How about n consciousnesses, n > 1

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm reading Rita Carter's Mapping the Mind. There are lots of fascinating stories about people with split brains, where their corpus callosum was damaged or removed. Sometimes they act as if each hemisphere has its own consciousness.

So, idealists and dualists, what's so special about only one consciousness invading a brain? If some minimal amount of brain matter is required to activate consciousness, who says we don't have enough for two or three or 50 consciousnesses to invade?

~~ Paul

[Matabiri]

Is much said about animal conciousness? If you could make, say, four cats' brains out of one human's grey matter, could a human house the conciousness of four cats?

[whitefork]

Paul, I've got half a mind to come over there and smack you for even saying that.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
....If some minimal amount of brain matter is required to activate consciousness, who says we don't have enough for two or three or 50 consciousnesses to invade?

~~ Paul
Ask a materialist. That's one of the little problems they need to answer for themselves. ;)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

Ask a materialist. That's one of the little problems they need to answer for themselves. ;)

I don't think so. It can be observed as occuring, and we can ask why. You still don't need to propose an extra soul.

For the immaterialists/people who believe in these things, if this does occur, is the extra conciousness imbued with an extra soul? If so, where does it come from?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Matabiri


For the immaterialists/people who believe in these things, if this does occur, is the extra conciousness imbued with an extra soul? If so, where does it come from?
I guess you'd have to find one who actually believes what your question implies.

Try a dualist.



Or take my answer which is mu=Atman=Brahman.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Ask a materialist. That's one of the little problems they need to answer for themselves.
They did. They said that it might well be that each hemisphere has its own consciousness stream. Difficult to test, since the right hemisphere can't talk.

But they found one guy whose right hemisphere could direct his hand to sequence scrabble tiles to answer questions. So, they asked him a question verbally, such as:

What would you like to ______?

Then they showed his left eye the final word:

EAT

Now his right hemisphere is the only half that has the whole question, so the scrabble answer comes from the right half. Is this cool or what?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Interesting, yes.

Relevant to answering the body or spirit, materialism/non-materialism, question? No.

Get "life" vs "non-life" "animate vs inanimate" sorted out first, mmmkay?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy, you're a broken record in a world of scratch-resistant DVDs.

What difference does life vs. non-life make concerning this question? We agree that humans are alive, don't we?

~~ Paul

[TheERK]

Originally posted by hammegk

Relevant to answering the body or spirit, materialism/non-materialism, question? No.


Originally posted by hammegk Ask a materialist. That's one of the little problems they need to answer for themselves

So, it's not relevant to materialism/non-materialism, yet it's also one of the problems materialists need to answer for themselves?

Talk about inconsistent. Please make up your mind.

Eric

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I'm reading Rita Carter's Mapping the Mind. There are lots of fascinating stories about people with split brains, where their corpus callosum was damaged or removed. Sometimes they act as if each hemisphere has its own consciousness.

So, idealists and dualists, what's so special about only one consciousness invading a brain? If some minimal amount of brain matter is required to activate consciousness, who says we don't have enough for two or three or 50 consciousnesses to invade?

~~ Paul

Paul, you have to stop destroying perfectly sane and sensible ideas about reincarnation! If more than one consciousness can enter a person, then the case for reincarnation weakens considerably (more)! The number of souls are simply not enough to match the population!!!

Shame on you! Shame, I say! Because of this horrible thing you did, you will live the next 23,000 reincarnations as a mollusk.

A greek one. ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey, I just want to give the immaterialists a chance to explain yet another bit of evidence that appears to suggest that the brain produces the mind. Fair is fair, after all.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hey, I just want to give the immaterialists a chance to explain yet another bit of evidence that appears to suggest that the brain produces the mind. Fair is fair, after all.
~~ Paul

Set 'em up so you can knock 'em down. The Question will be decided long before brains & related perception appears, or it won't be decided at all.


TheERK: Do you see your problem yet?

[Yahweh]

The cerebrum is the "advanced" portion of the brain. It makes up 2/3 of your total brain and is divided into 2 hemispheres. Well, ask yourself "What would happen if the two sides of my brain couldnt communicate?".

The two hemispheres of your cerebrum are connected together by about 300 million neurons called the corpus callosum.

When the corpus callosum is cut, either accidentally or intentionally, strange things begin to happen.

In 1961, doctors in California began severing the corpus callosum in patients suffering from epilepsy. In most cases, the patients had fewer or less severe seizures. The treatment appeared successful.

