Soul man?
chuml...@chartermi.net
that is a sort of thing that exists as the center of all that happens to it?
A repository where emotions, personality, intelligence, ego, etc. occur as
on a "stage"? Theists use the term "soul", of course, but is there any
reason (other than religious dogma) to believe that a self exists as a
"thing" that experiences, acts, etc.?
Scott
Interesting Ian
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B8B029FF9...@0.0.0.0...
> In article <u8kit0j...@corp.supernews.com>,
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
> > Do you think that humans have a discrete entity or essence within
themselves
> > that is a sort of thing that exists as the center of all that happens to
it?
> > A repository where emotions, personality, intelligence, ego, etc. occur
as
> > on a "stage"?
>
>
A brain is just a physical object like all other physical objects in the
world. That is all.
Ian
Esquilax
> "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote:
> > <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Do you think that humans have a discrete entity or essence within
> > > themselves that is a sort of thing that exists as the center of all that
> > > happens to it?
> > > A repository where emotions, personality, intelligence, ego, etc. occur
> > > as on a "stage"?
> >
> > It's called a brain. Anatomy 101.
> >
> A brain is just a physical object like all other physical objects in the
> world. That is all.
yet according to your theory it uniquely forms a causal relationship
with some currently supernatural phenomena to create another called
consciousness - why and now?
phil.
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B8B029FF9...@0.0.0.0...
> In article <u8kit0j...@corp.supernews.com>,
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
themselves
> > that is a sort of thing that exists as the center of all that happens to
it?
> > A repository where emotions, personality, intelligence, ego, etc. occur
as
> > on a "stage"?
>
>
I remember nothing from anatomy other than the structures and nomenclature
of tissues, organs, etc. Perhaps you mean Physiology, where the emphasis is
on function? But even here, there is little to explain the depth of the
human experience and our own need for introspection. Wee have philosophy
and religion for that. Or are you saying that the brain is the same as the
self?
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:45vi8.4262$y76.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
But what a "physical object" it is! I would rather do without pretty much
any other thing than my brian! On the other hand, perhaps that is not
saying much in my case...
Scott
Peter Ashby
> I remember nothing from anatomy other than the structures and nomenclature
> of tissues, organs, etc. Perhaps you mean Physiology, where the emphasis is
> on function? But even here, there is little to explain the depth of the
> human experience and our own need for introspection. Wee have philosophy
> and religion for that. Or are you saying that the brain is the same as the
> self?
You are forgetting psychology and all the other -ologies which today
make up the multidisciplinary area of Neuroscience. Perhaps a read of a
good Neurosci textbook would fill in some of your blanks.
Peter
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1f8tp6t.1dalv9qm6obagN%pas...@blueyonder.co.uk...
Psychology as science just because it ends with -ology? Like Numerology and
Astrology I guess, eh? If you mean to define a science as any structured,
methodological system of thought, then almost anything is a science,
religion included. However, I am sure you do not mean to go that far.
For me, psychology is concerned neither so much with anatomy or even
physiology. I understand that there are theories that explain human
behavior in terms of physiological processes, but can you tell me exactly
what such a physical process explains human's apparent need to believe in an
individual spirit or soul?
Scott
Interesting Ian
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u8kit0j...@corp.supernews.com...
> Do you think that humans have a discrete entity or essence within
themselves
> that is a sort of thing that exists as the center of all that happens to
it?
Well yes, minds exist.
> A repository where emotions, personality, intelligence, ego, etc. occur as
> on a "stage"? Theists use the term "soul", of course, but is there any
> reason (other than religious dogma) to believe that a self exists as a
> "thing" that experiences, acts, etc.?
It is those that propose that the self is the very same thing as some
physical thing or process who have to justify their claims, not those who
suppose the self is what it appears to be.
Ian
chuml...@chartermi.net
What is it, to you, tha the self appears to be?
Scott
Lukas Mariman
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> schreef in
bericht news:45vi8.4262$y76.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Yes. So?
Lukas Mariman
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> schreef in bericht
news:3c8bdbdd$0$261$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Seriously, why is it so hard to think that our mind, our "consciousness"
or whatever you wish to call it, is formed in our brain? Actually, I
would think the connection is obvious.
Why the need to make it more complicated than that?
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3c8be002$0$257$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Because it is like saying a cake is formed in an oven. There must be a bit
more to it than that. Is consciousness a state of mind, then, or is it
represented by a particular structure within the brain? The connection
between the brain and the spinal cord may be obvious, but show me the
connection between brain and mind.
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <u8nq0a3...@corp.supernews.com>,> Indeed there is. All sorts of things. For instance, the human mind would
> not be the human mind without the hormones which inter alia make it what
it
> is. But in terms of talking to you, the answer was sufficient.
>
Are you saying that what we refer to as the self is primarily the
interaction of hormones? This answer may be sufficient in your mind, but
not to mine.
Scott
Peter Ashby
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> Psychology as science just because it ends with -ology? Like Numerology and
> Astrology I guess, eh? If you mean to define a science as any structured,
> methodological system of thought, then almost anything is a science,
> religion included. However, I am sure you do not mean to go that far.
>
> For me, psychology is concerned neither so much with anatomy or even
> physiology. I understand that there are theories that explain human
> behavior in terms of physiological processes, but can you tell me exactly
> what such a physical process explains human's apparent need to believe in an
> individual spirit or soul?
Are you sure you aren't confusing psychology with psychiatry? Psychology
is a fully fledged biological science with people working both from a
bottom up and a top down approach. The aspects of pyschology which are
most visible to the public are the minority areas. This would be like
dismissing all of botany because of David Bellamy (no disrespect to his
good work of popularising science intended).
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Peter Ashby
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
No he is saying that all the various hormones which slosh around us
affect our minds as well as our bodies. IOW you cannot consider mind
without body, not least because a large part of our brains, including
cortex is concerned with controlling our bodies and deciding which of
the myriad sensory inputs should be inserted into our conscious minds.
For example until I mention it you are probably not aware of the
sensations of your clothes on your body, or the itch on your lower
back....
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:B8B19EA79...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > > In article <u8nq0a3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There must be a bit
> > > > more to it than that.
> > >
> > > Indeed there is. All sorts of things. For instance, the human mind
would
> > > not be the human mind without the hormones which inter alia make it
what
> > it
> > > is. But in terms of talking to you, the answer was sufficient.
> > >
> >
> > Are you saying that what we refer to as the self is primarily the
> > interaction of hormones?
>
>
> I knew anything too complicated would completely faze you.
>
> > This answer may be sufficient in your mind, but
> > not to mine.
>
>
>
>
Yes, somebody has a problem here. But I cannot see why.
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-8B8F6...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
There is a line to be drawn somewhere, however. Pretty much everything I
am aware of affects my mind, or my mind via my body. However, I would not
consider all of this part of my consciousness. Of course I am influenced by
hormones, as well as sensory perceptions--including reflections induced by
reading emails in usegroups. However, I would not say that this is all part
and parcel of whatever it is that is "me". You could say that I may be the
consciousness of itching, for instance, but I am not the starch and the
laundered who left too much of it in my clothing.
