Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[dust1n]

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.

That's problematic. There are lots of questions that are "why" in nature which science can examine.

Why do dogs sniff out a location to poo? (The answers more complicated than you'd think).

Why do supernovae explode?

Why does the universe expand exponentially?

Why does cilantro take good to some and not to others?

Why is my computer monitoring projecting this light at me?

EDIT: Well, I guess supernovae don't explode since they are the explosion, but you know what I meant.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's problematic. There are lots of questions that are "why" in nature which science can examine.

Why do dogs sniff out a location to poo? (The answers more complicated than you'd think).

Why do supernovae explode?

Why does the universe expand exponentially?

Why does cilantro take good to some and not to others?

Why is my computer monitoring projecting this light at me?

EDIT: Well, I guess supernovae don't explode since they are the explosion, but you know what I meant.

I think I'd classify those more as "how", rather than "why".

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I think I'd classify those more as "how", rather than "why".

Well, there's a rub right there. The simple notion that "Science looks at 'how?', and religion looks at 'why?'", just doesn't cut it when you get into the nitty gritty details.
Why did you write your post above?
-- vs --
How is it that you came to decide to write that post above?

 

[Riverwolf]

You mentioned "natural"..."physical"..and "chemical" processes, right? Now..think of a black cat. How can a natural, physical, and chemical process form the THOUGHT of specifically of a black cat?

What is a "thought" of a black cat?

That is what is so special, natural/physical/chemical processes are not "about" anything else. Thoughts ARE about other things. So again, if you were to create a brain from pre-existing material, you won't be able to get the brain to think "about" other things.

That's just a quirk of the English language, not a statement on the actual nature of thought.

The "aboutness" that are attached to every thought is indepedent of the brain...so the brain cannot be the originator of the thoughts.

No, it isn't. Thoughts are incredibly dependent on the brain.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, there's a rub right there. The simple notion that "Science looks at 'how?', and religion looks at 'why?'", just doesn't cut it when you get into the nitty gritty details.
Why did you write your post above?
-- vs --
How is it that you came to decide to write that post above?

The "how" would describe the mechanical processes behind the decision to write the post.

The "why" would answer the personal reason for the decision.

Therefore:

How = Process
Why = Reason (i.e., "end goal")

There is a distinction. The former is hard, the latter is soft.

Now, the sciences can examine many reasons, "end goals", for certain processes easily(such as the "reason" for certain biological traits), but not all of them. At least, not yet.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Regardless, it is something felt by a single individual. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The body aspect of my identity is the dog, now. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The question was, WHO are you. Yeah, you are in the body of your dog, but if your dog had a sister dog, now do you have a sister dog? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My body may not be the be-all end-all of my identity, but it's still an important aspect. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]An important aspect of physical identity, but your identity goes far above and beyond the physical. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are changing the scenario. In my scenario, your human thoughts were carried over into the dogs brain so that your human intuition didn't change. I am not saying that this is possible, I was merely demonstrating the fact that if this were the case, then obviously your body can be one place and your mind another place...and since your self awareness is in the mind of the dog, then obviously you are your mind, and not your brain.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I remember back in the day as a kid I used to read the "Animorphs" series of books. You may or may not be familiar with those books (I think they made a television show about it), but to may a long story short, these 5 kids possessed the powers to transform into any animal that they touched. My point is, the kids were transformed into the animals but still maintaining their human intuitions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now now now there...not so fast. How could you be "you", when your brain is inside of the human body on the bed? That is where all of your consciousness stemmed from, right? And your mind/brain cannot be separated, according to your worldview. So how all of a sudden are there two different "you's"? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And I said give me a scenario at which a scientist can plug the thought of a black cat into the brain. I am practically begging you to give me this scenario. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You CAN'T even imagine this, and if you can, then give me the scenario. I am asking you directly, so if you don't give me a scenario at which a scientist who has just created a fresh molded/shaped brain could make the brain begin to think about a black cat...if you can't give me this scenario in your next response, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]With all due respect, no point in wasting any more time if what I am being asked isn't answered. Then you have to nerve to say that what I am saying is a non-sequitor because just because I can't imagine don't mean it is possible.....well, YOU tell me how it is possible under that scenario.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Give me a scenario at which an intelligent human being can create a brain using pre-existing material and suddenly make the brain conscious. If nature was able to do it, then why can't intelligent human beings, for Christ's sake? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First off, you are in no position to say what is "more likely from a scientific perspective", when you haven't demonstrated how consciousness could have naturally originated, FROM this very "scientific perspective". All you can do is show a correlation between the mind and the brain, but correlations do not imply identity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dude, a scientific consensus on the natural origins of life has not been established. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If there is anything that we agree both on, it is this. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Besides, it also means that Creationism is false until it can be proven positive. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I refuse to believe that the origins of intelligence came from a unconscious, unintelligible, and blind process. That takes more faith to believe than any religion, in my opinion.[/FONT]