Roger Sperry on a Nobel Prize 20 years later for his studies of these "split-brain" patients after their recovery. The patients could walk, talk, eat, dance, sing, and solve probelms just like normal people do... But Sperry noticed that when asked to raise a hand or knee, a split-brain patient would always raise the right, never the left. The left brain might be understanding the words, but the right brain wasnt answering.

Sperry did some experiments to learn more. In one, he gave the split-brain patients a set of blocks with an arrangement of red and white patterns painted on them. He asked the split-brain patients to match the pattern in another set of blocks. With the left hand, the patients could get the pattern easily, with the right hand they got it wrong.

Sperry thought he was seeing the effects of "two minds" or "two spheres of consciousness". The trouble was, he had no way of knowing whether normal people are also of two minds. Sperry enlisted a graduate student, Micahael Gazzaniga, to help him find out.

"My first quick take... in 1961 was that one side of the brain did something the other side didnt know about". He found that a split-brain patient might button his shirt with his left hand, while his right hand was busy unbuttoning it at the same time.

Gazzaniga and Sperry showed split-brain patients two objects on a screen: A sphere on the left side and a cube on the right. When asked what they saw, they answerd "a cube". Next, subject used their left hands to feel objects they couldnt see, including a cube and a sphere. When asked to match one of the felt object to what they saw, they chose the sphere.

(Source: A book)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Set 'em up so you can knock 'em down. The Question will be decided long before brains & related perception appears, or it won't be decided at all.
Do you have the correct tenses of the verbs in that second sentence?

~~ Paul

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
If some minimal amount of brain matter is required to activate consciousness, who says we don't have enough for two or three or 50 consciousnesses to invade?

~~ Paul

All the parts of the brain work together to "manifest" (for want to use neat words like "manifest") consciousness. There is no single area of the brain that is responsible (although some say the brain stem is necessary to support life, its not known if consciousness "manifests" itself from there).

[hammegk]

"Double your pleasure, Double your fun" surgery for hermaphrodites??? :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Do you have the correct tenses of the verbs in that second sentence?

~~ Paul
Yup. Think about it. ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yahweh said:All the parts of the brain work together to "manifest" (for want to use neat words like "manifest") consciousness. There is no single area of the brain that is responsible (although some say the brain stem is necessary to support life, its not known if consciousness "manifests" itself from there).
This is the scientific stance. I'm asking immaterialists, who seem to think that bits of brain hardware "invite" consciousness in, how much hardware is required and whether perhaps we have enough hardware for multiple consciousness to take up residence.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Yup. Think about it.
Sincerely, Hammy, I've spent time trying to understand what you've said over the past few months. I've got nothing.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
....I'm asking immaterialists, who seem to think that bits of brain hardware "invite" consciousness in, how much hardware is required and whether perhaps we have enough hardware for multiple consciousness to take up residence.

~~ Paul

The problem here is that that is not what at least one immaterialist -- me -- thinks.

The stuff we perceive (and call) physical matter, in any form, is occupied & used by "life -- for lack of a better term" to whatever capabilities might be inherent in a given structure. After we get over that hump, the fact that human brains control human perception is not in dispute so far as I am aware.

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Is much said about animal conciousness? If you could make, say, four cats' brains out of one human's grey matter, could a human house the conciousness of four cats?

Actually it would be something like 45- 50 cats per human.

cat brain= 30 g

Human Brain= 1400 g

:)

We have big brains.

source 1 (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Size1.html)
source 2 (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html)

[uruk]

The stuff we perceive (and call) physical matter, in any form, is occupied & used by "life -- for lack of a better term" to whatever capabilities might be inherent in a given structure. After we get over that hump, the fact that human brains control human perception is not in dispute so far as I am aware.

So then why does it have to be biological matter which "life" uses to occupy. Why not a rock or a lump of metal.

Why does "life" or our conciousness require a specific combination of chemical compounds to be a receptical for it?

why is conciousness specific to the brain? why not the liver or the big toe? Why bother with the material world at all. Why not just
frolick around in wherever it is that conciousness comes from?

If conciousness is separate from matter then why should any changes to the matter affect the mind? Affecting perception is one thing, but what about acquired sckizophrenia like Sid Barrett
from Pink Floyd or mental illness due to injury?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk


So then why does it have to be biological matter which "life" uses to occupy. Why not a rock or a lump of metal.

Why does "life" or our conciousness require a specific combination of chemical compounds to be a receptical for it?

...

Emergent Property=God questions. I asked first though .... ;)

It's another dilemma for materialists/atheists that they can either ignore or gloss over.

[uruk]

Emergent Property=God questions.

I'm sorry but that is a copout. It's always easy to reply
"well that's just the way that thing are"
How do immaterialist explain the evidence?