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
Yeah, that's a valid point, I guess. (However, I have heard similar
comments made by theists to dismiss any opinions that atheists have of
scripture -- that they only see it in a superficial way and do not "really"
get it.)
Understand I do not mean to imply that I think any line of thought should be
dismissed, not matter what sort of faith or science they are based on. So
regardless of all that, let me get back to my question and re-ask: what is
it in psychology (or any other -logy, including theology) that explains a
person's need for a sense of self?
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <u8q51k4...@corp.supernews.com>,> Why?
>
What? Do you want me to believe that you think a person's self has no
limits at all? It makes the concept meaningless. It is like the new-agers
suggesting that Goad is everything. There is not much point to
differentiating anything is there?
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <u8qaf6k...@corp.supernews.com>,
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:B8B2CFD49...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > > In article <u8q51k4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is a line to be drawn somewhere, however.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> >
> > What? Do you want me to believe that you think a person's self has no
> > limits at all?
>
>
> > It makes the concept meaningless.
>
>
>
Right. OK then, thanks.
Scott
Leonardo Dasso
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u8mqsv6...@corp.supernews.com...
Something mysterious, sublime and not related to that sticky and disgusting
slab of meat we call the brain, of course.
regards
leo
RoyBoy
> What? Do you want me to believe that you think
> a person's self has no limits at all?
Simon:
>Mine doesn't.
Can you not be yourself?
Peter Ashby
> >
> > What is it, to you, tha the self appears to be?
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> Something mysterious, sublime and not related to that sticky and disgusting
> slab of meat we call the brain, of course.
Umm, meat is muscle. You may think with your muscles but most people
don't. I'm also afraid that the way things are do not tend to have
regard to people's personal preferences. IOW if you don't like it,
tough.
Peter
chuml...@chartermi.net
"RoyBoy" <aph...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9sdj8.185$r_1....@read2.cgocable.net...
I don't think you can.
Scott
Peter H.M. Brooks
nevertheless, never tough though often rich. Very nice with butter and
garlic, even cold.
--
non illegitimi te carborundum
Esquilax
> Umm, meat is muscle. You may think with your muscles but most people
> don't. I'm also afraid that the way things are do not tend to have
> regard to people's personal preferences. IOW if you don't like it,
> tough.
mmmmmm, prions - so tasty you'd be mad not to eat them!
Peter Ashby
"Esquilax" <an...@mous.com> wrote:
I rather like fried sheeps brains, though I have only eaten them in New
Zealand which is scrapie free.
Lukas Mariman
<chuml...@chartermi.net> schreef in bericht
news:u8nq0a3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3c8be002$0$257$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
"consciousness"
> > or whatever you wish to call it, is formed in our brain? Actually, I
> > would think the connection is obvious.
> >
> > Why the need to make it more complicated than that?
> >
>
> Because it is like saying a cake is formed in an oven.
Well, *it is*, isn't it? :-)
> There must be a bit more to it than that.
Why?
You know, I think this upon a core element of spirituality and religion
and all that. People believe the most outrageous things *because they
want to* - in spite of the absolute lack of any evidence supporting it,
or even in the face of evidence contradicting it.
You say there has to be more to it because you want there to be.
> Is consciousness a state of mind, then, or is it
> represented by a particular structure within the brain? The
connection
> between the brain and the spinal cord may be obvious, but show me the
> connection between brain and mind.
We *know* there is a connection. Why do people with severe brain trauma
exhibit personality changes? Why do anti-depressives work *at all* if
the mind is not somehow directed by the brain? What about the effect of
any drug or drugs out there?
Lukas Mariman
<chuml...@chartermi.net> schreef in bericht
news:u8kit0j...@corp.supernews.com...
> Do you think that humans have a discrete entity or essence within
themselves
> that is a sort of thing that exists as the center of all that happens
to it?
occur as
> on a "stage"? Theists use the term "soul", of course, but is there
any
> reason (other than religious dogma) to believe that a self exists as a
> "thing" that experiences, acts, etc.?
Basically, I would say "no".
Lukas Mariman
"Leonardo Dasso" <Lda...@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:a6jmsu$eo443$1...@ID-102497.news.dfncis.de...
> > What is it, to you, tha the self appears to be?
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> Something mysterious, sublime and not related to that sticky and
disgusting
> slab of meat we call the brain, of course.
You think your thought process are *not* generated by your brain? Ooooh
kaaaay...
Interesting Ian
>
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> schreef in bericht
> news:u8nq0a3...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > news:3c8be002$0$257$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> > > Seriously, why is it so hard to think that our mind, our
> "consciousness"
> > > or whatever you wish to call it, is formed in our brain? Actually, I
> > > would think the connection is obvious.
> > >
> > > Why the need to make it more complicated than that?
> > >
> >
> > Because it is like saying a cake is formed in an oven.
>
> Well, *it is*, isn't it? :-)
>
> > There must be a bit more to it than that.
>
> Why?
>
> You know, I think this upon a core element of spirituality and religion
> and all that. People believe the most outrageous things *because they
> want to* - in spite of the absolute lack of any evidence supporting it,
> or even in the face of evidence contradicting it.
Yeah, can't disagree with you there! Look at how completely absurd
materialism is. There is no evidence for it, it is highly doubtful whether
it is even intelligible, yet people still believe it giving the most facile
arguments imaginable in support of it. . Look at your arguments that
follow. I really do despair. Oh well!
Ian
Interesting Ian
given the complete lack of either reason or evidence. I prefer believing
only in that which is rational.
Ian
Lukas Mariman
That is ridiculous. Our consciousness must be generated *somewhere*. All
evidence points to the brain.
> I prefer believing only in that which is rational.
Yeah, right! :-)
Lukas Mariman
There's nothing wrong with my arguments. Now, I'm not saying they cover
it all. I just scraped the surface, actually.
The main point you avoid adressing is that YOU have no real argument to
speak of. (You just manage to hide it better than most.)
Once more, there is nothing that indicates there is something "more" out
there, what theists would call a "soul", or that there is an afterlife,
or a "God", or the tooth fairy. Yet you insist there is. Well, it is up
to you "believers" to prove the correctness of these claims, to prove
they have any bearing on reality. It is *not* up to everyone else to
disprove them.
Yet, strangely, no one has been able to accomplish this. Why is that,
you think?
usenet_...@yahoo.com
>
> Something mysterious, sublime and not related to that sticky and disgusting
> slab of meat we call the brain, of course.
And he got the answers:
-----------------------------
Peter A.:
I'm also afraid that the way things are do not tend to have
regard to people's personal preferences. IOW if you don't like it,
tough.
Peter
-----------------------------
Lukas M.:
You think your thought process are *not* generated by your brain? Ooooh
kaaaay...
