Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Riverwolf]

Continued from this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...245-wheres-evidence-ask-ye-shall-receive.html

Your brain is made up of the same material that everyone else's is made up of.

So? Each individual brain has millions upon millions of variations depending on several factors, such as neuron connections, physical size (yes, that does vary from person to person very slightly), etc.

I have Asperger's Syndrome. Do you?

Is your brain sad?

I just said that sadness isn't something felt by a single individual thing, but the aggregate of many things that is the emotional state.

Ahhh not so fast. If we can imagine that you woke up in the morning and you found yourself in the body of your dog, and your physical human body still lay in the bed, and within the dogs body, you retained all of your human thoughts...are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed?

The body aspect of my identity is the dog, now.

And if your mother comes in the room and tries to wake your human body up from sleep, is it safe to tell your mother that you are not in the bed, you are in "right here" (wherever the dog is)?

Your body is the physical representation of "you". But "you" are not your body. "You" are your mind, and wherever your mind is, that is where you are.

My body may not be the be-all end-all of my identity, but it's still an important aspect.

Besides, if my mind were transferred to the body of a dog, my thoughts and abilities to process them would seriously be truncated to fit the dog's brain. Human instincts would no longer be present, but dog instincts would be, instead. I wouldn't be able to tell my mother anything, because dog's are physically incapable of human speech.

Basically, I'd still be "me", but this "me" would be severely different from the "me" that went to sleep in that human body the previous night.

Direct response to the scientist analogy, please.

Right here:

The ability to imagine things is not contingent upon a thing's existence. I can't imagine more than 3 dimensions of reality, but there's plenty more than just up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Heck, I could make a 12-dimensional array right now in a single line of computer code: something that I doubt you'd be able to imagine, and yet can be done.

Remember that the scientist analogy is contingent on your ability to imagine it; you claim that it's not possible because YOU can't imagine it. That's a non-sequitor, because the ability, or lack thereof, of any given individual to imagine something is not relevant to its naturalistic possibility, as has been illustrated many times.

We've never empirically demonstrated consciousness to come from unconsciousness either, which is what one would have to believe if the God hypothesis is negated.

But it's far more likely from a scientific perspective that it developed naturally without any help from God/Gods, because no consciousness independent of a brain has been demonstrated to exist, and the state of consciousness is directly tied to the state of the brain.

Oh, ok. I guess abiogenesis is false until it can be proven to be positive. Thank you.

Dude, a scientific consensus on the natural origins of life has not been established. Besides, it also means that Creationism is false until it can be proven positive.

And I am asking you to give me a scenario at which a scientist, after having just created a brain from pre-existing matter, can plug the thought of a black cat into the freshly created brain, so that the brain thinks about the cat.

I am asking you to "conceive" of a scenario at which this could happen.

And like I keep saying: whether I can or not has nothing to do with whether it can or can't be done.

Clearly you reject that notion. You could at least explain why.

Besides, Frankenstein.

You can't use science without presupposing logic and reason...and philosophy deals with logic and reason.

Based on hypothetical scenarios rather than actual ones. Hence, it's flawed. Science and philosophy both use logic and reason, but they aren't dependent on each other.

Second, lets not assume that we shouldn't believe something unless it can be scientifically proven. I am not saying that this is what you are implying, but in case it is, lets not, ok?

We can believe whatever we want. I believe in Gods and Elves. But I fully recognize that they have no place in scientific consensus of what exists.

The created brain wont function in the analogy any more than it would function in the naturalistic way that materialists believe that it began to function without intelligent design. My analogy isn't any more absurd or "unscientific" what any materialist postulates.

Or better yet, I have one for you...give me any naturalistic scenario at which a brain can begin to exist and will eventually give rise to consciousness....I am talking the absolute ORIGIN of consciousness, btw. Give me any naturalistic scenario at which consciousness didn't exist, and it began to exist as a result of natural processes and the natural development of the brain.

I will wait.

That's much better, but it will require its own post to keep this one a decent size. So, see my next post that isn't a response to a different one.

EDIT: Wait, I don't have to! Here you go:

A brief history of the brain - life - 26 September 2011 - New Scientist

Oh please. Computers cannot think, nor do they have free will. Show me a computer that didn't turn on because it used its free will to not turn on when someone pushed the power button.

My old laptops. ^_^

Joking aside, your only requirement was the ability to place the concept and image of a cat into it, and the ability to recall it from memory. The ability to think (whatever that means) and the presence of free will were not among your conditions.