I had a debate with a creationist when I brought up this question.
(worded differendtly of course)His response was similar, "That's just the way of the maker." This lack of curiosity may be fine for
the religious, but science can't be so satiated.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by LawnOven


Actually it would be something like 45- 50 cats per human.

cat brain= 30 g

Human Brain= 1400 g

:)

We have big brains.

source 1 (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Size1.html)
source 2 (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html) An elephant's brain is bigger than a human's.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk

I'm sorry but that is a copout. It's always easy to reply
"well that's just the way that thing are"
How do immaterialist explain the evidence?
And that is a plain old dodge. My view that "mind" is the primary what-is does not conflict with any scientific evidence, and when examined from various angles has fewer holes to patch than either materialism/atheism or dualism. Again life from non-life does not exist, and HPC is no longer magic.

But face the truth; materialis/atheists and immaterialists all have the same basic problem -- "well that's just the way that thing are" -- but immaterialists can admit it.

This lack of curiosity may be fine for
the religious, but science can't be so satiated.
If you think I lack curiosity you are deluded.

[uruk]

But face the truth; materialis/atheists and immaterialists all have the same basic problem -- "well that's just the way that thing are" -- but immaterialists can admit it.

You may believe that to be the truth as you wish to see it.
But I have to dissagree with you here. Science is always trying to understand nature. Science never accepts the "well that's just the way that thing are" idea. Perhaps you missinterpret the methodology.

Religion, historically, has tried to stifle knowledge (except when it comes from them). For the reasons I believe this, look up the library of Alexandria, the trials of Galileo Galilei, etc...
To be fair, things got better after the renaissance (with a few exeptions) But even today you have religious special interest groups trying to censor textbooks and change science cirriculum in schools. I realize that this is not true of all religions or religious groups.

I can see how your statement can be applied to materialism
but likewise the same statment can be applied to your view
on the mind (which, by the way, have the very same holes in it
as any other explination of "mind and matter")

I guess, ultimately I do agree with you after all. Immaterialists are willing to admit to it and as a result their quest ends there. Science, on the other hand, is not willing to accept it and their search for answers continues.


If you think I lack curiosity you are deluded.

If I made that inference inadvertedly I appologise.
I salute your curiosity. You appear to be the exception to the rule.
Whenever you (the rehtorical "you" I mean) answer every question with "because God made it that way" It seems to limit the possibilities for discovery and learning.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk


You may believe that to be the truth as you wish to see it.
But I have to dissagree with you here. Science is always trying to understand nature. Science never accepts the "well that's just the way that thing are" idea. Perhaps you missinterpret the methodology.
I don't believe I misunderstand the scientific method. Do you understand that scientists have egos?


Religion, historically, has tried to stifle knowledge (except when it comes from them). For the reasons I believe this, look up the library of Alexandria, the trials of Galileo Galilei, etc...
To be fair, things got better after the renaissance (with a few exeptions) But even today you have religious special interest groups trying to censor textbooks and change science cirriculum in schools. I realize that this is not true of all religions or religious groups.
Er, ok, but so what is this supposed to say about monistic idealism? FYI it says nothing.


I can see how your statement can be applied to materialism
but likewise the same statment can be applied to your view
on the mind (which, by the way, have the very same holes in it
as any other explination of "mind and matter")

I guess, ultimately I do agree with you after all. Immaterialists are willing to admit to it and as a result their quest ends there. Science, on the other hand, is not willing to accept it and their search for answers continues.
The quest ends where for immaterialists? You lost me with that comment. We all have the same problems.


Whenever (the rehtorical "you") answer every question with "because God made it that way" It seems to limit the possibilities for discovery and learning.
I don't recall answering any question "because God made it that way". I am interested in considering Aristotelian Purpose.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by uruk


So then why does it have to be biological matter which "life" uses to occupy. Why not a rock or a lump of metal.

Why does "life" or our conciousness require a specific combination of chemical compounds to be a receptical for it?

why is conciousness specific to the brain? why not the liver or the big toe? Why bother with the material world at all. Why not just
frolick around in wherever it is that conciousness comes from?

If conciousness is separate from matter then why should any changes to the matter affect the mind? Affecting perception is one thing, but what about acquired sckizophrenia like Sid Barrett
from Pink Floyd or mental illness due to injury?

careful, the second you begin to ask why something does this or that, you can easily be asked why do particles with opposite charges attract?

The answer - because it just does is very valid for either question asked.

[uruk]

I don't believe I misunderstand the scientific method. Do you understand that scientists have egos?