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

[FONT=&quot]And like I keep saying: whether I can or not has nothing to do with whether it can or can't be done. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are right, and it also mean that I have no reason to believe that it was done, if I can even get a scenario at which it COULD be done.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly you reject that notion. You could at least explain why. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As I told Flame, I spent the last 7 or 8 posts explaining why, from my very first post to the other thread.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

I will hope when a scientist is in a lab, or writing text books for children, he is using logic and reason. Although, sometimes I wonder.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And science has no place in topics surrounding absolute origins.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]EDIT: Wait, I don't have to! Here you go:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A brief history of the brain - life - 26 September 2011 - New Scientist [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please paste the parts of the article that answers my question.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My old laptops. ^_^ [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So I guess when you take your old laptops to the geek squad, the geek squad will torture it into turning on and the laptops will say "ok ok guys, I give up, I will turn on now...geez...so pushy."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Fair enough. No need to go beyond necessity until you can demonstrate a "thinking" computer in the first place.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I asked you, but okay, I'll do your homework. Let's just hope Teacher doesn't find out.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Computers can do that. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Foolishness. This is just wrong on so many levels, man. I am talking about consciousness and the mind. If you believe that a computer is conscious and has a mind....if that is the price of naturalism, then no wonder I am a theist.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You sure like hearing yourself type, don't you?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, basically, you wouldn't believe any of them no matter what they said?[/FONT]

I just want an answer to my scenario. If you don't know, just say I don't know. You can create as many brains as you want, but wake me up when you can get the brains to start thinking.

 

[Bunyip]

[FONT=&quot]You are right, and it also mean that I have no reason to believe that it was done, if I can even get a scenario at which it COULD be done.
[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]As I told Flame, I spent the last 7 or 8 posts explaining why, from my very first post to the other thread.
[/FONT]




I will hope when a scientist is in a lab, or writing text books for children, he is using logic and reason. Although, sometimes I wonder.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]And science has no place in topics surrounding absolute origins.
[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]Please paste the parts of the article that answers my question.
[/FONT]






[FONT=&quot]So I guess when you take your old laptops to the geek squad, the geek squad will torture it into turning on and the laptops will say "ok ok guys, I give up, I will turn on now...geez...so pushy."[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]Fair enough. No need to go beyond necessity until you can demonstrate a "thinking" computer in the first place.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Foolishness. This is just wrong on so many levels, man. I am talking about consciousness and the mind. If you believe that a computer is conscious and has a mind....if that is the price of naturalism, then no wonder I am a theist.
[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]You sure like hearing yourself type, don't you?
[/FONT]



I just want an answer to my scenario. If you don't know, just say I don't know. You can create as many brains as you want, but wake me up when you can get the brains to start thinking.

Well you won't need to wait long. Any time now the first artificial consciousnesses will emerge.

