Mind-Body- debate

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

It does, and? you care to debate it doesn't because your proof of how consciousness came into the world is...?  please enlighten me.

I think you've lost the flow of your claims.  You said, "Consciousness moves on after the body dies. I think the great philosophers knew that.".  I replied that they believed that but no one has actually demonstrated that consciousness moves on. 

To put it another way, what if I responded with the reverse of what you wrote:  "Consciousness does not move on after the body dies; I think the great neurologists believe that"?  What would be your response?  It should be that whether consciousness lives on after we die depends on evidence only, not the beliefs of great philosophers or great neurologists.

[ellapenella]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think you've lost the flow of your claims.  You said, "Consciousness moves on after the body dies. I think the great philosophers knew that.".  I replied that they believed that but no one has actually demonstrated that consciousness moves on. 

To put it another way, what if I responded with the reverse of what you wrote:  "Consciousness does not move on after the body dies; I think the great neurologists believe that"?  What would be your response?  It should be that whether consciousness lives on after we die depends on evidence only, not the beliefs of great philosophers or great neurologists.

I would understand that the  true nature of consciousness would disagree with your claims,  claiming that death exists for consciousness after the body is no longer present in a material state I know it's false . Consciousness is not material and it doesn't die... unless maybe it does for some people. 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

I shared one little experience But I have others that are different in which I could share...I know that life exists after the material body is no longer. I'm not the only one who knows this. I guess that each individual has it's own path to learn.

[Opus Magnus]

The existanof Pythagoras is important. As Jesus said after his ressurection while meeting his apostles, "Even the more blessed are those who believed it was me ressurected, without having to prove it to them first." or something like that.

There is also a prophecy in the Iliad of Achilles, that two fates were ruling his life. One, if he were to leave the battle of Troy, he would live a long life full if riches and joy. The other, he would stay at Troy and die, but he would gain fame after death that would last to the end of the world.

Well, since the Iliad is a very popular book, and we all still talk about Achilles to this day, and the Iliad was written at like 1000 BC. It looks like the prophecy came true. Not every God or Demigod has had their prophecy come true, like Israel lasting to this day and the end of the world.

 

As for the beans, it was apparently because they contain the souls of the dead. And the flatulence they cause was known to be the sound they make.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Opus Magnus

[rashore]

15 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Who was Ovid representing ? Was this Ovid's own wisdom he was quoting or that of another? How I view it is not who's mouth it came out of  but who's mouth it first came out of and who's mind first thought of it ...not that the individual   repeating Pythagoras's wisdom is to take the credit of Pythagoras's wisdom because he shared what he learned from Pythagoras. Now if the quote is not something learned from Pythagoras than all credit should go to Ovid for thinking it up himself. 

It is unfortunate that you seem not to know that quoting and representing are two different things or know the difference between the two. Unfortunate indeed.

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

I would understand that the  true nature of consciousness would disagree with your claims,  claiming that death exists for consciousness after the body is no longer present in a material state I know it's false . 

Okay, fair enough, I misunderstood why you included the word 'debate' in the thread title then.  There probably isn't much debate to be had if you are going to respond to requests for evidence by just noting that you already understand and know the answer to what I thought was up for debate.

[ellapenella]

46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Okay, fair enough, I misunderstood why you included the word 'debate' in the thread title then.  There probably isn't much debate to be had if you are going to respond to requests for evidence by just noting that you already understand and know the answer to what I thought was up for debate.

Well, my evidence is not shareable with you. Note that  there is more going on in the universe besides satellites to connect with. Maybe you can share some evidence of how consciousness emerged from nothing at all...

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

51 minutes ago, rashore said:

It is unfortunate that you seem not to know that quoting and representing are two different things or know the difference between the two. Unfortunate indeed.

Was it Pythagoras or Ovid's teachings? Was Ovid repeating Pythagoras words, if so why should we give him credit..is all I'm expressing. 

eta

Unless Ovid is in his own words sharing his interpretation of Pythagoras's teachings . I'm not familiar with it so forgive me if I get confused. I actually began with Pythagoras because from what i learned was that he's the first or pretty much the first to introduce philosophy to the western world. Don't quote me on that tho.  

Also I have learned that philosophy is pretty broad ...covers many areas such as duality of the mind and body. 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Ellapennella

[Aquila King]

45 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Also I have learned that philosophy is pretty broad ...covers many areas such as duality of the mind and body.

Philosophy is indeed broad, but what's even more broad is sophistry. Try not to confuse the two.

[ellapenella]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Philosophy is indeed broad, but what's even more broad is sophistry. Try not to confuse the two.