-----------------------------
irony, n
" 1. A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that
expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in
which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt."
OED, second edition.
Cheers
Joss Knight
process of reading non-existent words with his non-existent eyes, then
typing replies on his non-existent keyboard, simply because our minds
perversely wish to generate this material barrier between them, forfeiting
more direct communication.
Leonardo Dasso
<usenet_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14e2a03e.02031...@posting.google.com...
Thanks. It is nice to see that the intention of my post was not completely
lost on everybody. Although this being a uk group you'd expect irony not to
be lost on anybody, wouldn't you? ;-)
regards
leo
Leonardo Dasso
We are at a stage in which we have sufficient understanding of the physical
basis of mental phenomena to be able to comfortably reject any dualistic or
mystical conceptions of mind and consciousness.
If the brain is removed, consciousness goes, if certain areas of the brain
are affected by drugs, surgery or injury, consciousness is affected. It
seems obvious that in a fundamental sense the brain is a necessary and
sufficient condition for consciousness, ie consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain.
Given our present understanding, any anti-physicalist idea of mind and
consciousness is mystical mumbo-jumbo not to be taken seriously.
regards
leo
Leonardo Dasso
Anti-materialist views of consciousness do not provide any alternative
whatsoever, but instead sit lazily in judgment of the materialist attempts
to understand how things work.
The anti-materialist position is basically just an argument from ignorance:
since we dont currently have a satisfactory explanation for consciousness,
well then there must be a non materialistic explanation for it. Of course,
such non-materialistic explanation always fails to be conjured. This
argument is analogous to the god-of-the gaps argument of the creationists.
It keeps shrinking and moving the goal posts as our knowldege grows.
This type of argument also misrepresents reductionism. It is important to
note that the role of reductionistic approaches is not to provide us with a
precise account of the phenomena that take place at higher levels of
organization. Its role is to account for how these observable phenomena *can
happen* given the structure and function of matter at its lower levels of
organization.
Consequently, all that materialists need to do is to explain how the
biochemical workings of the brain make subjective experiences
possible --scientific models do not need to specifically explain what
precisely happens during a particular subjective experience.
regards
leo
Lukas Mariman
Well excuse me very much. No offense, but it's kind of hard to
distinguish irony from "the real thing" on Usenet, not only when you
don't know the other person, but especially when you are used to dealing
with "believers" who are, apparently, deadly serious about the nonsense
they're posting.
Why don't you just add an emoticon? That would have saved all of us the
trouble of writing all these posts explaining ourselves.
That said, I'm glad you didn't mean what you wrote. :-)
chuml...@chartermi.net
Why do people without brain trauma exhibit personality changes? Why do
people not on drugs behave erratically at times? Are you trying to tell me
that a person's sense of self is determined solely by what drugs they have
in thier systems, or what damage they have sustained to thier brain tissue?
Scott
Scott
Leonardo Dasso
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u8st1ui...@corp.supernews.com...
challenges to the brain's structure and function that indicate a clear
connection between the brain and personality, mood and other phenomena that
we call states of mind. If psychotropic drugs or brain injuries affect
phenomena that we call or abscribe to mind, personality, mood and
consciousness, then the obvious inference is that all these phenomena are
emergent properties of the brain.
regards
leo
Lukas Mariman
<chuml...@chartermi.net> schreef in bericht
news:u8st1ui...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3c8debf8$0$248$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
trauma
> > exhibit personality changes? Why do anti-depressives work *at all*
if
> > the mind is not somehow directed by the brain? What about the effect
of
> > any drug or drugs out there?
>
> Why do people without brain trauma exhibit personality changes? Why
do
> people not on drugs behave erratically at times? Are you trying to
tell me
> that a person's sense of self is determined solely by what drugs they
have
> in thier systems, or what damage they have sustained to thier brain
tissue?
As Leonardo Dasso explained, you rather missed the point.
The examples I named all indicate a clear connection between the brain
and "the mind". Therefore, stating there is no connection goes against
the evidence of the contrary.
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Leonardo Dasso" <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a6lsqi$fdg2t$1...@ID-102497.news.dfncis.de...
All I think it points out is that when the brain is affected by external
stimuli, the mind is affected as well. That is indisputable, as you seem to
suggest.
If you are going to go even farther, as you seem to, and further say that
the brain by itself is responsible for what we call the self, then I think
there must be some description of just what "properties" of the brain can
account for things like personality, mood, etc.
After all, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
Scott
Leonardo Dasso
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u8tbm1h...@corp.supernews.com...
are rather well established. The big problem that materialism has to solve
is consciousness. That's the tough one. Neurobiological studies have made
quite a bit of progress regarding the issue, but of course we are still a
long way away. I am not an expert in the field at all, just a dilettante;
there are numerous books on the subject, though. A couple of webpages that
you may find interesting are
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/wisdom/Essays/consciousness.htm
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/church.neuro.html
regards
leo
chuml...@chartermi.net
Thanks, I am familiar with the first site.
The thread started with a question regarding self-consciousness--that
apprehension that we have of our own self, our own consciousness. How is it
that we can reflect on our own psychic states, thought processes, etc.?
Regardless of any materialistic theories of consciousness, what is the
dynamic behind the process of self-awareness?
Just what is it we are aware of--is it simply the patterns of synapses and
interplay of certain neurotransmitters? Is there an evolutionary advantage
in all of this?
Scott
Lukas Mariman
<chuml...@chartermi.net> schreef in bericht
news:u8st1ui...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3c8debf8$0$248$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
trauma
> > exhibit personality changes? Why do anti-depressives work *at all*
if
> > the mind is not somehow directed by the brain? What about the effect
of
> > any drug or drugs out there?
> >
>
> Why do people without brain trauma exhibit personality changes? Why
do
> people not on drugs behave erratically at times? Are you trying to
tell me
> that a person's sense of self is determined solely by what drugs they
have
> in thier systems, or what damage they have sustained to thier brain
tissue?
As has been pointed out by Leonardo Dasso, you seem to have rather
missed the point of my previous post.
The things I spoke of would just not be possible if there really were no
connection between the brain and the "mind".
Interesting Ian
disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are one
and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
Ian
chuml...@chartermi.net
Since we are speaking of the brain and the mind as being connected in some
way, the two entities must be discrete things, or at the most, one
interpenetrates the other. The result is that the mind (or self or
whatever) is a thing unto itself. That it does, indeed, exist as a "thing"
among other things. So the answer here to the original question is "yes",
then?
Scott
Lukas Mariman
were no
> > connection between the brain and the "mind".
> >
> There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one is
> disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain
are one
> and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
Without hard proof indicating otherwise, there is *no reason* to assume
anything other than what appears to be the simplest explanation: namely,
that the mind is anything *other* than something generated by the brain.
(The only "reason" I could think of is that you want to rationalize the
concept of what theists refer to as a "soul". Are you a "believer"?)
chuml...@chartermi.net
This is more an existential question than a theological one. What is the
mechanism that accounts for self-knowlege? I think that theological
references to a "soul" are mostly irrelavant, except for the fact that so
many people do include the concept in their own conceptualizations of the
universe and their place within it.