 

[Riverwolf]

[FONT=&quot]Regardless, it is something felt by a single individual. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The question was, WHO are you. Yeah, you are in the body of your dog, but if your dog had a sister dog, now do you have a sister dog? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

An important aspect of physical identity, but your identity goes far above and beyond the physical. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are changing the scenario. In my scenario, your human thoughts were carried over into the dogs brain so that your human intuition didn't change. I am not saying that this is possible, I was merely demonstrating the fact that if this were the case, then obviously your body can be one place and your mind another place...and since your self awareness is in the mind of the dog, then obviously you are your mind, and not your brain.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I remember back in the day as a kid I used to read the "Animorphs" series of books. ... My point is, the kids were transformed into the animals but still maintaining their human intuitions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Now now now there...not so fast. How could you be "you", when your brain is inside of the human body on the bed? That is where all of your consciousness stemmed from, right? And your mind/brain cannot be separated, according to your worldview. So how all of a sudden are there two different "you's"? [/FONT]

Honestly, your hypothetical is borderline ridiculous, and so not even really worth considering with any seriousness.

And yes, I remember those books; I was a fan for a bit. They're future-fantasy genre; not representative of anything remotely possible.

And even then, the first time they became animals, they lost their human urges and instincts to that of the animal, and even subsequently had to really fight to maintain their human memories and awareness.

So, my "changing the scenario" is adding the very science that you desire.

[FONT=&quot]

And I said give me a scenario at which a scientist can plug the thought of a black cat into the brain. I am practically begging you to give me this scenario.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You CAN'T even imagine this, and if you can, then give me the scenario. I am asking you directly, so if you don't give me a scenario at which a scientist who has just created a fresh molded/shaped brain could make the brain begin to think about a black cat...if you can't give me this scenario in your next response, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]With all due respect, no point in wasting any more time if what I am being asked isn't answered. Then you have to nerve to say that what I am saying is a non-sequitor because just because I can't imagine don't mean it is possible.....well, YOU tell me how it is possible under that scenario.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Give me a scenario at which an intelligent human being can create a brain using pre-existing material and suddenly make the brain conscious. If nature was able to do it, then why can't intelligent human beings, for Christ's sake? [/FONT]

I have the "nerve" to call it a non-sequitor because it is. Is humanity currently able to make a planet? Could humans 500 years ago reproduce lightning?

Just because nature did it in the past doesn't mean we currently have the technological capabilities to do it now, but neither does it mean that we never will. Intelligence has nothing to do with it; tool usage does.

But we will, one day. I don't know how(as if that wasn't clear), as I'm not a neuroscientist, but we will. And the fact that you're not a neuroscientist is the only reason why you can't imagine it.

[FONT=&quot]

First off, you are in no position to say what is "more likely from a scientific perspective", when you haven't demonstrated how consciousness could have naturally originated, FROM this very "scientific perspective". All you can do is show a correlation between the mind and the brain, but correlations do not imply identity.

[/FONT]Actually, they do in this case, because no other alternative has been reliably demonstrated.

Besides, what you ask for has nothing to do with science, but technology. Scientists wouldn't be creating the brain and making it think; engineers would be.

Learn the difference.

[FONT=&quot]

I refuse to believe that the origins of intelligence came from a unconscious, unintelligible, and blind process. That takes more faith to believe than any religion, in my opinion.

[/FONT]Hardly.

It exists via natural processes, develops from a fetus via natural processes, and can be taken away via natural processes; as everything we've ever observed about it involves natural processes, it stands to reason that its origin lies in natural processes, unless a viable alternative can be put forth and backed up by empirical evidence. So far, no dice.

[FONT=&quot]You are right, and it also mean that I have no reason to believe that it was done, if I can even get a scenario at which it COULD be done.
[/FONT]

So why ask for one?

[FONT=&quot]

As I told Flame, I spent the last 7 or 8 posts explaining why, from my very first post to the other thread.

Not really, or not very well. Far as I could tell, you just kept repeating your own request for the scenario, without ever explaining why it matters at all in any realistic way.

Unless you actually believe that because you can't imagine it, it can't be done.
[/FONT]

I will hope when a scientist is in a lab, or writing text books for children, he is using logic and reason. Although, sometimes I wonder.

[FONT=&quot]

Only sometimes, here. Most scientists do use those things on a regular basis. It's kind of their job.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

And science has no place in topics surrounding absolute origins.

They do a pretty good job with the Earth, Moon, and Sun.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Please paste the parts of the article that answers my question.