Yep, I do. Scientists are human. Ego has been the cause of many a set back and lost oppourtunities. But scientists aren't the only people suppceptable to egos you know.:D

Er, ok, but so what is this supposed to say about monistic idealism? FYI it says nothing.

Perhaps I missed the point of this thread, but this was in reference to the differing approaches to seeking knowldege
taken by science, religion (from a judeo-christian view), and some
particular flavors of philosophy bantied about here.

As for Monistic Idealisim, as I have stated in another thread, Science (from a materialistic sense) is slowly begining to delve into areas which were once in the realm of idealism, monism, etc.... And I believe that science has the best chance of arriving at answers. Posing arguments and debate mean nothing without some mechinism to ensure that those arguments are not chasing a wild goose.


The quest ends where for immaterialists? You lost me with that comment. We all have the same problems.

If an imaterialist says mind creates matter. Well, how does it do it? What is the process by which the mind causes an object to appear? Answering those questions would give an insight to the mind/matter relationship. My questions to the Immaterialist have always gone unanswered or ignored. This leaves me to make the assumption that they haven't givin it much thought or have arrived at the "that's just the way it is" conclusion and are not persuing it further. Hence the quest for knowledge (in that particular direction)ends there.

The difference is in the way in wich the materialists and immaterialists handle the problem. materialists look for hard evidence and proof (which is reproduceable to any individuals) to support or disprove an idea or hypothesis and build upon that.

Immaterialists (from what I've seen) only need an hypothesis or logcial argument in which everyone agrees on. The question I have is, (which continues to go unanswered) how do you verify
that what you are saying is correct? How do you know that your theory is correct or at least on the right path? How can you test that theory with more than assumptions and arguments?

I don't recall answering any question "because God made it that way". I am interested in considering Aristotelian Purpose.

If you re-read my post, you will notice I said "the rhetorical "you""
not you personally. If you also meant that rhetoricaly then, my bad.

careful, the second you begin to ask why something does this or that, you can easily be asked why do particles with opposite charges attract?
The answer - because it just does is very valid for either question asked.

I may say I don't know yet, but never "because it just does".

The "Because it just does" is valid for engineers and techncians and "because that's the way god wanted it" is valid for the spiritual. but never for theorists and reaserchers and seekers of knowldege. "Because it just does" ends your journey. The search for knowledge should never be stopped by an obstacle or limited by complacency or should ever be just "accepted". It should always be challenged. NO SACRED COWS!!!!!!

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by uruk

--snipped--

I may say I don't know yet, but never "because it just does".

The "Because it just does" is valid for engineers and techncians and "because that's the way god wanted it" is valid for the spiritual. but never for theorists and reaserchers and seekers of knowldege. "Because it just does" ends your journey. The search for knowledge should never be stopped by an obstacle or limited by complacency or should ever be just "accepted". It should always be challenged. NO SACRED COWS!!!!!!

I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to tell you. I'm just saying that your questions along the lines of why does a soul only manifest itself in living matter are no better then being asked why do opposite charges attract? You're only going to create an impass. :)

[uruk]

I'm not sure you understood what I was trying to tell you. I'm just saying that your questions along the lines of why does a soul only manifest itself in living matter are no better then being asked why do opposite charges attract? You're only going to create an impass.

Why would there be an impass? Delving into nature of charge
brings about a deeper understanding of our universe ( or at least a particular portion of it). Are you suggesting that there is no explination as to why opposite charges attract?
If the mind is separate from matter (i.e. the brain) Then what is the means by which it occupies the physical material. Answering that question would bring a better understanding of the mind/matter relationship. Wether you are a materialist or immaterialist or monistic idealist or solipsist or whatever you can't
deny that there is a distinct connection between mind and brain.
What you believe that connection is seem to be the determining factor. The impass is when you refuse to ponder the question or copout.

If I'm still missing the point, my bad.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by uruk


Why would there be an impass? Delving into nature of charge
brings about a deeper understanding of our universe ( or at least a particular portion of it).
Are you suggesting that there is no explination as to why opposite charges attract?
If the mind is separate from matter (i.e. the brain) Then what is the means by which it occupies the physical material. Answering that question would bring a better understanding of the mind/matter relationship. Wether you are a materialist or immaterialist or monistic idealist or solipsist or whatever you can't
deny that there is a distinct connection between mind and brain.
What you believe that connection is seem to be the determining factor. The impass is when you refuse to ponder the question or copout.

If I'm still missing the point, my bad.

Ok, I'm not arguing for delving into things, I'm simply trying to show you that your rebuttal based on 'why if the soul is real does it have to occupy living matter and not metal' is wrong.

