things to conform to some predefined rationality. But there can be no true progress unless you are capable of stepping outside that box.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed.
Not at all. Everyone thinks that the scientific community is conspiring against them when it doesn't accept their ideas, but the fact is that if you had solid evidence and not just a garbled mess of ill-defined words, then men of science would happily cast Earth to the periphery of the great unknown.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
we prove a negative - that there is nothing beyond the physical processes that we understand
There are, of course, many people who think that there are no physical processes we do not understand. The technical term for such a perion is "idiot." But I await your attempts to prove that there is nothing left to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that based on a preponderance of existing evidence, the brain is the location where the emergent human mind arises.
So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Where was the mind - or soul- before there was a brain? Where does it go after the brain ceases to function? Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human. To believe that there is nothing in this universe than can be created or destroyed is not particularly unscientific. To assume, for some reason, that the human mind/soul is the only thing that can be destroyed, appears to me to be a belief-structure and not observation.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking they are the same thing. They aren't, or at least don't have to be anymore than the house is the human.
Show me some evidence for that. (and you're right, i should have said 'that we _can_ understand,' not what we understand. Pedant. :P)
- F
-
You're a biochemist, right?
-
Heh, not so much anymore - did my undergrad in biochem, now I'm about halfway through my MD. I've been in school forever! :~
- F
MD...you're becoming a doctor? (Sorry if I'm wrong, I don't actually know anything)