Look up the definition of "aware" and I will be more than happy to go with that definition.

I asked you, but okay, I'll do your homework. Let's just hope Teacher doesn't find out.

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

: knowing that something (such as a situation, condition, or problem) exists
: feeling, experiencing, or noticing something (such as a sound, sensation, or emotion)
: knowing and understanding a lot about what is happening in the world or around you

Knowing that something exists means this: the ability to receive information on the existence of a thing, the ability to store said information somewhere internally, and the ability to recall said information at will, given other relevant situations, associations, or stimuli.

Computers can do that.

Feeling in terms of senses(sound, sight, etc.) requires receptors of external information that translate to a certain feeling in a central processor. Eyes, for example, have the ability to detect light; in the case of the human eye, we can detect brightness and a relatively small set of colors. Literally, everything that we see is light, either directly (such as from computer screens, light bulbs, the sun, etc.) or reflected(pretty much everything else), with detail emerging from different levels of brightness. (Contrary to the common sensory wisdom first put forward by Aristotle that humans have only five senses, we actually have many, many senses; here demonstrated that human sight is two separate senses.) A central processor (the brain, in this case) is a place where the light can be processed into a recognizable image based on what's in memory, and then the new image itself stored in memory. (All that happens effectively instantaneously, though unfamiliar images can take time to process, especially under high emotional stress.)

In any case, computers can do that, too.

I could go on, too. Sort version: computers can notice things as well. They can take in and process information on massive scales. They can't "experience" or "understand" yet, but the ability to do that isn't terribly far off.

Ha.

So, basically, you wouldn't believe any of them no matter what they said?

 

[outhouse]

Good luck with that.

I was so frustrated, ignore was the best option to any debate with said person.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good luck with that.

I was so frustrated, ignore was the best option to any debate with said person.

I think of it as for the sake of any lurkers.

 

[Alceste]

Just want to throw this article into the mix, for ***** and giggles:
The Girl Who Couldn

 

[Alceste]

Good luck with that.

I was so frustrated, ignore was the best option to any debate with said person.

I think of it as for the sake of any lurkers.

I think it's an interesting subject. I will play.

 

[sun rise]

Continued from this thread:
...We can believe whatever we want. I believe in Gods and Elves. But I fully recognize that they have no place in scientific consensus of what exists.
...

That is so important a point that I wanted to highlight it. Too many people don't understand how science works and can't draw the distinction between what is in the realm of science and what is not.

Of course there is a grey area and things which can't be proven today might be provable tomorrow. String theory is a great example of something in the grey area. I'll assert that reincarnation is also given some of the case studies that have been reported in the scientific literature.

 

[cottage]

Please could a moderator transfer this to the Mind/body dualism thread as I'm not sure how to do it? Thank you.

But they don't serve the same purpose. The mind is the consciousness, and the brain is the mechanism which allows the consciousness to correlate with body.

You are claiming that consciousness is some kind ethereal entity that has existence outside the corporeal form. I’m saying the brain is the cause and consciousness is an effect.

Ok, fine. But we are talking origins, not correlations.

Causally, I am too.

But all that is needed is for there to be at least ONE difference between the two and that is enough to show that one is independent of the other. Plus, the chicken and egg problem associated with them is enough to drive home this point.

It is empirically demonstrable that consciousness is dependent upon the brain. A brain malfunction such as an epileptic seizure causes body malfunctions, and Alzheimer’s disease interferes with reasoning and memory. While that is absolutely undeniable there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness can exist outside or beyond the body. The chicken and the egg is discussed further down the page.

And this goes right back to the chicken & egg problem. You have two aspects..the brain, and the mind. If either one of these aspects preceded the other, then that itself is enough to show that there IS a fundamental difference between the two. You can point out any similarities you like, but the two aspects are not one in the same...and this is important, since some people believe that the brain and consciousness are one in the same.

I thought I’d made it perfectly clear that they are not the same, and cannot be the same, but brains enable consciousness. A coil rotating in a magnetic field induces an electric current, but neither the coil nor the magnet is the electricity that is generated; the latter is identified by the former but it is not identical with it.

Then I need to know what you mean by "have another's experience". Do you mean if two people goes to the movies together, they are sharing the same experience? I don't even think that is so..even if that were the case, there would still be at least one difference in the experience that would differentiate the totality of the entire experience.

Even disregarding the wealth of empirical data on twins’ studies etc, there is nothing logically preventing one individual from having another individual’s precise subjective experiences.

