Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.


someone2 wrote:

S5 says:
You claim that our consciousness experience is caused by the brain but
I obviously disagree.

ok, I explained why I think that, and mainly why it is not unreasonable
or indeed impossible for consciousness (and experiences) to result from
the way the brain works and is structured (you have understood what I
meant an disagreed, ok).

I don't think you just "believe" consciousness to be outside of the
brain's functions, I think you are convinced of this and that you got
there through some sort of logic that has so far eluded EVERY single
person that has read your posts (not that it means anything, we may all
be complete idiots). So my question is:

What makes YOU think that consciousness cannot be a function of the
brain? Are there other bodily functions you think are not bodily at
all?


The logic was outlined in the original post.

That's the one we don't get.

Your second question doesn't make sense.

It means:
Assuming you are aware that most people take it for granted that the
experiences and consciousness are a result of brain activity, are there
other examples of your idea that some bodily functions (digesting,
sweating..) are not created by the organ that seems to be necessary to
their existance? If I take away your lower intestine, you will not
digest certain foods. If you have a rpoblem in the structure (or
cellular activity) of your lower instestine, you will have problems
digesting the same foods. Yet, although the same happens to brain and
consciousness, you feel the conclusion that the organ creates the
activity (brain makes experiences) unfounded.


You claim:
"The brain may be structured to have two systems: one that is the
normal

if you touch the kitchen hob, it hurts, you take away the hand

the other one that allows you to imagine YOUR hand touching the burning
hob, you imagine keeping the hand on it, against your instinct, and you
can "experience" the pain. this power gives great advntages as
previously said."

Can you explain the advantage of experiencing imagination over the
brain just being structured in a way that the appropriate learned
response takes place.

Because in the other model you could only learn AFTER the event has
taken place, not before.


You are avoiding the question, the model is the brain structure, I am
talking about an advantage of the experience.

I don't think I am, how would the learned behaviour occur without the
experience of a "thought" event?

To put it another way, could you answer which of the following are true
or false:

1) Intracell activity (activity within the cells)
aka "intracellular"
can be explained in
terms of our current understanding of physics and chemistry.

a lot of it yes. Everything we can't figure out we haven't found out
yet but it will be explained by chemistry and physics and biology and
science generaly YES

2) Emergent cell behaviours, such as the kidney or liver, can be
explained in terms of the intracell activity of the cells that make
them up, and intercell activity (activity between the cells). Both
intracell and intercell activity can be explained in terms of our
current understanding of physics and chemistry.

No! kidneys or livers are not emergent behaviours at all. Do not
confuse your definitions again or we'll be going in circles with me
assuming I understand you.

Emergent properties of an association of nephrones (in case they form a
kidney) can be easily explained with reference to the intra- and
inter-cellular chemistry, physics etc. of the cells.

3) Emergent cell behaviours, such as the brain, can be explained in
terms of the intracell activity, and intercell activity (activity
between the cells), of the cells that makes it up. Both intracell and
intercell activity can be explained in terms of our current
understanding of physics and chemistry.

the brain is no different than the rest of the organs, ok, but you need
to concentrate on definitions and consistency! the brain IS NOT a
behaviour of yours, it is an organ just like your lungs and your heart
and your genitals. We have made giant steps in neuroscience lately, so
our curret understanding can help a lot in explaining the activity of
the brain such as conscience and experiences. In doing so, it refers to
cellular activty of the neurons wiothin themselves, within the
immediate vicinity, and within the distance of the body and other
neurons and so on... www.nature.com/naturereviewsneuroscience have
alook if you can find anything that may interst you.

How do you decide to keep your hand on the hob, presumably you will
react according to how your brain is set up, how are there options?

Not decided easily, but there are people that apparently can set
themselves on fire and die in a lotus position. As I said before, if an
organism judges the situation to require action against an instinct
(pre-recorded program) then it can do that.

In your view how did your awareness of experiences get in your head?

It is a presentation based on rules (including our neural state)

please explain further, these phrases can be interpreted in 1000's of
ways, which do you mean? If it is the first time you think about this I
understand your confusion.

Was it there from birth? or from conception?

Don't know. If it is from conception, then if the egg later splits to
produce to offspring (identical twins) then a new being experiences
being the newly created organism.