You said:

why is conciousness specific to the brain? why not the liver or the big toe? Why bother with the material world at all. Why not just
frolick around in wherever it is that conciousness comes from?

Which is a very bad rebuttal and that's what I'm trying to show you. Don't go there in the future :)

Hope that cleared it up.

[uruk]

The pourpose of the questions were to uncover what it is that makes the idealists and immaterialists subscribe to their belief.

neurology and related studies are begining to develop an understanding based on observation and experimentation.

It seems to me that the concept of conciousness separate from matter, as claimed by others, does not provide an explination as to why conciousness is linked to the brain. I asked the questions to see if those who held the separation view had an explination
and by what means did they arrive to that explination.

By the way, Could you clearify why those questions shouldn't be asked and why they lead to an impass?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk

By the way, Could you clearify why those questions shouldn't be asked and why they lead to an impass?

mu=emergent property=goddidit ..... Capische?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, of course we don't capische. Geez.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No, of course we don't capische. Geez.

~~ Paul

Strange. Many don't seem to "capische" that "objective material world" is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable tautology, either; *I* can't figure that one out. ;)

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by uruk
The pourpose of the questions were to uncover what it is that makes the idealists and immaterialists subscribe to their belief.

And that's all you're going to get, further beliefs or "It just does" or "we don't know".


neurology and related studies are begining to develop an understanding based on observation and experimentation.

Well that's good but how is that going to show a believer he or she is wrong when both science and believer can simply respond with "I don't know"/"it just does" and be equally correct.


It seems to me that the concept of conciousness separate from matter, as claimed by others, does not provide an explination as to why conciousness is linked to the brain.

Nor does it have to unfortunetly. What you need to focus on is checking whether the concept is possible, not whether it can be explained. Like I keep trying to tell you, you can't explain to me why ions with opposite charges would attract? You can give me an approximate explanation but I can just ask why again and again and again... The short answer, "because they just do" or "we don't know exactly why" is correct and leads you to square one.


I asked the questions to see if those who held the separation view had an explination
and by what means did they arrive to that explination.

But what are you going to accomplish with that? All you're going to be doing is running in circles. Why even go there? Why not just focus on the evidence/repeatability?


By the way, Could you clearify why those questions shouldn't be asked and why they lead to an impass?
Because all you're doing is running around in circles. You're asking the believer for more beliefs and it leads to no new understanding of anything.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Strange. Many don't seem to "capische" that "objective material world" is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable tautology, either; *I* can't figure that one out.
If you mean the idea of the objective material world as an ontological existent, I agree with you.

By the way, what I can't capische is the meaning of "mu=emergent property=goddidit." If I could capische the meaning, I might then capische the idea. Can you try to state the idea without using Greek letters?

~~ Paul

[uruk]

Well that's good but how is that going to show a believer he or she is wrong when both science and believer can simply respond with "I don't know"/"it just does" and be equally correct.

both responses are only correct concerning the state of their understanding no about the subject. "It just does" is a copout as is "emergent property". Science responds with "We don't know YET"and continues to persue the answers with experimentation and observation. Science continues to ask why over and over again. The result is a body of reproducable evidence in which anyone, who cares to, can determin for themselves if the theory is accurate. Science tries to never leave anything to be just "accepted". This brings up two issues. One is that it shows that there is an objective materialistic existance that we all percieve to be more or less consistent. This is made evident whenever two or more individuals arrive at the same observation independently when performing a reproducable experiment. Or, just take look in a art class when the students are rendering a still life. Stylism aside, your going to see each student rendering the same objects. Secondly, Even if the soul or mind is not physical or apart of this universe, it still affects this physical materialistic universe in some way. This universe operates with observable, testable rules and processes. Therefore those affects should be observable and testable. Even the ghost believers conceed to this. You see them with IR cameras and magnometers
and tape rcorders trying to record the physical effect the spirit world might have on the physical world.

The mind should do the same thing. Neurology and research on the brain are measuring physical effects to the brain when people are seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, speaking, thinking, etc..
Again testable, verifiable by any individuals who cares to seek it out. Asking why over and over again brings about a deeper and better undestanding of the relationship between mind and matter.

This is why I feel science has the best chance of answering these questions. And without delusions too.


Nor does it have to unfortunatly. What you need to focus on is checking whether the concept is possible, not whether it can be explained. Like I keep trying to tell you, you can't explain to me why ions with opposite charges would attract? You can give me an approximate explanation but I can just ask why again and again and again... The short answer, "because they just do" or "we don't know exactly why" is correct and leads you to square one.