Scott
Leonardo Dasso
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
experience of 3 centuries of fruitful reductionism, plus a tradition of
centuries of materialism, plus obvious common sense (which is in fact the
product of the cultural tradition that involves reductionism plus
materialism, plus logic), strongly suggest that the brain is the mind or the
brain gives rise to what we call the mind.
A number of neuroscientific disciplines are working based on this working
hypothesis, and plenty of progress has been made. The mechanisms
underpinning memory, mood, different types of behaviour, etc, have been
delineated and the molecules involved are being intensely studied. A fair
number of drugs used to tackle anxiety, depression, and psychotic behaviour
confirm that our ideas of which neural pathways underpin which types of
behaviour are rather accurate. Consciousness is of course the most difficult
nut to crack. But we'll get there eventually (perhaps).
regards
leo
Esquilax
> There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one is
> disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are one
> and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
the idea that the brain generates the mind is the most rational given the
current evidence. states like sleep, intoxication, unconsciousness are
virtually impossible to explain otherwise - as is the behaviour of the
mind in babies or people suffering from physical brain deterioration with
old age or disease.
phil.
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B8B529D7...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <u8ur9pi...@corp.supernews.com>,> No it isn't. It's strictly a biological question.
>
> > What is the
> > mechanism that accounts for self-knowlege?
>
>
> Next...
>
Descibe the mechanism. How is it that I am self-aware? I can say its a
complex brain, God or the interaction of superego/ego/id, but that does not
make it necessarily so. Or are you saying that you are simply relying on
your trust in science here? That you do not choose to question what you
regard as "fact"?
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
Thanks, Leo. You seem to have alot of (dare I say) "faith" in that last
bit!
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are one
> > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
>
>
"Of course"?
But why is it, then, that so many disagree with this idea? Back to the
original question: Why this seemingly innate desire for a metaphysical
"self"?
Scott
Lukas Mariman
<chuml...@chartermi.net> schreef in bericht
news:u8uvjq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> news:B8B52980...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > In article <BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are one
> > > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
> >
> > By and large, of course, it does.
> >
>
> "Of course"?
>
> But why is it, then, that so many disagree with this idea?
Because they want to believe something else?
Because they have a desire for something "higher"?
> Back to the
> original question: Why this seemingly innate desire for a
metaphysical
> "self"?
"Wishful thinking" still comes to mind. My very own mind, which is
totally generated by my very own brain. :-p
Interesting Ian
"Leonardo Dasso" <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a6nqtq$fb353$1...@ID-102497.news.dfncis.de...
>
What observations?
>plus the principle of parsimony,
Largely meaningless in the context of metaphysical positions. How are we
decide which position is more parsimonious? What about questions of
intelligibility? What about some hypothesis being consonant with all our
other hypotheses? Moreover look at the progress of science. Seems to pay
scant regard to parsimony.
plus the
> experience of 3 centuries of fruitful reductionism, plus a tradition of
> centuries of materialism, plus obvious common sense (which is in fact the
> product of the cultural tradition that involves reductionism plus
> materialism, plus logic), strongly suggest that the brain is the mind or
the
> brain gives rise to what we call the mind.
How does it suggest that? The above would have to suggest materialism
right? I would contend however that the success of science in no way
suggests the correctness of materialism. In fact the success of science is
vastly more explicable if we were to suppose that an immaterialist position
was the correct depiction of reality (I am a subjective idealist).
>
> A number of neuroscientific disciplines are working based on this working
> hypothesis, and plenty of progress has been made.
Progress in what?
The mechanisms
> underpinning memory, mood, different types of behaviour, etc, have been
> delineated and the molecules involved are being intensely studied.
So what? How does this justify that consciousness is generated by the
brain?
A fair
> number of drugs used to tackle anxiety, depression, and psychotic
behaviour
> confirm that our ideas of which neural pathways underpin which types of
> behaviour are rather accurate. Consciousness is of course the most
difficult
> nut to crack. But we'll get there eventually (perhaps).
No you won't. Not assuming materialism you won't. Sorry! :-)
Ian
Interesting Ian
"Esquilax" <an...@mous.com> wrote in message
news:a6ntvc$1s5$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one is
> > disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are
one
> > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
>
> the idea that the brain generates the mind is the most rational given the
> current evidence.
What evidence?
states like sleep, intoxication, unconsciousness are
> virtually impossible to explain otherwise - as is the behaviour of the
> mind in babies or people suffering from physical brain deterioration with
> old age or disease.
They are easily explained when we recall that states of mind depend on
states of the brain. But this of course need not imply that the mind has
its origin in the brain. I've discussed this *sooo* many times! <sweats>
Ian
Interesting Ian
>
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> schreef in
> bericht news:BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > The things I spoke of would just not be possible if there really
> were no
> > > connection between the brain and the "mind".
> > >
> > There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one is
> > disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain
> are one
> > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
>
> Without hard proof indicating otherwise, there is *no reason* to assume
> anything other than what appears to be the simplest explanation: namely,
> that the mind is anything *other* than something generated by the brain.
But you just simply have to accept as a brute fact that brains generate
minds. What is it about brains that can generate minds but no other
physical object in the Universe can? Why not instead at least *consider*
that although brains can modify minds they may not actually create them?
Just like the picture quality on a TV set can be modified by its internal
components, but doesn't originate from those internal components?
>
> (The only "reason" I could think of is that you want to rationalize the
> concept of what theists refer to as a "soul". Are you a "believer"?)
>
A believer in "God" or a believer in a soul? Why do you want to know?
Besides, before I could answer such a question you would need to give a
rigorous definition of these terms.
Ian
Peter Ashby
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> All I think it points out is that when the brain is affected by external
> stimuli, the mind is affected as well. That is indisputable, as you seem to
> suggest.
How is a drug/hormone/neurotransmitter acting on the brain an 'external
stimulus'? You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the vast majority
of psychotropic drugs act by mimicking endogenous factors and activating
or blocking their receptors. So a drug is indicating an innate
biological effect on brain and hence mind. To fit in with a dualist
position some aspect of consciousness would have to be inherent in
heroin for eg. So ecstasy would in fact be concentrated happiness
instead of MDMA.
> If you are going to go even farther, as you seem to, and further say that
> the brain by itself is responsible for what we call the self, then I think
> there must be some description of just what "properties" of the brain can
> account for things like personality, mood, etc.
The brain does not operate in isolation, it is connected to this thing
we call a body. It communicates with the body, remember hormones? It
communicates with the outside world. Since as has been pointed out to
you we can change mood with 'uppers' and 'downers' and in many cases we
know the mechanism, Prozac for example is a serotonin uptake inhibitor.
It prevents the removal of serotonin after release by nerve terminals
and so levels rise and so does mood. So we know that serotonin levels
correlate with mood. IOW you are speaking from ignorance.