That's your homework, not mine.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

So I guess when you take your old laptops to the geek squad, the geek squad will torture it into turning on and the laptops will say "ok ok guys, I give up, I will turn on now...geez...so pushy."

You do realize the "^_^" was an indication that I was being facetious, right?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Fair enough. No need to go beyond necessity until you can demonstrate a "thinking" computer in the first place.

[/FONT]Technically, all computers can "think".
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Foolishness. This is just wrong on so many levels, man. I am talking about consciousness and the mind. If you believe that a computer is conscious and has a mind....if that is the price of naturalism, then no wonder I am a theist.

I'm a theist, too.

You asked me for a definition, and I provided one. It had multiple layers, however, so I explained that computers have the ability for some of them, but at this time, not others. Reality is not, and SHOULD not be measured by whether or not we like what we find.

As I said:
[/FONT]
They can't "experience" or "understand" yet, but the ability to do that isn't terribly far off.
[FONT=&quot]

You sure like hearing yourself type, don't you?

I do LOVE the sound of keyboard typing. :yes:[/FONT]

I just want an answer to my scenario. If you don't know, just say I don't know. You can create as many brains as you want, but wake me up when you can get the brains to start thinking.

Your definition of thinking was nothing more than the ability to internally visualize a black cat. Computers can do that. If you wanted more, you should have asked for the ability to create a brain that was fully self-aware, capable of taking in and processing information, possessing awareness of surroundings, possessing emotions, awareness of mortality, etc.

Besides, nature can make brains that are conscious, but those brains don't just spring up fully-formed. They have to develop from a fetus, into a newborn, and then later into an adult. The human brain is not fully developed until about the age of 25.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Honestly, your hypothetical is borderline ridiculous, and so not even really worth considering with any seriousness.

My hypothetical is ridiculous...yet to believe that inanimate matter began to "think" from a previous state of unconsciousness..that is somehow, rational to believe?

The pot calling the kettle black.

And yes, I remember those books; I was a fan for a bit. They're future-fantasy genre; not representative of anything remotely possible.

Good, because I think that the brain itself being used to explain the origin of consciousness is also a viewpoint that is not a representation of anything that is remotely possible.

And even then, the first time they became animals, they lost their human urges and instincts to that of the animal, and even subsequently had to really fight to maintain their human memories and awareness.

Be as it may...they still wouldn't "be" the animals...because there would still be things true about the animal that isn't true to the humans, based on the law of identity. The animals had experiences that the humans never had, and the humans don't suddenly gain those experiences even if they were to occupy the animals brain.

So, my "changing the scenario" is adding the very science that you desire.

I was saying IF it were the case. If it were the case then it would be quite obvious that "you" would be independent of the body that is in the bed. If the mind and the brain are identical, then we wouldn't even be able to think of scenarios at which they COULD be separated. But we can, so that mean that they are not identical and one cannot be used to explain the origins of the other.

I have the "nerve" to call it a non-sequitor because it is. Is humanity currently able to make a planet? Could humans 500 years ago reproduce lightning?

Irrelevant. I am asking you to give me a scenario...it is a thought experiment, wolf. Just give me a scenario at which it could occur. If you can't, then it is apparent that it can't happen. Your brain should be able to conceptualize all logical possibilities. You can't even get your mind to even THINK of a scenario at which consciousness could originate from natural occurrences, can you? If you can, then lets hear it. If you can't, then you are making my point for me.

Just because nature did it in the past doesn't mean we currently have the technological capabilities to do it now, but neither does it mean that we never will. Intelligence has nothing to do with it; tool usage does.

So basically what you are saying is...nature, a mindless and blind entity, was able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do. And btw, intelligence has a lot to do with it. You are telling me that our ability to think and learn originated from an entity that doesn't have the ability to think and learn? Yet, my scenario is ridiculous??

But we will, one day. I don't know how(as if that wasn't clear), as I'm not a neuroscientist, but we will. And the fact that you're not a neuroscientist is the only reason why you can't imagine it.

Neuroscience can only explain how the brain works. It cannot explain the absolute origins of the mind, which is what is in question.

Actually, they do in this case, because no other alternative has been reliably demonstrated.

Consciousness originating from the brain hasn't been demonstrated either.

