Mind-Body- debate

[StarMountainKid]

Help! I'm confined inside my body and I can't get out!

What I mean is, what do we consider as "me"? It's not just my consciousness, it's my body, too. Is my body just a robot controlled by "me", my consciousness? Or is it all one organism?

[I'mConvinced]

48 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

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'.

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'.

I'm actually staggered that no-one addressed his points right on the spot.  This just seems like another god of the gaps argument to me but then I'm an uneducated nobody so what would I know .

[+Liquid Gardens]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

I'm actually staggered that no-one addressed his points right on the spot.  This just seems like another god of the gaps argument to me but then I'm an uneducated nobody so what would I know .

To be fair, the 'hard problem of consciousness' is a common subject and area of debate/investigation.  I'm pretty uneducated myself on it but what little I've read tends to gloss over the 'why were you expecting something different?' question, which I think is pretty central to there even being a 'problem'.

[ellapenella]

18 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

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'.

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'.

That's not what I was saying...what I was referring to was in the beginning there had to be a consciousness first ...I was asking you to explain how could something come from nothing at all...something of an intelligence had to first be...

I didn't take it the way you did about what he meant as an easy problem...but the way I  understood him was as in comparison to what can not be  figured out as fact scientifically.

It wasn't my favorite article just so you know. But I did find it strange that this was said 

Quote

On the other hand, in recent years, a handful of neuroscientists have come to believe that it may finally be about to be solved – but only if we are willing to accept the profoundly unsettling conclusion that computers or the internet might soon become conscious, too.

 

and this that was said

Quote

In all seriousness, Koch said he thought it wasn't impossible that his iPhone might have feelings

I'm not certain what is actually being researched. 

 

 

[ellapenella]

12 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I'm actually staggered that no-one addressed his points right on the spot.  This just seems like another god of the gaps argument to me but then I'm an uneducated nobody so what would I know .

Did I miss something? I'm sure there's a Nobel prize waiting .

[ellapenella]

15 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To be fair, the 'hard problem of consciousness' is a common subject and area of debate/investigation.  I'm pretty uneducated myself on it but what little I've read tends to gloss over the 'why were you expecting something different?' question, which I think is pretty central to there even being a 'problem'.

What is the law of identity ? 

What are the 5 states of consciousness? 

[ellapenella]

46 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Help! I'm confined inside my body and I can't get out!

What I mean is, what do we consider as "me"? It's not just my consciousness, it's my body, too. Is my body just a robot controlled by "me", my consciousness? Or is it all one organism?

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. Thank You

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

Personally..I think our bodies are to be understood as our Temples...for our Souls. 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Ellapennella

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

What is the law of identity ? 

What are the 5 states of consciousness? 

What relevance is either to the 'Mind-Body debate'?  I assumed we are only referring to one of the 5 states, consciousness, but let me ask:  do you think that unconsciousness or the subconscious also require something more than a physical brain?  Or is it just consciousness?

[StarMountainKid]

3 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

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. Thank You

Actually, in these experiments, there's an interface between the atoms and consciousness, it's the measuring device. It's the measuring device that we are conscious of, not the atoms themselves. I've never observed an atom. 

We could say that our consciousness is manipulating atoms in the sense that the physical brain's neurons manipulate atoms. So I would say the brain is the measuring device that consciousness observes. We could also say, consciousness manipulates brain neurons that manipulates atoms. So, consciousness itself is one step away from manipulating atoms.

To operate, consciousness requires the physical mechanism of the brain.

 

[ellapenella]

11 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What relevance is either to the 'Mind-Body debate'?  I assumed we are only referring to one of the 5 states, consciousness, but let me ask:  do you think that unconsciousness or the subconscious also require something more than a physical brain?  Or is it just consciousness?

The Law of Identity is important here's a link.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 1:49 PM, Ellapennella said:

What were the beliefs and practices of the historical Pythagoras? 

Its easy to show a human can choose or choose not to behave deterministically.

Hence we arent robots.

[ellapenella]

1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

Actually, in these experiments, there's an interface between the atoms and consciousness, it's the measuring device. It's the measuring device that we are conscious of, not the atoms themselves. I've never observed an atom. 

We could say that our consciousness is manipulating atoms in the sense that the physical brain's neurons manipulate atoms. So I would say the brain is the measuring device that consciousness observes. We could also say, consciousness manipulates brain neurons that manipulates atoms. So, consciousness itself is one step away from manipulating atoms.

To operate, consciousness requires the physical mechanism of the brain.

