Fore Will (origin at its finest)

reply to post by Jezus


Once again, can you cite at least one study that you are referring to. A search of PsychInfo for "linguistic brain damage" produces no results. Even a name would be helpful if they do research extensively in this area.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Possessing consciousness does not mean that you are not a biological robot.

It certainly does. I'm sorry if you fail to understand the difference between a moving piece and feeling.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
I've explained to you, repeatedly, that the brain can respond to this message.

This is an assumption based on illogical speculation.

The brain only synthesizes information into a message.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Possessing consciousness does not mean that you are not a biological robot.

It certainly does. I'm sorry if you fail to understand the difference between a moving piece and feeling.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
I've explained to you, repeatedly, that the brain can respond to this message.

This is an assumption based on illogical speculation.

The brain only synthesizes information into a message.

PROVE.

IT.

Not that hard to understand.

reply to post by Jezus

You are trying to "win" an argument instead of trying to understand a concept.

Jee-zus, Jezus!

Do you really think I haven't 'understood the concept'? :shk:

It is as old as the hills. As you never seem to tire of pointing out, every human being is born with an intuitive understanding (a feeling, if you like ) of it. And if that weren't enough, it is also intimately familiar to readers of philosophy--such as I.

This is an argument. The topic, for your information, is something known as 'the mind-body problem'. It has been going on in philosophy since Plato. Your side was formerly dominant, but over the centuries the game has increasingly gone the way of the physicalists. The broad consensus among academic philosophers for the last century or so has been that mind and body are not separate, and that the only reality is physical.

This is an argument. It really is. And we won. We were always going to, because dualism is a kind of god-of-the-gaps theory, dependent on our ignorance of neurology; the more thoroughly we explore the brain and its workings, the smaller grow the corners--the 'gaps'--in which dualism, the faith you are propounding, can hide. Today the gaps have all but disappeared.

You held out for a good long while, though. Kudos to you

Originally posted by Astyanax
Do you really think I haven't 'understood the concept'? :shk:

It is as old as the hills.

You based this "argument" on preconcieved notions, speculation, and assumptions.

You were never able to comprehend this issue because you never tried.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The broad consensus among academic philosophers for the last century or so has been that mind and body are not separate, and that the only reality is physical.

False.

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is an argument. It really is. And we won. We were always going to, because dualism is a kind of god-of-the-gaps theory, dependent on our ignorance of neurology; the more thoroughly we explore the brain and its workings, the smaller grow the corners--the 'gaps'--in which dualism, the faith you are propounding, can hide. Today the gaps have all but disappeared.

Correlation is not causation.

We are studying smaller and smaller moving pieces but this is the message moving back and forth from the responder.

What you fail to comprehend is that consciousness can not be studied directly.

Neurology is the study of the message before and after it bounces off the mind.

Get Casper and Plato out of you mind and actually think about this.

The physical moving pieces are nothing but synthesized information moving back and forth.

Something responds to this message.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
PROVE.

IT.

Not that hard to understand.

I'm sorry but you are going to have to use your own logic to comprehend this issue.

Without the responding piece, you could not feel.

Logically incontrovertible

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
PROVE.

IT.

Not that hard to understand.

Without the responding piece, you could not feel.

Prove that the brain is not the responding piece.

reply to post by Golden Boy


The brain is physical.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Jezus

 

Just look into different studies on language impairment.

en.wikipedia.org...

This will give you some basic information and you can go from there.

Some people can write words and can't read them.
Some people can speak and can't understand their own words.
Some people lose the ability to produce very specific word groups like vegetables.

The deeper you go into this subject the easier it is to see the fundamental distinction between the physically stored information within the brain and the way our minds attempts to respond to the message.





[edit on 4-3-2010 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus


The fact that different parts of the brain are responsible for different aspects of speech proves that there's a mind? We've known for over a hundred years that there are areas designated for language production and other responsible language processing. Discovery of Broca's Area pretty much started modern neuroscience.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Xcalibur254]

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

The brain is physical.

So? You have a ways to go from "the brain is physical" to "there must be free will".

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

The brain is physical.

So?

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Prove that the brain is not the responding piece.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Jezus

 

The fact that different parts of the brain are responsible for different aspects of speech proves that there's a mind?

No.

The way that our minds respond to the different patterns of information (including removing physically stored information by damaging the brain) is what is helpful in comprehending the distinction.

reply to post by Jezus


The brain being physical does not prove that it is not the responding piece. You have to prove that physical things cannot respond.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
reply to post by Jezus

 

The brain being physical does not prove that it is not the responding piece. You have to prove that physical things cannot respond.

You're gonna have to figure this one out for yourself.

Originally posted by Jezus
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.

Originally posted by Jezus
You're gonna have to figure this one out for yourself.

Why even bother? You certainly haven't given us any reason to think there's anything in what you say.

All you've done for the last five pages is repeat the same weary old assertion.

As my father used to say, 'sorry, that cock won't fight'.

Be seeing you round the boards, I guess.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
reply to post by Jezus

 

The brain being physical does not prove that it is not the responding piece. You have to prove that physical things cannot respond.

You're gonna have to figure this one out for yourself.

And so we come full circle. You officially have nothing. Goodbye.

The ironic thing about this debate is I can’t prove you have consciousness.

You have been claiming to be biological robots without consciousness this whole time (even if you didn’t realize that) and I can’t scientifically prove you have consciousness.

However, my guess is that eventually (maybe when you have some intense emotional experiences) you may see the difference between information and feeling.

Eventually you will comprehend the fundamental distinction between physical moving pieces and that which responds to them.

The brain is physical, just like your entire body, it is moving pieces.

Your assertion that somehow these moving pieces move around information and this magically creates consciousness is illogical and scientifically unsubstantiated.

This consciousness is an observable feeling; you are that feeling; you respond to the information of your brain.

All our knowledge of the brain is that it synthesizes the message that the rest of the body perceives from the outside world. However, information IS NOT a feeling. Consciousness is a feeling that responds to this information.

If you are consciousness and have even a basic comprehension of the brain you have all the necessary evidence to understand the difference between the message and responding to the message.

However, if you are actually interested in consciousness, Neuro-linguistics is a great place to get perspective because it reveals the contrast between stored information and mental reactions to it.

Good luck meat robots!

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=8252980#pid8252980

"They're Made Out of Meat"

reply to post by Jezus


Actually modern research being done by neurologists and neuroscientists indicate that the "mind" could very well be a product of our emotions, which we already know are caused by the brain. If it was scientifically unsubstantiated that the mind and brain were the same, why then is that what scientists continue to find as they learn more and more about the brain. The great William James even suffered from depression because he wanted to believe in mind/body dualism, but all the research he did indicated that we live in a monist universe.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Actually modern research being done by neurologists and neuroscientists indicate that the "mind" could very well be a product of our emotions, which we already know are caused by the brain

Correlation is not causation.

Neurology is the study of the message moving back and forth.