> After all, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs.
ROTFLMHO! I just love it when people making supernatural claims try and
portray rational scientific theories extraordinary and their own
'perfectly clear' and obvious.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Peter Ashby
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote:
> Why don't you just add an emoticon? That would have saved all of us the
> trouble of writing all these posts explaining ourselves.
>
> That said, I'm glad you didn't mean what you wrote. :-)
Ditto. I was getting a little confused as to whether Leo was a good guy
or a bad guy. See on usenet I can't see what colour stetson you're
wearin' pardner.
Esquilax
> They are easily explained when we recall that states of mind depend on
> states of the brain. But this of course need not imply that the mind has
> its origin in the brain. I've discussed this *sooo* many times! <sweats>
well, you have to because your "dualist" theory is not only just plain
daft, it's also of no scientific use: "don't bother studying how the mind is
formed because it depends on a non-material supernatural component".
all your really saying is "i can not cope with the idea that being human
is essentially mundain and meaningless as far as the external universe
is concerned. i know, human beings have a unique (on earth) level of
intelligence and language - so i'll use this as proof that we have a
"special" place in nature".
phil.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Esquilax" <an...@mous.com> wrote in message
> news:a6ntvc$1s5$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one is
> > > disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are
> one
> > > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
> >
> > the idea that the brain generates the mind is the most rational given the
> > current evidence.
>
> What evidence?
Don't be tedious Ian or you will go in the killfile with all the other
trolls. You know what evidence, we have been here too many times. Read
that Neuroscience textbook yet? or are you still operating from
ignorance, fingers in your ears, chanting la, la, la, lest you get
contaminated with knowledge to tarnish your precious ignorance.
Peter Ashby
"Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> But you just simply have to accept as a brute fact that brains generate
> minds. What is it about brains that can generate minds but no other
> physical object in the Universe can?
Who made such a claim? bring them forth, forthwith! If such a person has
sufficient knowledge of the universe they will be a most valuable asset.
The hypothesis that mind emerges from brains of sufficient complexity
and architecture is supported by evidence (see google for endless
repetition of this), and is the most parsimonious explanation. it is
also a scientific hypothesis and as such is falsifiable, with
appropriate evidence. You have tried and failed to do this. Instead you
cling to your shrinking god of the gaps construction. And yes I was
looking, you have a real cheek trotting out your thoroughly discredited
TV analogy here. I can just imagine how frustrated your thesis commitee
must feel is this is your idea rigour.
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-AF93A...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
I am not making any claims, especially supernatural ones. You do not think
that there is anything extraordinary about self-awareness, and the idea that
neurobiology can account for its persistence? That every thought, emotion
and worry can be explained by the movement of an action potential along a
neuron, or the action of dopamine in a synapse?
Religion does not, in my opinion, need extraordinary proof. It simply does
not operate on the level of proof. It is futile to ask for, or offer, any
kind of logical reason for religious beliefs, or metaphysical beliefs in
general. Science, on the other hand, is nothing but proof. And the more is
discovered about just how the brain works, the more extraordinary it all
seems to me. One can talk about "faith in science", but there is a vast
difference between this and simple faith. Science is based on testable
evidence, and there certainly is alot of it that has been accumulated over
the years. Much of it is junk, of course, but I do think that things become
clearer as progress is made.
The fact that spiritual or supernatural explanations for things are
unnecessary to me does not explain why others think they are necessary. The
fact is, people do adhere to these sorts of beliefs. Why is that?
Scott
Leonardo Dasso
They've been mentioned several times in this thread. If the brain goes the
mind goes, brain damage affects the mind, drugs that act on the brain affect
the mind, etc etc.
> >plus the principle of parsimony,
>
> Largely meaningless in the context of metaphysical positions. How are we
> decide which position is more parsimonious? What about questions of
> intelligibility? What about some hypothesis being consonant with all our
> other hypotheses? Moreover look at the progress of science. Seems to pay
> scant regard to parsimony.
Firstly, good old Ockam proposed his principle for metaphysical positions.
Secondly we are talking about phenomena displayed by biological organisms,
therefore we are talking about biological phenomena. Not metaphysical
phenomena.
Thirdly science pays lots of regard for parsimony: no supernatural ad hoc
entities are posited.
> plus the
> > experience of 3 centuries of fruitful reductionism, plus a tradition of
> > centuries of materialism, plus obvious common sense (which is in fact
the
> > product of the cultural tradition that involves reductionism plus
> > materialism, plus logic), strongly suggest that the brain is the mind or
> the
> > brain gives rise to what we call the mind.
>
> How does it suggest that? The above would have to suggest materialism
> right? I would contend however that the success of science in no way
> suggests the correctness of materialism. In fact the success of science
is
> vastly more explicable if we were to suppose that an immaterialist
position
> was the correct depiction of reality (I am a subjective idealist).
The success of science is clearly the success of reductionist materialism.
All models in physics and biology are reductionist materialist models. No
immaterialist position has ever given any scientific fruits that we know of.
> > A number of neuroscientific disciplines are working based on this
working
> > hypothesis, and plenty of progress has been made.
>
> Progress in what?
>
> The mechanisms
> > underpinning memory, mood, different types of behaviour, etc, have been
> > delineated and the molecules involved are being intensely studied.
>
> So what? How does this justify that consciousness is generated by the
> brain?
The application of reductionistic materialist models has had enormous
success explaining a number of manifestation of what we call the mind,
therefore it is expected that consciousness can be studied in the same way.
> A fair
> > number of drugs used to tackle anxiety, depression, and psychotic
> behaviour
> > confirm that our ideas of which neural pathways underpin which types of
> > behaviour are rather accurate. Consciousness is of course the most
> difficult
> > nut to crack. But we'll get there eventually (perhaps).
>
> No you won't. Not assuming materialism you won't. Sorry! :-)
But you fail to produce any alternative approach, other than saying that "In
fact the success of science is vastly more explicable if we were to suppose
that an immaterialist position was the correct depiction of reality (I am a
subjective idealist)."
Please explain how would science's success be more explicable if we took an
immaterialist position.
regards
leo
> Ian
>
Peter Ashby
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> The fact that spiritual or supernatural explanations for things are
> unnecessary to me does not explain why others think they are necessary. The
> fact is, people do adhere to these sorts of beliefs. Why is that?
Conservatism. Religions have played useful roles in explaining the world
and giving it meaning. Many of those explanations have been shown by
science to be wrong but many people either don't know them or don't want
to know since knowing means dealing with and denial is easier. I used to
consider myself a fundamentalist xian who was a creationist. I have made
the journey, all the way to the other extreme. I made it because the
evidence I was presented with could not tolerate my position so it was
either denial or change. People are by nature conservative, they don't
like change, and especially not in their worldview.
Interesting Ian
> In article <4BLj8.46987$yc2.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > But you just simply have to accept as a brute fact that brains generate
> > minds. What is it about brains that can generate minds but no other
> > physical object in the Universe can?