But that doesn't solve the problem. If the brain developed/evolved naturally over time, without intelligent design...you will have the same problem obtaining consciousness that way for the same reasons you will have if a scientist goes in a lab and creates a brain from pre-existing matter and tries to plug a "mind" into the newly created brain.
If the brain preceded consciousness, how will you get to the point of consciousness, since consciousness requires that there be a "person" that exists from the point at which consciousness is obtained?
If consciousness preceded the brain, then consciousness is not dependent upon the brain to exist. Now from a naturalistic point of view, each scenario is absurd, and it is more reasonable to assume that the brain/consciousness had to begin to exist simulataneously, as one could not have preceded the other (naturally).

I'm saying the brains enables consciousness. The material world began to form, and brains are material stuff, therefore brains began to form and thus consciousness began to form. Hence matter was prior to consciousness, and personhood develops with the formation of consciousness.

 

[Alceste]

That is so important a point that I wanted to highlight it. Too many people don't understand how science works and can't draw the distinction between what is in the realm of science and what is not.

Of course there is a grey area and things which can't be proven today might be provable tomorrow. String theory is a great example of something in the grey area. I'll assert that reincarnation is also given some of the case studies that have been reported in the scientific literature.

I like SJ Gould's idea that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria". They deal with completely different questions. Science asks "how" and religion asks "why". There needn't be any conflict between the two. IMO, the problem is that some religious groups have decided their scripture explains "how" as well as "why", which puts them at war with science. The fact is, religion simply can not compete with science on that question. It is completely unpersuasive in comparison, since there is no way to arrive at religion's conclusions independently, through evidence and reason. It's a cultural meme, passed from one generation to the next. It tells us a lot about who we are and what we want, but nothing about how we work and how we got here.

 

[sun rise]

I like SJ Gould's idea that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria". They deal with completely different questions. Science asks "how" and religion asks "why". There needn't be any conflict between the two. IMO, the problem is that some religious groups have decided their scripture explains "how" as well as "why", which puts them at war with science. The fact is, religion simply can not compete with science on that question. It is completely unpersuasive in comparison, since there is no way to arrive at religion's conclusions independently, through evidence and reason. It's a cultural meme, passed from one generation to the next. It tells us a lot about who we are and what we want, but nothing about how we work and how we got here.

I like Gould's idea as well.

 

[fantome profane]

I like SJ Gould's idea that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria". They deal with completely different questions. Science asks "how" and religion asks "why". There needn't be any conflict between the two. IMO, the problem is that some religious groups have decided their scripture explains "how" as well as "why", which puts them at war with science. The fact is, religion simply can not compete with science on that question. It is completely unpersuasive in comparison, since there is no way to arrive at religion's conclusions independently, through evidence and reason. It's a cultural meme, passed from one generation to the next. It tells us a lot about who we are and what we want, but nothing about how we work and how we got here.

I like Gould's idea as well.

I kinda like the idea as well, the problem is there is no clear definition of "religion" or any clear boundaries about what a religion can or cannot deal with. Science however does have clear boundaries (sometimes they can get a little fuzzy, but I think they are relatively clear).

 

[Willamena]

Even disregarding the wealth of empirical data on twins’ studies etc, there is nothing logically preventing one individual from having another individual’s precise subjective experiences.

What is the argument for this non-private type of experience?

 

[fantome profane]

Let's do a thought experiment based on a transporter like in star trek. You step into the transporter, it scans you, and then it disintegrates you and creates an exact copy at a different location. The copy is exact, down to the quantum state, (don't worry that this is impossible, we have a good quality state of the art functioning Heisenberg compensator). The copy is identical even in the neurological state. This means that if the person stepping into the transporter was depressed, the person arriving at the other end would be depressed. If the person going in had a song going through their head, the person coming out would continue that song (without missing a beat). If he was excited going in, the person coming out would be excited. Our consciousness is the result of our neurological state.

 

[Riverwolf]

Let's do a thought experiment based on a transporter like in star trek. You step into the transporter, it scans you, and then it disintegrates you and creates an exact copy at a different location. The copy is exact, down to the quantum state, (don't worry that this is impossible, we have a good quality state of the art functioning Heisenberg compensator). The copy is identical even in the neurological state. This means that if the person stepping into the transporter was depressed, the person arriving at the other end would be depressed. If the person going in had a song going through their head, the person coming out would continue that song (without missing a beat). If he was excited going in, the person coming out would be excited. Our consciousness is the result of our neurological state.