If the philosopher is a liar I suppose... there is a reason why Yeshua said to test the spirit and trust no man. There is truth in life after. There is truth in consciousness outside of the body.  

[ellapenella]

4 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

The existanof Pythagoras is important. As Jesus said after his ressurection while meeting his apostles, "Even the more blessed are those who believed it was me ressurected, without having to prove it to them first." or something like that.

There is also a prophecy in the Iliad of Achilles, that two fates were ruling his life. One, if he were to leave the battle of Troy, he would live a long life full if riches and joy. The other, he would stay at Troy and die, but he would gain fame after death that would last to the end of the world.

Well, since the Iliad is a very popular book, and we all still talk about Achilles to this day, and the Iliad was written at like 1000 BC. It looks like the prophecy came true. Not every God or Demigod has had their prophecy come true, like Israel lasting to this day and the end of the world.

 

As for the beans, it was apparently because they contain the souls of the dead. And the flatulence they cause was known to be the sound they make.

Mathematician, mystic, scientist, and philosopher... "all things are numbers"  was his motto.

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/math/irasasi/Allisnumber.pdf

I wonder what people such as himself  would further add to the field of quantum physics, that is if reincarnation is such a thing he would probably have already added more. I'm not sure about that,I don't know ,what do you think about it?reincarnation,what do say about it?

Quote

My conclusion is that consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present

Quote

Our brains and our eyes and everything physical around us are made up of atoms.Science has proven many times with the double slit experiment and the delayed choice experiment that all the atoms in existence aren't atoms untill they are observed by a consciousness.When our consciousnesses aren't observing those atoms they go back to being waves called "probability waves."Therefore our consciousness are creating the atoms that make up our brains,our eyes,our bodies and everything physical around us.Consciouness is TRANSCENTDENT and METAPHYSICAL.The TRANSCENDENT AND METAPHYSICAL IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE MATERIAL WORLD.For more information please Google:Professor Andrew Truscott. 

http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brain

[Opus Magnus]

18 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Mathematician, mystic, scientist, and philosopher... "all things are numbers"  was his motto.

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/math/irasasi/Allisnumber.pdf

I wonder what people such as himself  would further add to the field of quantum physics, that is if reincarnation is such a thing he would probably have already added more. I'm not sure about that,I don't know ,what do you think about it?reincarnation,what do say about it?

http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brain

Yeah, reincarnation is interesting. In Revelation it says Jesus holds the keys to Hell and Hades. So he could probably let you out if you go there. There is supposed to be a chamber behind the throne of Zeus where the Hekatoncheires comes from Hell to warn Zeus of trouble, since he helped them in the war of the Titans. So, Hell might be a temporary place to consider life on the surface.

But, it would take a minute to see which ancient documents say what about Pythagoras. Because, apparently only some are legitamate.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Opus Magnus

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 4/20/2018 at 2:38 PM, Ellapennella said:

Maybe you can share some evidence of how consciousness emerged from nothing at all..

The brain is not what I would term "nothing at all". 

What do you think is so unusual about 'consciousness'?  We have a physical brain with complex chemical and electrical interactions going on, a lot of which we don't fully understand. Given that fact, what were you expecting as a result of all of that?  Unconsciousness?  Something more like a robot or bacteria that is just operating according to programming/instinct and isn't self-aware?

[StarMountainKid]

I tend to think the mind is local, but infinite within itself. Sort of like a Koch snowflake. There is no limit to its iterations, so it has an infinite area bounded by an infinitely long line. Bounded but infinite. I mean, when we contemplate our conscious awareness, we come to no boundary. 

. 

[ellapenella]

6 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, reincarnation is interesting. In Revelation it says Jesus holds the keys to Hell and Hades. So he could probably let you out if you go there. There is supposed to be a chamber behind the throne of Zeus where the Hekatoncheires comes from Hell to warn Zeus of trouble, since he helped them in the war of the Titans. So, Hell might be a temporary place to consider life on the surface.

But, it would take a minute to see which ancient documents say what about Pythagoras. Because, apparently only some are legitamate.

I do ponder in thought about it. This is a pretty interesting.

eta

This is so amazing.

Quote

delayed choice experiment that all the atoms in existence aren't atoms until they are observed by a consciousness.When our consciousnesses aren't observing those atoms they go back to being waves called "probability waves."Therefore our consciousness are creating the atoms that make up our brains

do you get what that is saying? it's saying that we could never exist if we weren't consciously aware first.  reminds me of the mentioning of I knew you before you were placed in the womb. 