>
> Who made such a claim? bring them forth, forthwith! If such a person has
> sufficient knowledge of the universe they will be a most valuable asset.
> The hypothesis that mind emerges from brains of sufficient complexity
> and architecture is supported by evidence (see google for endless
> repetition of this),
No it isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that minds emerge from brains.
HELLO!! IS MY MESSAGE GETTING THROUGH!!!!
and is the most parsimonious explanation. it is
> also a scientific hypothesis
No it isn't! It is a metaphysical hypothesis.
and as such is falsifiable,
No it isn't. Not that that is relevant in any case.
with
> appropriate evidence. You have tried and failed to do this.
I haven't tried to falsify it. The materialist hypothesis is so absurd I
wouldn't bother.
Instead you
> cling to your shrinking god of the gaps construction.
I don't believe in the god of the gaps. I find the god of the gaps
conceptualisation of God to be patently absurd. This is the atheists
definition of God, not mine.
And yes I was
> looking, you have a real cheek trotting out your thoroughly discredited
> TV analogy here.
Er....what the *fuck*??? Listen DICKHEAD. I am somewhat weary of your
lies. If you think it has been discredited then wheel out your arguments.
Or shut the *fuck up*!
Ian
Lukas Mariman
>
> "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3c8f646c$0$264$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> schreef in
> > bericht
news:BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > > The things I spoke of would just not be possible if there really
> > were no
> > > > connection between the brain and the "mind".
> > > >
> > > There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one
is
> > > disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and
brain
> > are one
> > > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
> >
> > Without hard proof indicating otherwise, there is *no reason* to
assume
> > anything other than what appears to be the simplest explanation:
namely,
> > that the mind is anything *other* than something generated by the
brain.
>
> But you just simply have to accept as a brute fact that brains
generate
> minds.
In light of what we know about the human brain, and the evidence many of
us have already referred to, yes, I would accept that as a "brute fact".
> What is it about brains that can generate minds but no other
> physical object in the Universe can?
> Why not instead at least *consider*
> that although brains can modify minds they may not actually create
them?
Well, I could consider that. I can consider a great deal of things.
However, I do not see any evidence to support the notion, so that is as
far as I go.
> Just like the picture quality on a TV set can be modified by its
internal
> components, but doesn't originate from those internal components?
I'm not sure the analogy is entirely correct in the example.
The picture *is* generated by the internal components.
Now, the *content* of the picture is coming from an external source -
which I
think is what you are getting at, right? But with a TV we *know* the
content, whatever the picture is showing, does not originate inside the
TV set.
Concerning the human mind, there is nothing suggesting an external
source like there would be with a TV set.
As for the TV set: when the power goes, so does the picture. I guess the
same goes for the human mind.
> > (The only "reason" I could think of is that you want to rationalize
the
> > concept of what theists refer to as a "soul". Are you a "believer"?)
> >
> A believer in "God" or a believer in a soul? Why do you want to know?
Just curious as to what your motivation is in believing the human mind
exists externally of the brain (or however you describe it).
> Besides, before I could answer such a question you would need to give
a
> rigorous definition of these terms.
Which ones? God? Soul? Or...?
RoyBoy
Simon Gardner <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <u8uvc6q...@corp.supernews.com>,> Oh I don't think you are.
:'oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh
RoyBoy
> What is the mechanism that accounts for self-knowlege?
simon:
***
Oh that's easy, peasy - a sufficiently
complex and developed brain.
***
But is that sufficient? Does self-knowledge also require
a certain amount of knowledge acquisition?
Or is the formation of self inevitable
without external stimulus?
RoyBoy
***
Concerning the human mind,
there is nothing suggesting an external
source like there would be with a TV set.
Sure there is.
Lukas Mariman
"RoyBoy" <aph...@usa.net> schreef in bericht
news:DNOj8.871$r_1....@read2.cgocable.net...
No there isn't. :-p
Joss Knight
> I haven't tried to falsify it. The materialist hypothesis is so absurd
> I wouldn't bother.
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
This coming from a guy who suggested that when you die, your mind just
"floats about".
Oh, this is hilarious stuff! Keep it coming!
RoyBoy
> ***
> Concerning the human mind,
> there is nothing suggesting an external
> source like there would be with a TV set.
> ***
RB:
> Sure there is.
Lukas:
>No there isn't. :-p
<WWF>
Oooohhhh...so you wanna tussle with the best
in the west! Do ya! DO YA!!!
</WWF>
Well it depends if you consider virtual particles
and 'external source'. They are certainly in you,
but they aren't generated by you.
:'oooooohhh
1...2...
---
"Look out!" - OJ Simpson
RoyBoy
***
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
This coming from a guy who suggested
that when you die, your mind just "floats about".
Oh, this is hilarious stuff! Keep it coming!
***
The best stuff is written by Michael Martin.
You can catch his show at alt.consciousness
---
"Illiteracy is immaterial and irrelevant."
- Michael Martin (Western Sat Guru - sh...@hotmail.com)
Leonardo Dasso
>
> "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3c8f646c$0$264$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> schreef in
> > bericht news:BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > > The things I spoke of would just not be possible if there really
> > were no
> > > > connection between the brain and the "mind".
> > > >
> > > There is indeed a connection between the brain and mind. No-one is
> > > disputing this. It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain
> > are one
> > > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
> >
> > Without hard proof indicating otherwise, there is *no reason* to assume
> > anything other than what appears to be the simplest explanation: namely,
> > that the mind is anything *other* than something generated by the brain.
>
> But you just simply have to accept as a brute fact that brains generate
> minds. What is it about brains that can generate minds but no other
> physical object in the Universe can? Why not instead at least *consider*
> that although brains can modify minds they may not actually create them?
By all means suit yourself. For centuries dualism was the mainstream
position. Gradually we have been shedding the superstitions of the past.
You may wish to cling to the myths of yore if you find them emotionally
comforting or aesthetically pleasant, but there is no objective reason to
retain them.
regards
leo
chuml...@chartermi.net
So if people are "by nature" conservative, why is it that some, like you,
are able to "go from one extreme to the other"? If we accept that
psychology and the conscious choices that we make are due to biochemistry,
isn't it ironic that most people have a strong belief in unscientific
explanations for things?
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B8B555B29...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <u8uvc6q...@corp.supernews.com>,
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
> > How is it that I am self-aware?
>
> Oh I don't think you are.
>
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <4LOj8.870$r_1....@read2.cgocable.net>,
> "RoyBoy" <aph...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > chumley:
> > > What is the mechanism that accounts for self-knowlege?
> >
> > simon:
> > ***
> > Oh that's easy, peasy - a sufficiently
> > complex and developed brain.
> > ***
> >
> > But is that sufficient?
>
>
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> is the control.
>
lol
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
Apparently comfort and aesthetics ARE enough of an objective reason for many
people.
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <u8uvjq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > > In article <BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are one
> > > > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > "Of course"?
