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.

 

Fore Will (origin at its finest)

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

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.

You meen such a feeling cannot be explained by any other means? You are wrong.


Without the non-physical response to information we would be biological robots just reacting to stimuli without consciousness.

Reading this, I realize that you either haven't read or haven't worked hard enough at understanding what TheWalkingFox, Golden Boy and others, as well as myself, have been writing in this thread. This, and your replies to other posters, are mere repetitions of what you said earlier on in the thread. You haven't taken the new data on board and you aren't responding to it.

Well, that lets me out, I'm afraid. I have better things to do than talk to the walls. Have you read anything at all on this subject, by the way? Any philosophy? Plato, Descartes, Liebniz, Locke, Berkely and many others thought and wrote extensively on the subject. So have contemporary philosophers, information theorists and the like. Are you familiar with the work of Alan Turing, whose famous test Golden Boy mentioned earlier in the thread? Have you read the work of Arthur Koestler, particularly The Ghost in the Machine, where he argues a position much like yours, somewhat more eruditely perhaps but in the end no more convincingly? What about Buddhism? Do you know what Buddhist thought has to say about mind and consciousness?

There is, as you might expect, a vast body of philosophical thought on this subject. Have you read it and familiarized yourself with it? 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.

You will have to find a stronger, more buoyant raft to cling to.

Philosophy of Mind on Wikipedia.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by Golden Boy
 


You proved assertion exists.


Which doesn't matter.


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.


Yes, you have to understand the evidence. But the evidence is there. So present yours.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

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.

The ironic thing is that I can only assume you have the evidence.

For all I know you are a biological robot simply reacting to stimulation without consciousness.


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.


Even though you repeatedly ignore it; the best area of study to help understand this issue is linguistic brain damage case studies (assuming you are familiar with basic physiological psychology and neuroscience).

Think about the fundamentally abstract nature of every word.

Physical motor/articulation sequence VS subjective conscious interpretation



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

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.


Does this mean anything, or are you just going to keep babbling on irrelevant subjects?


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.


You have not proven that there is a difference.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

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 Astyanax
You haven't taken the new data on board and you aren't responding to it.


Neither of you really discussed consciousness, you never got past physiological psychology and biological chemistry. These are inbetween points. This is simply the message moving back and forth. Nothing but patterns of information.


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.


This isn't about philosophy on the soul; you speculated and made assumptions without really trying to understand the point.

This is about recognizing an observable and fundamental characteristic of consciousness.

Looking into linguistic brain damage studies in combination with basic neuroscience and physiological psychology; it is the best way to see the difference.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
A physical moving piece cannot feel. It can only pass the message.

You are a physically moving piece. Can you not feel?

Then, consider a thermostat. It senses changes in its environment and responds to them. How do you know it cannot feel?

In just the same way, a bacterium senses changes in its environment and responds to them. Can it feel, or can't it?

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?

You say neurological studies of brain-damage victims prove your point. I don't see it. What aspect of brain-damage-related phenomena is explained by the hypothesis of disembodied consciousness, that cannot be explained by a physical model? If you feel research in this area supports your case, would you please explain how, preferably with references to pertinent studies?

As far as I know, such studies generally support an extreme physicalist interpretation of the mind-body problem. Show us some that don't.


Neither of you really discussed consciousness, you never got past physiological psychology and biological chemistry.

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.


This isn't about philosophy on the soul

What is 'philosophy on the soul'? Do you mean 'philosophy of the soul'? And if so, why isn't this 'about' it? Surely the soul--under the name of consciousness or mind--is precisely what we are discussing here? If it is not, can you explain the difference?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

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.

The evidence is directly observable to you. It is matter of comprehending the consciousness that is available to you.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

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?


My consciousness feels the moving piece. My mind responds to the brain's message.


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?


You can never prove another entity has consciousness.

All we can do is compare our perception of consciousness in correlation with the physical moving pieces we study.

Speculating on the consciousness of another entity is a fundamental assumption.

While it may be logical assumption, you can never scientifically prove another consciousness exists.


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.


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 is the message of a feeling; it does not feel. YOU feel.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 

Nice try, Jezus, but our side is trying to play fair and square here. Please cooperate by doing the same.

You haven't posted any evidence. Arguments are not evidence unless they are incontrovertible. Yours plainly aren't, so please show us the facts, if any, on which your arguments are based.

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. I don't doubt that I see the same things you see; but clearly I don't recognize them as evidence. Show me how they are. Explain yourself!



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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.




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
My consciousness feels the moving piece. My mind responds to the brain's message.

Agreed. Show how these entities, mind and consciousness, are not created by your physical body.


Originally posted by Astyanax
You can never prove another entity has consciousness.

My point precisely. Isn't that what you are trying to do?


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?


Chemical reactions may correlate with what we percieve, but correlation is not causation.

Heard you first time. Dealt with this in my first post. Please stop now.


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.

Edit to add: Don't forget about those brain-damage studies I asked for. How come you didn't respond to that question?

Come on now, stop wriggling. Where? Is? Your? Evidence?

[edit on 2/3/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

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.


No, jezus, I am ignoring the pointless waffling that you do. You are merely re-posting the same thing over and over. Until you come up with something to substantiate your claims, I see no reason to consider them to have any merit.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

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


And there isn't.


then there would be only 1


No.


and 1 + 1 = 1.


Nope.

So. Found any evidence yet?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

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...

[edit on 2-3-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

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...


OH DEAR GOD

THE IRONY

IT BURNS



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

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.




Well in his defense he isn't discussing nonsense. Biological chemistry and physiological psychology are very useful and obviously connected to consciousness. Unfortunately is just mistaking the message (the transfer of information) for that which perceives the message and responds to the information.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

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.


Ironically I can't prove the evidence is directly observable to you because I can't prove that you actually have consciousness; I can't prove that you feel. But if you do have consciousness, the evidence is directly observable to you, it is just a matter of comprehending the fundamental difference between the physical pieces you observe and the consciousness you experience.

This is a logical fact and it is incontrovertible.

Remember, consciousness is only a concept on a scientific level.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

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?


The difference is the difference between what feels and what is felt.

Location is a physical quality.


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.


Is it not a fact that you experience consciousness? You feel. Think about what it means to feel. The sensation is changing the nature of your consciousness. The message the brain sends is absorbed and responded to by consciousness.

You are more than chemical reactions because you feel. If you were JUST chemical reactions you would be a biological robot without consciousness and without feeling.



Originally posted by Astyanax
Don't forget about those brain-damage studies I asked for. How come you didn't respond to that question?


Any linguistic brain damage study will help in comprehending this concept because it involves the relationship between the physical storage of information within the brain and our mind’s response to the manipulation of this message; meaning is fundamentally a feeling.



new topics




     
    3
    << 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

    log in

    join