 

Eben Alexander III (born December 11, 1953) is an American neurosurgeon and the author of the book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012), in which he describes his 2008 near-death experience and asserts that science can and will determine that the brain does not create consciousness and that consciousness survives bodily death

 

"the current understanding of the mind now lies broken at our feet "— for "What happened to me destroyed it, and I intend to spend the rest of my life investigating the true nature of consciousness and making the fact that we are more, much more, than our physical brains as clear as I can, both to my fellow scientists and to people at large."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_(author)

 

[ellapenella]

29 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Its easy to show a human can choose or choose not to behave deterministically.

Hence we arent robots.

Agreed .  

eta

Seems that there's a determination to suppress those  in the field of science that don't see it the way the atheist scientist see it. 

 

I should have said Physicist's 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

Fifth Conference[edit]

Perhaps the most famous conference was the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons, where the world's most notable physicists met to discuss the newly formulated quantum theory. The leading figures were Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. 17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners, including Marie Curie, who alone among them, had won Nobel Prizes in two separate scientific disciplines.^[3]

This conference was also the culmination of the struggle between Einstein and the scientific realists, who wanted strict rules of scientific method as laid out by Charles Peirce and Karl Popper, versus Bohr and the instrumentalists, who wanted looser rules based on outcomes. Starting at this point, the instrumentalists won, instrumentalism having been seen as the norm ever since,^[4] although the debate has been actively continued by the likes of Alan Musgrave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference

 

[Duke Wellington]

None of us know what is possible in this universe.

We dont know how high human civilization will climb, what technologies well be developed, and where physics will be in 100 years let alone a thousand or a million. I think people who believe their death is final are deluding themselves. 

It is my position that everyone who has ever lived will be fully recovered at some point in the future.

Edited April 23, 2018 by RabidMongoose

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

Agreed .  

eta

Seems that there's a determination to suppress those  in the field of science that don't see it the way the atheist scientist see it. 

I should have said Physicist's 

There is no conspiracy to supress non-determinism or anything else that has religious implications like non-duality.

Your beef is with popular culture not the content of the sciences. It promotes a set of values at odds with religion so constantly tries to undermine it by presenting a one sided argument to the general (and quite naïve in many instances) public.

People cannot question and criticise without the knowledge that enables them to do so. They can get that themselves at a local bookshop or go to university and study physics. A high percentage of quantum physicists go on to become priests, bishops, and the equivalent in other religions.

Here is my favourite Ajahn Brahm (actually a theoretical physicist).

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by RabidMongoose

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

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.

And yet we have an official island scientific theory. Not a hypothesis, not a hand me down tale, a testable explaination the brain basis of subjective awareness in a mechanistic and scientifically testable manner.  

That's as good as real world information gets. 

Quote

Science can not and has not  provided evidence of what exactly the minds conscientiousness is

Yes it has, the attention schema theory. Nor sure why you do not find it evidence, or short on information. It's provided a very convincing model which is best fit to the data available. 

Quote

...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.

Well, much smarter people that  you or I are quite capable of breaking information like this down to a layman's level. A soul indicates a life after death scenario and the best physicists on the planet will flatly state there is no afterlife. So I would propose that if you champion ancient myths over the best minds in the planet, clearly it is you who is being very silly here. 

Quote

It's what I perceive you doing here. The scheme in the schema theory is not providing evidence of the  mystery concerning the mind.

Of course it is, what exactly is your main objection to the proposed theory? No point in getting mad at me for presenting it, tell me why people much smarter than anyone in this forum in that particular field are incorrect. 

Quote

The bolded in your sentence is not a fact."

Of course it is, there is a link to it and you can verify that anywhere on the net or any decent library. Consciousness has a strong scientific explanation regardless of if you agree with it or not. You were just flat out wrong to say science cannot explain consciousness because that's exactly what the Attention Schema Theory is, a scientific explanation regarding the evolution of consciousness. 

Quote

The concept of schema theory helps psychologists understand and discuss what cannot be seen.

Exactly, which is a scientific theory on the evolution of consciousness. Why it developed as it has. 

Quote

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... 

Exactly, consciousness can be explained through study of our development. The myth of a soul is a man made construct. That does well justify that there is no good reason to  consider the soul as a valid aspect of our being.

Quote

Here's a man of neuroscience who taught at Harvard and  once was a self centered hardcore atheist 

 

Pffft, he was never a real atheist. 

Quote

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/

 

 

 

 

Eben Alexander is just cashing in on hopes and dreams. His claims are easily, and have been well refuted. A disgrace is what he is. 

 

 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

None of us know what is possible in this universe.

We have much basic knowledge that is reliable. 

Quote

We dont know how high human civilization will climb, what technologies well be developed, and where physics will be in 100 years let alone a thousand or a million.

And yet what we know about atoms won't change any more than 2+2=4 I  the future. 