Been watching Big Bang Theory, have we?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Let's do a thought experiment based on a transporter like in star trek. You step into the transporter, it scans you, and then it disintegrates you and creates an exact copy at a different location. The copy is exact, down to the quantum state, (don't worry that this is impossible, we have a good quality state of the art functioning Heisenberg compensator). The copy is identical even in the neurological state. This means that if the person stepping into the transporter was depressed, the person arriving at the other end would be depressed. If the person going in had a song going through their head, the person coming out would continue that song (without missing a beat). If he was excited going in, the person coming out would be excited. Our consciousness is the result of our neurological state.

It makes the whole concept of Star Trek into a massive surreal horror...people willingly killing themselves only to create a clone that will fulfill their token mission of the week...:run:

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It makes the whole concept of Star Trek into a massive surreal horror...people willingly killing themselves only to create a clone that will fulfill their token mission of the week...:run:

Also, all those dead red-shirts could be brought back to life by just hitting the materialize (aka [Paste]) button. :yes:
But I digress....

The member CotW did seem to repeatedly ask a question that has gone unanswered. That would be an explanation of how conciousness first came to be, in the course of evolution. Though CotW might not like it, I think the question and possible answers could be an interesting topic of discussion.

I would propose that 'conciousness' exists with 'self-awareness'. Now then. What step of brain devolopment in evolution had a creature that was aware of itself? How can we measure/judge self-awareness?
CotW's corollary would then ask....what is it that separates the non-self-aware animal from its more savvy offspring?

The answer would lie in brain develoment. I believe first off, we can set aside single-celled organisms, since their stimulus/response loop is pretty much a one trick pony. -- bump into wall, turn 17 degrees right, try again....repeat....
bump into food, eat it....repeat. :sleep:

A multicellular 'brain' would be necessary for decision-making...thus choice-making. With this would come the ability to weigh the pros and cons of any said decision.
At what point in the animal evolutionary hierarchy do we see such 'concious' decision-making?
Jellyfish rise in light, descend in darkness. But an octopus? Color change based on emotional state, fighting-hunting-hiding.? Do the neural ganglia of insects allow decision making? Or is it simple stimulus/response.
I know this skirts the edge of the whole free will debate (are even humans just stimulus/response critters).... but let's assume free will for the duration of this discussion.
So.....have some cawffee.....and tawk among yourselves.

 

[Alceste]

I kinda like the idea as well, the problem is there is no clear definition of "religion" or any clear boundaries about what a religion can or cannot deal with. Science however does have clear boundaries (sometimes they can get a little fuzzy, but I think they are relatively clear).

I agree that religion is a pretty broad category, especially if you account for every human mythology ever conceived. Science is not so broad, since everything must be based on empirical evidence and reason. OTOH, there are some pretty fuzzy sciences out there. Psychology comes to mind as a good example. There are studies, and there is reasoning, but psychology itself confounds reason because we are fundamentally irrational beings. I find science tends to break down when dealing with high levels of complex inter-relationship. At some point we do need to call on parts of the brain other than the frontal lobe. IOW, the irrational parts. The subconscious is actually much better at complex calculations, AKA "intuition".

I read an awesome book on the subject, but I forget what it was called. If I think of it, I'll recommend it. It completely changed my understanding of how the brain actually works - for the better. And there were lots of juicy studies to support the claims in the book, which always makes me tingle.

 

[sun rise]

...
The member CotW did seem to repeatedly ask a question that has gone unanswered. That would be an explanation of how conciousness first came to be, in the course of evolution. Though CotW might not like it, I think the question and possible answers could be an interesting topic of discussion.

I would propose that 'conciousness' exists with 'self-awareness'. Now then. What step of brain devolopment in evolution had a creature that was aware of itself? How can we measure/judge self-awareness?
...

I'm very interested in studies which show that many animals have a form of self-awareness such as being able to recognize that the image in a mirror is of themselves.

 

[Alceste]

I'm very interested in studies which show that many animals have a form of self-awareness such as being able to recognize that the image in a mirror is of themselves.

I'm not sure I'd call that self awareness as opposed to deductive reasoning.

 

[Alceste]

Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind. That was the book.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not sure I'd call that self awareness as opposed to deductive reasoning.

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

For deductive reasoning, there's a great example in a border collie who knows the name of many different toys. When asked to fetch a toy with no given name, the dog figures out which toy it is and brings it.