Besides, what you ask for has nothing to do with science, but technology. Scientists wouldn't be creating the brain and making it think; engineers would be.

Learn the difference.

Actually, a persons area of expertise is irrelevant. Get any science or engineer and they will be just as baffled as you are...and me, for that matter.

Hardly.

It exists via natural processes, develops from a fetus via natural processes, and can be taken away via natural processes; as everything we've ever observed about it involves natural processes, it stands to reason that its origin lies in natural processes, unless a viable alternative can be put forth and backed up by empirical evidence. So far, no dice.

It exists via natural processes? I am talking about how it ORIGINATED. Do you have any proof that it originated via natural processes? No. That is why in the scenario, the scientist creates the brain via natural processes. How would he get that brain to start thinking via natural processes? The brain is there....how will the brain begin thinking?

[FONT=&quot]Not really, or not very well. Far as I could tell, you just kept repeating your own request for the scenario, without ever explaining why it matters at all in any realistic way. [/FONT]

Which is the same thing I am doing now, apparently. I guess I am just going to have to accept the fact that you are unable to give me a scenario at which consciousness could have originated naturally.

[FONT=&quot]Unless you actually believe that because you can't imagine it, it can't be done. [/FONT]

That is the point...if it could be done, I WOULD be able to imagine it. Unless you know something that I don't know...I would expect you do be able to give me a scenario at which consciousness could have originated naturally.

[FONT=&quot]They do a pretty good job with the Earth, Moon, and Sun. [/FONT]

To bad I am talking about the absolute origin of the universe, which would include the Earth, Moon, and Sun.

[FONT=&quot]That's your homework, not mine. [/FONT]

Yeah, just post a 3 page, million word article and tell me "the answer to your question is somewhere in there".

[FONT=&quot]You do realize the "^_^" was an indication that I was being facetious, right? [/FONT]

Is that geek lingo

Technically, all computers can "think".

Really? Do some computers tease other computers like "That's why my gigabytes is larger than your megabytes..hahahahaha"

[FONT=&quot]I'm a theist, too. [/FONT]

Are you? I really didn't notice.

[FONT=&quot]You asked me for a definition, and I provided one. It had multiple layers, however, so I explained that computers have the ability for some of them, but at this time, not others. Reality is not, and SHOULD not be measured by whether or not we like what we find. [/FONT]

Can it be measured by whether we find something illogical, irrational, incoherent, etc?

Your definition of thinking was nothing more than the ability to internally visualize a black cat. Computers can do that. If you wanted more, you should have asked for the ability to create a brain that was fully self-aware, capable of taking in and processing information, possessing awareness of surroundings, possessing emotions, awareness of mortality, etc.

LOL...so by "internally visualizing a black cat"...the computer would "know" that black cats exist...and that they are living and breathing animals? But in order for a computer to know that...it would have to know what "black" means...and what "cats" mean...and what "exist" means...and what "living" and "breathing" and "animals" mean. If the computer doesn't know what any of that stuff means, then the computer can't visualize anything.

Besides, nature can make brains that are conscious

You can't even give me a scenario of a human being making a conscious brain, yet you have to nerve to say nature can make brains that are conscious? Fine...give me a scenario at which nature made the very first human brain.

You just said that it happened...so give me the scenario.

, but those brains don't just spring up fully-formed. They have to develop from a fetus, into a newborn, and then later into an adult. The human brain is not fully developed until about the age of 25.

I am talking about the absolute origins of consciousness..not what happens after consciousness originated.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well you won't need to wait long. Any time now the first artificial consciousnesses will emerge.

Any time now Jesus is returning, too.

 

[Bunyip]

Any time now Jesus is returning, too.

Don't hold your breath for that. Jesus is 2000 years late mate - he's not coming.

50 generations of humanity have died of old age thinking that Jesus is about to return.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Don't hold your breath for that. Jesus is 2000 years late mate - he's not coming.

First off, Jesus never explicitly gave an exact time or day when he would be back...so I don't understand how he could be considered "late" at all.

50 generations of humanity have died of old age thinking that Jesus is about to return.