> >
> > But why is it, then, that so many disagree with this idea?
>
> That's a pretty daft question if ever I heard one.
>
Maybe, but it is the question that started this thread. And if you dismiss
it as "daft", it seems very odd to me-- as you have thought it important
enough to respond a number of times regarding issues brought up here.
I think it is an indisputable fact that most people think of the self or
soul or whatever as a sort of spirit inhabiting the brain and its body.
This leads to all sorts of conclusions, such as that there must have been
someOne who put it there in the first place, that it might survive after the
brain-body dies, etc. An incredible amount of human intellectual effort has
been spent over the years trying to make sense out of all of the
repercussions of this a priori believe in a self.
Even a moderately-educated person can understand the basic science needed to
explain a universe that requires no metaphysical reasons for anything--and
yet most people persist in their faith in gods, souls and an afterlife.
Why?
Scott
Leonardo Dasso
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u8vucrb...@corp.supernews.com...
Well, I'd say that comfort and aesthetics are subjective, in general. That
of course does not mean they are not very compelling reasons sometimes.
regards
leo
chuml...@chartermi.net
states into obective ones) that allows for the faith people have in what
otherwise would be dismissed as unsubstantiated by evidence.
Scott
Joss Knight
> I think it is an indisputable fact that most people think of the self or
> soul or whatever as a sort of spirit inhabiting the brain and its body.
> This leads to all sorts of conclusions, such as that there must have
> been someOne who put it there in the first place, that it might survive
> after the brain-body dies, etc. An incredible amount of human
> intellectual effort has been spent over the years trying to make sense
> out of all of the repercussions of this a priori believe in a self.
>
> Even a moderately-educated person can understand the basic science
> needed to explain a universe that requires no metaphysical reasons for
> anything--and yet most people persist in their faith in gods, souls and
> an afterlife. Why?
Most people believe in gods. People are idiots. Much of the work of a
scientist or rationalist goes into overcoming their own prejudices and
assumptions. Most people don't have the energy to do that.
Science can explain the universe, religion, and supernatural/paranormal
beliefs. Religion and supernatural beliefs explain nothing.
Interesting Ian
"Joss Knight" <jossgh...@removesausage.yahoo.sausage.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2002.03.14.11....@removesausage.yahoo.sausage.co.uk.
..
Science can explain nothing. It just describes the patterns in nature.
That is all. We must turn to metaphysics for an explanation of the world,
what consciousness is etc.
Ian
Interesting Ian
And as I keep saying this proves absolutely nothing.
>
> > plus the
> > > experience of 3 centuries of fruitful reductionism, plus a tradition
of
> > > centuries of materialism, plus obvious common sense (which is in fact
> the
> > > product of the cultural tradition that involves reductionism plus
> > > materialism, plus logic), strongly suggest that the brain is the mind
or
> > the
> > > brain gives rise to what we call the mind.
> >
> > How does it suggest that? The above would have to suggest materialism
> > right? I would contend however that the success of science in no way
> > suggests the correctness of materialism. In fact the success of science
> is
> > vastly more explicable if we were to suppose that an immaterialist
> position
> > was the correct depiction of reality (I am a subjective idealist).
>
> The success of science is clearly the success of reductionist materialism.
No it isn't. Reductionist materialism is wholly irrelevant to the success
of science.
> All models in physics and biology are reductionist materialist models. No
> immaterialist position has ever given any scientific fruits that we know
of.
Neither has any materialist position.
Ian
Joss Knight
>> Science can explain the universe, religion, and supernatural/paranormal
>> beliefs. Religion and supernatural beliefs explain nothing.
>
> Science can explain nothing. It just describes the patterns in nature.
> That is all. We must turn to metaphysics for an explanation of the
> world, what consciousness is etc.
Perhaps you're using a more restrictive definition of the work "science"
than I was intending.
Science HAS explained the world, the universe, and consciousness. It can
also explain why you are so desperate to delude yourself on the subject of
consciousness.
However, I see no benefit in my allowing you to drag me into this
discussion. You are a complete loony. I may as well try and have a
rational discussion about god with the Ayatollah.
Interesting Ian
>
> "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> schreef in
> bericht news:4BLj8.46987$yc2.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > "Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > news:3c8f646c$0$264$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> > >
> > > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> schreef in
> > > bericht
> news:BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> internal
> > components, but doesn't originate from those internal components?
>
> I'm not sure the analogy is entirely correct in the example.
No, that's why it's an analogy. Analogies will always break down at some
point. They are employed merely to facilitate the understanding.
>
> The picture *is* generated by the internal components.
Not the contents of the picture. The picture itself corresponds to the
mind, but the contents of the picture corresponds to what we might call the
"soul".
>
> Now, the *content* of the picture is coming from an external source -
> which I
> think is what you are getting at, right? But with a TV we *know* the
> content, whatever the picture is showing, does not originate inside the
> TV set.
That's right. It would be absurd to suppose all the content of TV
programmes is generated ex nihilo from the sets internal components! Just
as it is equally absurd to suppose the slab of meat we refer to as the brain
actually *creates* consciousness. Sure the brain modifies states of
consciousness, just like a TV sets internal components can modify the state
of the picture it displays. Indeed, we might have difficulty in recognising
the picture at all if its internal components were altered enough. This
would not have any consequences whatsoever though for the TV signal itself.
In a similar manner, damage to the brain may effect the behaviour of a perso
n to quite a marked degree without having any consequences for the soul.
>
> Concerning the human mind, there is nothing suggesting an external
> source like there would be with a TV set.
The external "source" is the "soul".
>
> As for the TV set: when the power goes, so does the picture. I guess the
> same goes for the human mind.
Well yes, the mind ceases to be, but not the soul. The mind is simply the
result of the soul operating through the brain. Think about it. Suppose
hypothetically we do survie the death of our bodies. How do you suppose you
will feel like when you die? Do you imagine that you would feel exactly
like you do now? But why should you? Why not feel the same way as you were
when you were 5 years old? Or why not feel the same as a person with
Alzheimer's? No, there's no reason to associate your essential self or soul
with any particular mind states you may have experienced in your life. Your
soul or essential self is that which you would describe as the enduring
self; that which makes you the same person as you are now, or when you're
drunk, and even when you were 5 years old.
>
> > > (The only "reason" I could think of is that you want to rationalize
> the
> > > concept of what theists refer to as a "soul". Are you a "believer"?)
> > >
> > A believer in "God" or a believer in a soul? Why do you want to know?
>
> Just curious as to what your motivation is in believing the human mind
> exists externally of the brain (or however you describe it).
My motive is the quest for truth.
>
> > Besides, before I could answer such a question you would need to give
> a
> > rigorous definition of these terms.
>
> Which ones? God? Soul? Or...?
Never mind
Ian
Leonardo Dasso
>
Leo: The success of science is clearly the success of reductionist
materialism.
>
Ian: No it isn't. Reductionist materialism is wholly irrelevant to the
success
> of science.