One way you determin if the process is possible by trying to discover the explination. And you actually can explain why ions attract. The reaserchers who look into such things are called particle physicists (not all of them, but there are some).
And you should continue to ask why and why again. That is what science does. The difference between the believer and the scientists is that science tries to do it in a way that the explinations can be tested by outside observers to ensure against
egos, delusions and just being plain wrong. For the beliver, it just has to sound right. that's it period. Again the "because they just do" and we don't know yet or exactly" should never be accepted.


But what are you going to accomplish with that? All you're going to be doing is running in circles. Why even go there? Why not just focus on the evidence/repeatability?

One thing is to get the believers to consider the implications of their hypothesis. For them to look at what is already known and see how it applies to or affects their beliefs. We get the evidence by trying to explain the whys. If you mean I'll be running around in circles with the believers, then I'll agree with you there. without the search for evidence you get no advancement.
When they answer "just because it does" or "I don't know" or "emergent property" it just shows to me that they haven't or choose not think too much about their beliefs. they just accept what they believe and stagnate.

Because all you're doing is running around in circles. You're asking the believer for more beliefs and it leads to no new understanding of anything.

Well I'll agree with you there, but I am asking them for evidence
to back up those beleves. Still no responses though.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk


When they answer "just because it does" or "I don't know" or "emergent property" it just shows to me that they haven't or choose not think too much about their beliefs. they just accept what they believe and stagnate.

You, sir, are a dunce.

Every scientific path of discovery leads to "emergent property" or "I don't know" to be uttered at some point by every scientist, if at no other point than that "objective physical world" connot be proved to be an existant.

Sorry you can't say God Did It since you categorically deny the existence of "god".




Paul; Sorry, that "mu" doesn't represent the greek letter.

http://www.io.com/~snewton/zen/mu.html Capische? :D

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by uruk


both responses are only correct concerning the state of their understanding no about the subject. "It just does" is a copout as is "emergent property". Science responds with "We don't know YET"and continues to persue the answers with experimentation and observation.

We're actually straying from the point here. Both sides can say we don't know yet, the point however is that both sides have things they can't explain. The point is we're not trying to see whether a believer understands their subject matter, we're trying to make the believer focus on evidence and examine it critically. Asking them why doesn't do that.


Science continues to ask why over and over again. The result is a body of reproducable evidence in which anyone, who cares to, can determin for themselves if the theory is accurate. Science tries to never leave anything to be just "accepted". This brings up two issues. One is that it shows that there is an objective materialistic existance that we all percieve to be more or less consistent. This is made evident whenever two or more individuals arrive at the same observation independently when performing a reproducable experiment. Or, just take look in a art class when the students are rendering a still life. Stylism aside, your going to see each student rendering the same objects. Secondly, Even if the soul or mind is not physical or apart of this universe, it still affects this physical materialistic universe in some way. This universe operates with observable, testable rules and processes. Therefore those affects should be observable and testable. Even the ghost believers conceed to this. You see them with IR cameras and magnometers
and tape rcorders trying to record the physical effect the spirit world might have on the physical world.

The mind should do the same thing. Neurology and research on the brain are measuring physical effects to the brain when people are seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, speaking, thinking, etc..
Again testable, verifiable by any individuals who cares to seek it out. Asking why over and over again brings about a deeper and better undestanding of the relationship between mind and matter.

This is why I feel science has the best chance of answering these questions. And without delusions too.

I feel we've strayed from the point here. We're not discussing scientific method or why it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. :) :p


One way you determin if the process is possible by trying to discover the explination. And you actually can explain why ions attract. The reaserchers who look into such things are called particle physicists (not all of them, but there are some).
Actually you can't really. In terms of Ions you could say that they try and balance out the charge, that is if ion a has one too many electrons and ion b has one to little electrons they'll be attracted to each other because the electron numbers shared on the orbit will be correct. But that doesn't explain to us why they would do it or why they need to do it. It just gives us more explanations.


And you should continue to ask why and why again. That is what science does. The difference between the believer and the scientists is that science tries to do it in a way that the explinations can be tested by outside observers to ensure against
egos, delusions and just being plain wrong. For the beliver, it just has to sound right. that's it period. Again the "because they just do" and we don't know yet or exactly" should never be accepted.

Which is all well and good when it comes to science but we're talking about believers here. Asking a believer why such and such does this or that isn't rebutting their claims. That's what I'm trying to focus on. I've got no problem with humanity attempting to delve into things further but when you're discussing things with a believer, or anyone for that matter, attempting to refute their arguments with why questions just doesn't work - back to square one is all you're going to get.