But ever since 2,000 years ago, no one had to die of old age wondering when the Messiah would get here.

 

[Bunyip]

First off, Jesus never explicitly gave an exact time or day when he would be back...so I don't understand how he could be considered "late" at all.

You should read the bible. Jesus states that he will return within a generation. He is 50 generations late.

 

[idav]

The immaterial is what exactly, like a thought a number or a color in our mind is said to be immaterial but this says nothing of where this immaterial comes from. What we have proof for is these thoughts colors and numbers are in the brain and part of its processes. There is nothing that says the color red comes from outside the brain, we just have evidence that it is a brain process. People can deny this but there is nothing to separate the mind from the brain as far as we know or can see, immaterial is an aspect coming from a material brain, which means thought is an illusion, a trick of the mind, which does sound immaterial but an aspect or reflection or projection of something material creating it.

 

[MD]

Consciousness will never be fully explained by physical processes. It's nature is beyond science becaue it is non empirical. We can never measure qualia, because qualia are more than the complex interactions of thoughts and chemicals. There's no red center in your brain for the color red. We can find physical correlates but there are aspects to it which are non physical. Even thoughts are neural impulses coordinated in certain patterns yet they have meaning. How can you explain intentionality via electric impulses? Why do we understand?

That doesn't mean it's independant of the brain, just that there is another property at play here. One of the strongest theories that tries to explain consciousness is IIT by Tononi and Koch. It posits that consciousness is non computable and arises out of informational arrangements in networks. But it also implies that consciousness is an intrinsic fundamental property of the universe, and as such it has a panpsychic view.

Anyone who tries to explain consciousness through purely physical mechanisms is explaining it away like Dennett does and are lying to others and themselves.

 

[MD]

The immaterial is what exactly, like a thought a number or a color in our mind is said to be immaterial but this says nothing of where this immaterial comes from. What we have proof for is these thoughts colors and numbers are in the brain and part of its processes. There is nothing that says the color red comes from outside the brain, we just have evidence that it is a brain process. People can deny this but there is nothing to separate the mind from the brain as far as we know or can see, immaterial is an aspect coming from a material brain, which means thought is an illusion, a trick of the mind, which does sound immaterial but an aspect or reflection or projection of something material creating it.

You should apply for the Nobel Prize since you know that the hard problem has been solved and everyone else is trying to make up stuff.

In all the years I've been on RF and from the several threads that both of us have participated in w/ regards to consciousness you seemed to have it all figured out. So I really ask you to put forth your discovery to the neuroscientific community and claim your prize.

 

[idav]

You should apply for the Nobel Prize since you know that the hard problem has been solved and everyone else is trying to make up stuff.

In all the years I've been on RF and from the several threads that both of us have participated in w/ regards to consciousness you seemed to have it all figured out. So I really ask you to put forth your discovery to the neuroscientific community and claim your prize.

You have anything to provide then debate I don't need to be attacked. The nuero scientist Ramachandran says that humans are the only brains with the capacity for qualia and I tend to believe him. He figured out how to trick the brain into feeling a severed hand and cured his pain. If anything he deserves the Nobel prize.

[youtube]1mHIv5ToMTM[/youtube]
Phantom Limb Video - YouTube

 

[MD]

You have anything to provide then debate I don't need to be attacked. The nuero scientist Ramachandran says that humans are the only brains with the capacity for qualia and I tend to believe him. He figured out how to trick the brain into feeling a severed hand and cured his pain. If anything he deserves the Nobel prize.

[youtube]1mHIv5ToMTM[/youtube]
Phantom Limb Video - YouTube

I've actually SHOWN YOU links in the past where Ramachandran said that the mind is not just physical, if you bothered to ever read what I posted then you would know. Anyways continue following your own biases.

 

[sun rise]

You should read the bible. Jesus states that he will return within a generation. He is 50 generations late.

Generation is translated from the greek, genea. Genea can have multiple meanings. One meaning is "metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race" Some apply that to verses in the Bible: Matt 17:17 for example.

So a meaning could be that when Christ returns to Earth, the old race of men will fade away and a new race with a more divine outlook on life be born.