I don't know about reincarnation but I don't doubt that it could happen.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Ellapennella

[psyche101]

On 4/21/2018 at 12:38 AM, Ellapennella said:

"101" that's just  theory...as we both understand it is not a fact of matter...I'm surprised at you for saying  something so silly as it has already be proven. I'm reading about another  slit experiment right now... pertaining to  the mind and what scientist have forever tried to figure out in that which makes up the core of who we are ...the consciousness. Ever since consciousness emerged it has bewildered and confounded philosophers, mystics,&  physicist alike  since the dawn of humanity's tribal beginnings  ...I suppose this is where philosophers have always dove in with all of their heart and all of their wisdom.

What do you mean 'that's just theory'??? 

Scientific theory is much more sound and reliable than philosophy is. 

DEFINITION :

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

LINK "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

 

Consiusness is an evolved set of responses which reacts to that which is around us and how to interpret that. I have no idea why you would think the best explanation we have to date by the best minds on the cutting edge of science would be 'silly' but find wild musings accurate. 

And you said consciousness cannot be explained by science. It can and has through the attention schema theory. That was also an incorrect statement on your behalf regardless of your persuasion or belief. 

Its not the mystery some people want it to be. Consciousness evolved just like everything else did. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

On 4/20/2018 at 3:14 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Biological robots leaving in a meaningless Universe.

The new atheist doctrine.

Please god exist because I need to feel special 

Your doctrine. 

[ellapenella]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What do you mean 'that's just theory'??? 

Scientific theory is much more sound and reliable than philosophy is. 

DEFINITION :

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

LINK "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

 

Consiusness is an evolved set of responses which reacts to that which is around us and how to interpret that. I have no idea why you would think the best explanation we have to date by the best minds on the cutting edge of science would be 'silly' but find wild musings accurate. 

And you said consciousness cannot be explained by science. It can and has through the attention schema theory. That was also an incorrect statement on your behalf regardless of your persuasion or belief. 

Its not the mystery some people want it to be. Consciousness evolved just like everything else did. 

Scientifically you can not state something as fact of matter regarding the mind when it has not been able to be proven as fact of matter as of this very day. Science can not and has not  provided evidence of what exactly the minds conscientiousness is ...So yeah ..for you to stand on a soap box and claim science has stated there is no soul  because we know infinitely & understand  everything there is to know about  mind  or something like that as fact is very silly. It's what I perceive you doing here. The scheme in the schema theory is not providing evidence of the  mystery concerning the mind. 

The bolded in your sentence is not a fact."The concept of schema theory helps psychologists understand and discuss what cannot be seen.Schema theory can describe how specific knowledge is organised and stored in memory so that it can be retrieved." So  psychologist feel justified to preach to people that they  have no soul because it can not be seen nor proven scientifically... 

Here's a man of neuroscience who taught at Harvard and  once was a self centered hardcore atheist until his NDE ...where as he was in infinite  awareness of being conscious while his brain was dead .

Dr. Eben Alexander on His Near-Death Experience—and What He’s Learned About Consciousness

https://goop.com/wellness/spirituality/dr-eben-alexander-near-death-experience-hes-learned-consciousness/

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

On 4/21/2018 at 3:22 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

The brain is not what I would term "nothing at all". 

What do you think is so unusual about 'consciousness'?  We have a physical brain with complex chemical and electrical interactions going on, a lot of which we don't fully understand. Given that fact, what were you expecting as a result of all of that?  Unconsciousness?  Something more like a robot or bacteria that is just operating according to programming/instinct and isn't self-aware?

Who said that the brain is nothing at all? What I'm suggesting here is that the brain and the mind are two different things all together. So you're asking what am I'm expecting because it's all too complicated to figure out? I suppose it all depends on whom exactly is producing the information and from where the perspective of it is  coming from.

 

The brain, Chalmers began by pointing out, poses all sorts of problems to keep scientists busy. How do we learn, store memories, or perceive things? How do you know to jerk your hand away from scalding water, or hear your name spoken across the room at a noisy party? But these were all “easy problems”, in the scheme of things: given enough time and money, experts would figure them out. There was only one truly hard problem of consciousness, Chalmers said. It was a puzzle so bewildering that, in the months after his talk, people started dignifying it with capital letters – the Hard Problem of Consciousness – and it’s this: why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life? And how does the brain manage it? How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience ofbeing that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness

eta

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Ellapennella

[I'mConvinced]

12 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

the Hard Problem of Consciousness – and it’s this: why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life? And how does the brain manage it? How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience ofbeing that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?

I like the so-called Hard Problem but to me it's a self-defeating question. I'll answer it in parts below:

Q. why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside?

A. More to the point, why not? If they didn't feel like anything then you could not take action as you would be unaware.

Q. Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life?