>
Leo: All models in physics and biology are reductionist materialist models.
No
> > immaterialist position has ever given any scientific fruits that we know
> of.
>
>
> Ian
>
Leo: Now this is a statement that I'd be delighted to see substantiated with
a rational argument and some examples because it obviously goes against
every single example you can think of. Please explain.
regards
leo
>
Leonardo Dasso
<chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:u90uj3o...@corp.supernews.com...
If you have exotic psychic experiences like visual or auditory
hallucinations it may be difficult for many not to think that they are
objective communications with some supernatural realm (in the same way that
patients with psychotic symptoms believe in the objective reality of their
hallucinations).
However, I'd say that these phenomena are rare and consequently account for
only a very small percentage of the belief in a soul a spirit, afterlife,
etc etc. The majority of people who believe in these entities or realms do
so because of an emotional, aesthetic or socio-cultural reasons.
regards
leo
Dr Robin Bignall
>
>"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:p.r.ashby-0CD4F...@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
>> In article <u8v73fi...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that spiritual or supernatural explanations for things are
>> > unnecessary to me does not explain why others think they are necessary.
>The
>> > fact is, people do adhere to these sorts of beliefs. Why is that?
>>
>> Conservatism. Religions have played useful roles in explaining the world
>> and giving it meaning. Many of those explanations have been shown by
>> science to be wrong but many people either don't know them or don't want
>> to know since knowing means dealing with and denial is easier. I used to
>> consider myself a fundamentalist xian who was a creationist. I have made
>> the journey, all the way to the other extreme. I made it because the
>> evidence I was presented with could not tolerate my position so it was
>> either denial or change. People are by nature conservative, they don't
>> like change, and especially not in their worldview.
>>
>So if people are "by nature" conservative, why is it that some, like you,
>are able to "go from one extreme to the other"?
Intelligence. Education. Rationality. Thought. Experience. Personal
choice.
All of these are involved, but the influence of the last two makes
different people come to different conclusions when presented with the
same evidence or lack of evidence.
>If we accept that
>psychology and the conscious choices that we make are due to biochemistry,
>isn't it ironic that most people have a strong belief in unscientific
>explanations for things?
>
Ironic, yes, but most people do not have any sort of advanced
scientific training. There is also no clear connection, as yet,
between fundamental biochemical processes and one's understanding of
any given situation in life. Indeed, there may not be any need for
such a connection to be proved on a detailed cause/effect basis. Does
it matter, to a lepidopterist in the Amazon Basin cataloguing
butterflies, that the spots on their wings are made up of quarks? I
suppose that if we could find a biochemical reason why certain people
vote for certain politicians, and produce an antidote, the world would
be a better place! But, of course, your idea of who is worth voting
for, or inoculating against, may be different from mine.
When you think about it, apart from what we can actually perceive by
our own senses of sight, touch etc., all of the information we receive
from birth onwards has been processed in some way by somebody else. A
great many of those somebody elses have axes to grind or some reason
to get you to see things their way, whether it's to vote for them,
join their religion, get you to buy their product etc. Learning about
science (and, indeed, developing a rational way of dealing with the
information overload) takes work, and it's much easier for the
lazy-minded to think that life is dictated by rays from Betelgeuse,
decided by which month you're born in and fated by a supreme being who
created the universe. Stands to reason, dunnit?
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Dr Robin Bignall
<interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[..]
>And yes I was
>> looking, you have a real cheek trotting out your thoroughly discredited
>> TV analogy here.
>
>Er....what the *fuck*??? Listen DICKHEAD. I am somewhat weary of your
>lies. If you think it has been discredited then wheel out your arguments.
>Or shut the *fuck up*!
>
Who said something like 'the last bastion of a fatuous point of view
is to resort to vituperation'? If it wasn't someone famous then I'll
claim it right now.
Actually, I rather like the idea that the universe is full of beams of
disembodied souls waiting for bodies to be born. It neatly explains
multiple personalities, reincarnation and my mother-in-law. Just
think: If everybody realised that when they have unprotected sex with
their opposite-sex partner, they may well create a new, miniature TV
set, they'd maybe think twice.
Actually, maybe the dark matter of the universe, extremely dense but
undetectable, is souls queueing up for entry. Or re-entry. I suppose
that god controls Soul Central, the TV transmitting station. I hope
that they don't have a power cut before you finish your first novel --
er... PhD thesis.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Dr Robin Bignall
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>"Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> Leonardo Dasso <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > What is it, to you, tha the self appears to be?
>> > >
>> > > Scott
>> > >
>> >
>> > Something mysterious, sublime and not related to that sticky and
>disgusting
>> > slab of meat we call the brain, of course.
>>
>> Umm, meat is muscle. You may think with your muscles but most people
>> don't. I'm also afraid that the way things are do not tend to have
>> regard to people's personal preferences. IOW if you don't like it,
>> tough.
>>
>Brain is also meat - 'speciality meat' or 'offal', but meat
>nevertheless, never tough though often rich. Very nice with butter and
>garlic, even cold.
Or caper sauce. But you can't seem to buy them anymore.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote in message
news:sgr19ukl48fvm152u...@4ax.com...
No doubt, if all of the mystical and religious was somehow deleted form the
world it would be a very boring place indeed. I am beginning to think that
we are somehow wired to have faith in something to both justify the
existence of the universe (and the bad things in it) and in our own
existence. For the former, we have come up with gods, demons, universal
unconsciousness', and compassionate conservatism. For the latter, we have
souls, selves, and engrams.
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
Yikes! The Truth! Good luck!
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Joss Knight" <jossgh...@removesausage.yahoo.sausage.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2002.03.14.11....@removesausage.yahoo.sausage.co.uk.
..
Odd that you seem to laud scientists and rationalists as being able to
overcome their own prejudices and assumptions, and yet you seem to be
inferring that people who do not agree with you "are idiots", at least as
far as belief in gods are concerned. Perhaps I am reading this wrong? It
seems hypocritical.
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
>>
> Science HAS explained the world, the universe, and consciousness. It can
> also explain why you are so desperate to delude yourself on the subject of
> consciousness.
>
Please explain this anyway, for me. It is what this thread was started for.
Why do people cling to the idea of a consciousness, if no such thing exists.
Was there some evolutionary advantage to this or what?
Scott
chuml...@chartermi.net
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> In article <u8vussg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
>
> > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:B8B555B29...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > > In article <u8uvjq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:B8B52980...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> > > > > In article
<BsHj8.44804$yc2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> > > > > "Interesting Ian" <interesting...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is quite another thing to suppose mind and brain are one
> > > > > > and the same thing, or the brain generates the mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > By and large, of course, it does.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Of course"?
> > > >
> > > > But why is it, then, that so many disagree with this idea?
> > >
> > > That's a pretty daft question if ever I heard one.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe, but it is the question that started this thread.
>
> many idiots in the world. I checked.
>
But regardless, many of them keep posting here over and over...
Scott