One thing is to get the believers to consider the implications of their hypothesis. For them to look at what is already known and see how it applies to or affects their beliefs. We get the evidence by trying to explain the whys. If you mean I'll be running around in circles with the believers, then I'll agree with you there. without the search for evidence you get no advancement.
When they answer "just because it does" or "I don't know" or "emergent property" it just shows to me that they haven't or choose not think too much about their beliefs. they just accept what they believe and stagnate.

While in your mind you might have convinced yourself that the believer is a moron, what have you managed to show the believer? Only that they better read more books on whatever kooky subject it is they're into. :)


Well I'll agree with you there, but I am asking them for evidence
to back up those beleves. Still no responses though.

Bingo! Evidence, evidence and more evidence. Don't ask a believer why does God allow suffering because you're either going to get a believer answer (which will be correct in their framework) or a I don't know. You're never going to defeat an argument by asking why, you're only going to muddle the waters and possibly cause someone to get p****d off. Ask for evidence though, when you're presented with it, examine it critically and openly. Don't ask why though :)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

Every scientific path of discovery leads to "emergent property" or "I don't know" to be uttered at some point by every scientist, if at no other point than that "objective physical world" connot be proved to be an existant.
I also consider the term 'emergent property' one subject to abuse. But to deny that it has at least some valid applications seems like overcorrecting. 'Emergent property' is often used to describe phenomena that we understand quite well -- cases where 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts' -- but which simply do not exist at the component level.

For example, would you agree that it is a fair use of the term to describe the ability of aqua regia to dissolve gold, despite the fact that neither of its components (sulfuric acid and nitric acid) will?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dymanic

I also consider the term 'emergent property' one subject to abuse. But to deny that it has at least some valid applications seems like overcorrecting. 'Emergent property' is often used to describe phenomena that we understand quite well -- cases where 'the whole is greater than the sum of the parts' -- but which simply do not exist at the component level.
Er, yes, and my point was that every scientific path of analysis will always reach that point; it's scientists who don't like to think that it covers a blind-spot that the scientific method may, but again may not ever, peer into.


For example, would you agree that it is a fair use of the term to describe the ability of aqua regia to dissolve gold, despite the fact that neither of its components (sulfuric acid and nitric acid) will?
My technical competence is not adaquate to answer that question as to what predictions QM-etal would make; but if not at that point, the emergent property problem always exists somewhere imo.

Immaterialists and materialists both face one or more unsolvable problem(s). The best anyone will ever do deciding for themselves the ontological question "Mind or Matter" is to examine the potential answers that might be available from each worldview -- from The Universe, strings/quarks/??, life, on up to HPC. Science works equally well under either answer, and for me the fewest logical inconsistencies occur if the choice is "mind".

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

...the emergent property problem always exists somewhere imo.
I basically agree; I just don't see why it necessarily has to be a 'problem'.
it's scientists who don't like to think that it covers a blind-spot that the scientific method may, but again may not ever, peer into.
There is undoubtedly some grounds for suspicion here, especially when 'emergent property' is used to describe phenomena which are poorly understood. But surely we need some way to acknowledge the limits of reductionism -- the term 'life' is meaningless at the level of the individual atom, as is 'climate' at the level of the individual water molecule, 'consciousness' at the level of the individual neuron, and 'capitalism' at the level of the individual.
Science works equally well under either answer, and for me the fewest logical inconsistencies occur if the choice is "mind".
That is compelling, I admit. Yet I am reluctant to abandon the materialist worldview altogether. Do you see it as absolutely necessary to choose one or the other?

[uruk]

Bingo! Evidence, evidence and more evidence. Don't ask a believer why does God allow suffering because you're either going to get a believer answer (which will be correct in their framework) or a I don't know. You're never going to defeat an argument by asking why, you're only going to muddle the waters and possibly cause someone to get p****d off. Ask for evidence though, when you're presented with it, examine it critically and openly. Don't ask why though

I see your point there and I apologise if I strayed.
I have in the past asked for evidence but was ignored. So I thought I might help and pose questions which might lead them in a direction to find that evidence. Or at least get them thinking about what they were saying. If I was incorrect in assuming that
they searched for answers and knowledge in a rational manner then I am at fault. Also, perhaps I am using the word why when i should be using how. I tend to use the words interchangably."WHY" can be interpreted to have an anthropomorphic meaning.

Actually you can't really. In terms of Ions you could say that they try and balance out the charge, that is if ion a has one too many electrons and ion b has one to little electrons they'll be attracted to each other because the electron numbers shared on the orbit will be correct. But that doesn't explain to us why they would do it or why they need to do it. It just gives us more explanations.