Quote

I think people who believe their death is final are deluding themselves. 

Based on? 

I have very good reason to understand that current knowledge states death is final. What are the flaws in the arguments from physics? 

Sean Carroll is one of the finest minds on the planet today. I really doubt that he is deluding himself. 

Quote

It is my position that everyone who has ever lived will be fully recovered at some point in the future.

A personal ideology is fine, but completely unsupported and has no bearing on knowledge we have gathered in the real world. It's  personal position that you find comfortable, nothing more and current knowledge does not support your personal view. Such conclusions only apply to yourself, the findings in physics apply to everything in the universe. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Agreed .  

eta

Seems that there's a determination to suppress those  in the field of science that don't see it the way the atheist scientist see it. 

 

I should have said Physicist's 

 

What are you claiming to be surpressed? 

Not having evidence to support a personal position is not suppression. 

[ellapenella]

16 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

None of us know what is possible in this universe.

We dont know how high human civilization will climb, what technologies well be developed, and where physics will be in 100 years let alone a thousand or a million. I think people who believe their death is final are deluding themselves. 

It is my position that everyone who has ever lived will be fully recovered at some point in the future.

Can you explain Karma? Do you see Karma as something that is.If so how does it work? I'm trying to expand on something but I need to first ask you that...or anyone that wants to expand on this thought of Karma..

Edited April 24, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What are you claiming to be surpressed? 

Not having evidence to support a personal position is not suppression. 

Well... there's so much research going on in hopes of transferring consciousness into machines... I think that there's more that is known about the mind than what is being shared openly. Physicist are on record stating this as well.  I think that the saying knowledge is power is true and that's why the truth of mind is kept from everyday people. I think it's always been that way for a very long time. I think I could even say I know it's that way.

[ellapenella]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And yet we have an official island scientific theory. Not a hypothesis, not a hand me down tale, a testable explaination the brain basis of subjective awareness in a mechanistic and scientifically testable manner.  

 

Exactly, consciousness can be explained through study of our development. The myth of a soul is a man made construct. That does well justify that there is no good reason to  consider the soul as a valid aspect of our being.

Pffft, he was never a real atheist. 

Eben Alexander is just cashing in on hopes and dreams. His claims are easily, and have been well refuted. A disgrace is what he is. 

 

 

There have been cases of individual's that came back to life and describe everything that happened while they were pronounced dead ... things that were spoken and done in the OR ...and in the waiting area... and in the hospital  chapel.... and even as far as to see & know what other  people were saying in places  located far from the hospital .... couldn't of happened unless there was consciousness outside of the body going on. ... Science can tell you the person was dead ....but science can't tell you how they have conscious awareness  apart from the body while the body was dead...Because they don't know how to measure it would be my guess....For individuals to have been able to  tell their experiences and others confirm it as fact of what was going on while they were pronounced dead is a fact of matter for those who were involved.... In cases like that ...when reputable doctors & physicists... who once thought differently..... but their thoughts moved and changed when it involved them personally but it can't be measured by science... Thou of course there's  other's who have  experiences that people can research  for themselves if they want. just Google "Consciousness and the Soul " 

Eben Alexander is not the only soul that there is who can tell of a personal experience that changed the way they once thought.

 

 

 

[ellapenella]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And yet we have an official island scientific theory. Not a hypothesis, not a hand me down tale, a testable explaination the brain basis of subjective awareness in a mechanistic and scientifically testable manner.  

 

 

 

 

Your sentence refers to the facts that you have in supporting your confirming that humans have no soul...I didn't see any facts about that  thou from you just other  atheist people's thoughts about it without any experience or facts to back up their personal thoughts about it...

Did you know that a thought is a mental content that can be true or false and can be expressed in a sentence? Where is the truth is telling people that they have no soul ?

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

A personal ideology is fine, but completely unsupported and has no bearing on knowledge we have gathered in the real world. It's  personal position that you find comfortable, nothing more and current knowledge does not support your personal view. Such conclusions only apply to yourself, the findings in physics apply to everything in the universe. 

Excuse me but...knowledge is being gathered ...but this world you speak of as real is it a material one? 

THE ILLUSION OF MATTER: OUR PHYSICAL MATERIAL WORLD ISN’T REALLY PHYSICAL AT ALL

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/05/the-illusion-of-matter-our-physical-material-world-isnt-really-physical-at-all/

[ellapenella]

As mentioned earlier, these scientists restrict quantum theory’s validity to the subatomic world. If we know that matter isn’t physical, how can we further our scientific discovery by treating it as physical?

 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/05/the-illusion-of-matter-our-physical-material-world-isnt-really-physical-at-all/

How does it not appear to people that there are individuals suppressing science ?