If the egg splits, and consciousness is not a property of the brain,
then there will be one consciousness for two people right? why would it
split too, with the rest of the body if it's not part of the body?

Do your experiences reside
within your body or are they unattached and free from physical
constraints?

It is free from physical constraints to the extent that the physical
doesn't exist except in experience. Though the presentation is given so
that you can actually experience what it is like to be a human. Though,
rules permitting, you could experience without the same rules, i.e. you
could have no body but be able to will things in the presentation.
Think of it as being experiencing a virtual reality computer game for
example, except that there is only experience, and you are experiencing
the physical world as it is presented, and it is important that it
makes sense, as you really do make conscious choices, and influence the
behaviour of the human organism that you experience being.

I understand the second part of this but the first part is lost on me.
For the second part I presume you are talking about something like in
The Matrix? Cool!

Now, how do I (not actually being the human I expereince being)
interact with my digital-self? How do I make it do stuff I want or even
most importantly how do I make it do things I don't even know it's
doing? Who is in my head experiencing me experiencing hte human? And
who is inside that one and so on...

In that case have you ever lost yours?

Had an out of body experience? What difference if I personally have or
haven't?

I have no idea how one can loose one's consciousness permanently, but
if the thing is not in the body, it must have happened you know.
Nothing much, ust trying to visualise things a bit

If it is not
connected to the brain, how can it understand the brain and its
language?

There is only your consciousness which is being communicated the
physical world. The translation from the neural state to your
experience is done for you, your consciousness isn't aware of the
neuron state directly (the neurons only exist in the presentation).

how is information transmitted from the "neural state" to the
"consciousness"? Must be chemicals or electricity (electrons) because
that's what the brain can do.

At some point, it must interact in some way with the neurons
(or not?)


Yes, when you consciously will things to happen, like typing your
response for example, your will is a communication that you are not
even aware that you are doing, and if the rules allow it, the
presentation is changed according to your will, you can type for
example as you consciously will.

I don't get the "presentation" thing above... a little help Morphius?
something is presenting something to something else. They don't speak
the same language and the "presentee" is not of "physical" nature but
everything else is. Do you see something wrong with this?

It you mean how in the physical presentation will it appear. The answer
is that I don't know, it could be spontaneous brain activity, it could
be done through quantum effects influencing microtubules, I don't know
for sure. Though if it was the latter, then the design including the
Uncertainty Principle means that the universe in general could be
governed by deterministic quantum effects as put forward by Bohmian
mechanics, yet in the neurons, the quantum effects would have a cause
outside the physical presentation (as suggested by orthodox quantum
mechanics).

I have no comment on this.

As a side issue, if the universe is governed by deterministic quantum
effects, as in theories like Bohmian mechanics, then given the initial
state of the universe, and the rules, all subsequent states, up until
the point beings actually experienced being the creatures within the
universe would be known. Therefore if you were going to present if from
a certain point, you may as well set the board up as you knew it was
determined to be, rather than from the initial state, rather than
actually observing it develop to the stage where being were introduced.
In other words the universe could in a real sense be young, yet appear
very old.

I have no comment on this either and fail to see the relevance.

I hope you will answer these questions. You have not answered them
before when I've asked them, so please don't do the same thing.

I have come to the conclusion that you are an automated system
programmed to argue. You are however failing in a few steps that set
you apart from a human being. Whoever design you did a good job and
almost fooled us all but you are not human yet. Keep mastering your
logic and try again.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... physics, need not be composed of particles to be considered material. ... The activity in the brain is composed of balanced reactions, ... Our consciousness is the pattern of brain activity developed by ... they have faith in philosophical materialism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... The organism will follow the laws of physics by analysing the situation ... that is presented in his/her consciousness and taking ... I assume you mean the brain is structured in such a way ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Consciousness
    ... and priming can work without causing extra neurons to ... agree that there is brain activity (such as "becoming more likely to ... But consciousness on the other hand (based on how people tend to use the ... it's valid to even suggest that some of the sensory data causes NO ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... There is no coincidence involved. ... signal that the brain interprets as a color. ... process in the brain that produces consciousness. ... If physics and chemistry are correct, then there can be no evolutionary ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... The organism will follow the laws of physics by analysing the situation ... that is presented in his/her consciousness and taking ... I assume you mean the brain is structured in such a way ...
    (talk.origins)