A. How do you know we are not? All we really do in this world is eat, sleep, poop and procreate in a wide variety of interesting manners.

Q. And how does the brain manage it?

A. That is what science is busy discovering.  There is no one simple answer as the brain is an extremely complex organ and is intrinsically linked to the human body - your gut can effect your mood for example.  So the brain does not stand alone but rather a part of an even more complex system. Research emergent properties such as the fourth law of robotics.

Q. How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?

A. Well the first parts of this argument are irrelevant as the weight, colour and texture of the brain bear no relevance to the problem.  The second part is non-sequitur because we do not experience 'being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached', we experience being conscious humans, and yet not everyone has the same conscious experience. 

So what we really need to answer is this: 

If consciousness resides outside of the brain then why are our experiences of it so different? Why can the experience be changed by damage to the brain? How is it possible to reprogram an external consciousness by using brain exercises?  

 

[ellapenella]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Please god exist because I need to feel special 

Your doctrine. 

 

Albert Einstein theorized that there are four-dimensions, although many physicists believe that there could be as many as 11, although we can only perceive three.

eta

The above was from something I read that Astronomer mathematician Bernard Carr mentioned.

 http://www.geestkunde.net/uittreksels/tiller-realm-between-particles-influenced.html

Edited April 23, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

 

So what we really need to answer is this: 

If consciousness resides outside of the brain then why are our experiences of it so different?

Why can the experience be changed by damage to the brain?

How is it possible to reprogram an external consciousness by using brain exercises?  

 

I don't k now why our experiences differ. I don't know of anyone on earth that knows the answer to that.

Which experience are you referring to? 

Because the brain doesn't rule over  the mind. 

 

 

 

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

I don't k now why our experiences differ. I don't know of anyone on earth that knows the answer to that.

Which experience are you referring to? 

Because the brain doesn't rule over  the mind. 

 

 

 

Many experiences.  For example look up synesthesia, a condition in which senses can become interwoven and people might smell sights, see sounds, taste colours etc.  Many of these people go unaware of the condition at all until they make direct comparisons with others and others never notice they have it at all.  My father has it, we only realised in his 40's when he described a piece of music he was listening to as 'heavily triangular with bubbly undertones'.  He sees his music as much as he hears it and the visualisation is what he remembers music by, rather than the tune itself.

Then there are other questions in the brain does not rule the mind; Can you explain psychopathy for example? A clearly different brain structure leads to clearly different human beings.  Perhaps the mind is a receptor for an external consciousness? Maybe, but then we are left explaining how personality is affected by brain damage.

[+Liquid Gardens]

58 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Who said that the brain is nothing at all? 

You just asked, "Maybe you can share some evidence of how consciousness emerged from nothing at all."  I and a lot of other people think the brain has a lot to do with consciousness emerging/existing, thus, it didn't emerge from 'nothing at all'.

Quote

the Hard Problem of Consciousness – and it’s this: why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren’t we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life?

Because we have physical structures in our brain and nervous system that interact with various physical chemicals that result in us feeling things.  Why shouldn't all of those complicated brain processes feel like something, especially given these physical components that we already know are linked to our feelings?  Given the existence of all these physical components, why should we still therefore be 'dark' inside? 

We jerk our hands from scalding water or a hot stove sometimes via a reflex, which occurs without any 'conscious' interaction with knowledge at all.  The author of your quote above thinks this is an 'easy' problem.  If physical processes can result in reflexive, involuntary body motions then I don't find something much more isolated like why we think and feel the way we do internally to be so 'mysterious'.

[ellapenella]

2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Many experiences.  For example look up synesthesia, a condition in which senses can become interwoven and people might smell sights, see sounds, taste colours etc.  Many of these people go unaware of the condition at all until they make direct comparisons with others and others never notice they have it at all.  My father has it, we only realised in his 40's when he described a piece of music he was listening to as 'heavily triangular with bubbly undertones'.  He sees his music as much as he hears it and the visualisation is what he remembers music by, rather than the tune itself.

Then there are other questions in the brain does not rule the mind; Can you explain psychopathy for example? A clearly different brain structure leads to clearly different human beings.  Perhaps the mind is a receptor for an external consciousness? Maybe, but then we are left explaining how personality is affected by brain damage.

Reminds me of "all is number" the motto  Pythagoras said . That's pretty interesting what shared. 

 Synesthesia means to blend the 5 senses. https://synesthesia.com/blog/types-of-synesthesia/

I think we all understand that different environmental  experiences can effect people  both mentally and physically. I suppose that could create in an individual a sense of void in being aware and so they fall into denial of themselves...having no conscience.