It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Astyanax
Why is the hypothesis of disembodied mind useful? What does it explain that a purely materialist theory of mind doesn't?
It explains the existence of a FEELING.
Without the non-physical response to information we would be biological robots just reacting to stimuli without consciousness.
Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Golden Boy
You proved assertion exists.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Golden Boy
You keep saying this, and you refuse to be educated. Evidence is needed. You need to prove that consciousness is fundamentally abstract before you can claim that no evidence is needed.
Refuse to be educated?
You're the one ignored the rest of my post explaining exactly why this is not a matter of evidence.
Some issues are logical and about comprehension. (1 + 1 = 2)
Even this is a matter of evidence. The proof for 1 + 1 = 2 can be found here.
Exactly, that is the explanation. It is just a matter of comprehending it.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Which doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Yes, you have to understand the evidence. But the evidence is there. So present yours.
Originally posted by Jezus
We can only study correlations between our interpretations of consciousness and observed moving pieces. We cannot study consciousness directly in a scientific way.
Look into neurolinguistic brain damage studies. This is the best way to see the relationship between the meaning perceived by consciousness and the physical knowledge within the brain.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Which doesn't matter.
Assertions are statements, and statements matter. Logic existentialism is the basis of assertions. Logic matter does not equal logic existentialism. Statements render logic matters.
Sounds like germanic roots when explained that way.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Yes, you have to understand the evidence. But the evidence is there. So present yours.
The evidence is there for you to experience; it is just a matter of comprehending the difference between a physical moving piece and a feeling.
Originally posted by Astyanax
You meen such a feeling cannot be explained by any other means? You are wrong.
Originally posted by Astyanax
You haven't taken the new data on board and you aren't responding to it.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Your 'appeal to a feeling' has been debunked and exploded a thousand times already. No modern philosopher of any school believes that mind and body are separate.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Astyanax
You meen such a feeling cannot be explained by any other means? You are wrong.
A physical moving piece cannot feel. It can only pass the message.
Originally posted by Jezus
A physical moving piece cannot feel. It can only pass the message.
Neither of you really discussed consciousness, you never got past physiological psychology and biological chemistry.
This isn't about philosophy on the soul
Originally posted by Golden Boy
You have not proven that the chemical reactions in the brain are not sufficient to explain consciousness. You have presented only bare assertion. Come up with some evidence or leave.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by JezusA physical moving piece cannot feel. It can only pass the message.
You are a physically moving piece. Can you not feel?
Originally posted by Astyanax
At what point along the ladder of life, from viruses to people, does this unique, disembodied 'feeling' of consciousness appear? Do chimps have it? Dogs? Tool-using ravens? Language-using African Grey parrots like Alex? How about snakes? Lungfish? Centipedes?
Originally posted by Astyanax
That is all there is to discuss. If you disagree, explain--again, with references if you have them--why you think there is something more. Come on--it's high time you substantiated your claims in some way.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
You have not proven that there is a difference.
Originally posted by Jezus
My consciousness feels the moving piece. My mind responds to the brain's message.
Originally posted by Astyanax
You can never prove another entity has consciousness.
It is about comprehending the fundamental difference between the physical world we study and the personal world of consciousness.
Chemical reactions may correlate with what we percieve, but correlation is not causation.
A chemical reaction... does not feel. YOU feel.
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Golden Boy
You have not proven that the chemical reactions in the brain are not sufficient to explain consciousness. You have presented only bare assertion. Come up with some evidence or leave.
You are repeatedly quoting the first sentences of my responses without responding to the evidence...and then you ask for evidence.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Originally posted by Golden Boy
You have not proven that there is a difference.
If there was no difference between 1 and 1
then there would be only 1
and 1 + 1 = 1.
Originally posted by Jezus
You are repeatedly quoting the first sentences of my responses without responding to the evidence...and then you ask for evidence.
The evidence is directly observable to you. It is matter of comprehending the consciousness that is available to you.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Originally posted by Jezus
You are repeatedly quoting the first sentences of my responses without responding to the evidence...and then you ask for evidence.
This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.
The evidence is directly observable to you. It is matter of comprehending the consciousness that is available to you.
Don't worry about the conscious (in debate), just study my other thread where Golden Boy is proven a patent nonsense, which wasn't the intention yet one of the exponential results of his 'initial research'. It works...
Originally posted by dzonatas
This is because Golden Boy literally has patent nonsense, like a patent on nonsense, yet this isn't revealed by his 'randini' hints.
Originally posted by Astyanax
It's no use saying the evidence is 'directly observable to me'. Obviously it is not, or I wouldn't be asking you for it.
Originally posted by Astyanax
It is about comprehending the fundamental difference between the physical world we study and the personal world of consciousness.
So help me comprehend it. What is the difference? And--very important question--where is it located?
Originally posted by Astyanax
A chemical reaction... does not feel. YOU feel.
Show me that I am--or you are, if you prefer--more than a chemical reaction. And please don't come back to me with more talk about 'feeling'. I'm not interested in feelings; I want facts.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Don't forget about those brain-damage studies I asked for. How come you didn't respond to that question?