Well I think there is a problem with the definition of "why" here.
I may be missinterpreting your use of the word "need" also here.
But electrostaic dynamics is well on the way to be more deeply described. I assume you are not appling an anthropomorphic
interpretation of "why" and "need".

While in your mind you might have convinced yourself that the believer is a moron, what have you managed to show the believer? Only that they better read more books on whatever kooky subject it is they're into.

Well, in a sense that is what I'm trying to do. To get them to examine their beliefs more closely. I know some people will cling to them regaurdless of what is presented to them. But then what's the point of all of us debating with them anyway?

The point is we're not trying to see whether a believer understands their subject matter, we're trying to make the believer focus on evidence and examine it critically. Asking them why doesn't do that.

Asking them to explain how an observation relates to thier belief
does force them to examine it more closely if not critcally. It also gives them an oppourtunity to provide evidence, if they have some. I once read a post where they asked what evidence would materialists accept. Well, here's a start, try to show evidence which supports your befief which explains this observation. When they begin to explain with more unfounded beliefs or philosophical poeticism, it exposes them for what they are. (look at Interesting Ian) I'm sure that's a moot point, but then again what is the point of debating with them? And if it pisses them off, then so what, find some evidence and prove their belief to be correct.

You, sir, are a dunce.
Every scientific path of discovery leads to "emergent property" or "I don't know" to be uttered at some point by every scientist, if at no other point than that "objective physical world" connot be proved to be an existant.

Sorry you can't say God Did It since you categorically deny the existence of "god".


Thanks for the insult, the last resort of the desparate.

But no it does not. Every scientific path of discovery leads to a point where our technology hasn't caught up enough to test our hypothesis or we just haven't yet made that one critical observation which leads to understanding. Scientists are human and will say I don't know but it'll be a rare occasion when they say I'll never know. If i am missinterpreting your use of the word "Emergent Property", I apologise.
Every scientific discovery provides evidence for the objective physical world. What evidence do you have that shows your view to be more correct?
And if there is evidence to show that "god did it" then I will say it.


*Snip*...and for me the fewest logical inconsistencies occur if the choice is "mind".
But you do agree that there is an intrinsic and fundamental link between the mind and the universe. If you approach the problem from the materialist view point you have a body of evidence and observation that can be test and reproduced. To me this provides a more accurate view with less chance for inaccuracies. You have a method to verify your theories which wil begin to eliminate the assumptions as you progress. How do you ensure that the assumptions which you use to avoid logical inconsistencies are correct or more correct than others? How do you test those assumptions to improve your understanding? Are those tests reproducable so that another person would arrive at the same conclusion independently without missinterpretation?

Hopefully I am not asking the kinds of questions which will lead to an "I don't know" response. Oh well, ya takes yer chances!

If I am a dunce, then just ignore me.

edited to eliminate a request to prove a negative

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Immaterialists and materialists both face one or more unsolvable problem(s). The best anyone will ever do deciding for themselves the ontological question "Mind or Matter" is to examine the potential answers that might be available from each worldview -- from The Universe, strings/quarks/??, life, on up to HPC. Science works equally well under either answer, and for me the fewest logical inconsistencies occur if the choice is "mind".
I think if you define both positions carefully, you'll find that they have the same number of assumptions and the same number of inconsistencies. Materialism has trouble with the fact that everything we know is just perception. Idealism has trouble explaining why we bother with an external world and why it's consistent.

Of course, all that evaporates if you just give up on the ontology nonsense.

~~ Paul

[uruk]

Sorry you can't say God Did It since you categorically deny the existence of "god".

By the way. I never said I categorically deny the existance of a god. I consider myself an agnostic. I havent seen evidence for the existance yet, but I wont rule out the possibility either.

[ImpyTimpy]

I noticed you seem to be replying to two people here so I'll just respond to my bits :)

Originally posted by uruk


I see your point there and I apologise if I strayed.
I have in the past asked for evidence but was ignored. So I thought I might help and pose questions which might lead them in a direction to find that evidence. Or at least get them thinking about what they were saying. If I was incorrect in assuming that
they searched for answers and knowledge in a rational manner then I am at fault. Also, perhaps I am using the word why when i should be using how. I tend to use the words interchangably."WHY" can be interpreted to have an anthropomorphic meaning.


Well I think there is a problem with the definition of "why" here.
I may be missinterpreting your use of the word "need" also here.
But electrostaic dynamics is well on the way to be more deeply described. I assume you are not appling an anthropomorphic
interpretation of "why" and "need".

Well, in a sense that is what I'm trying to do. To get them to examine their beliefs more closely. I know some people will cling to them regaurdless of what is presented to them. But then what's the point of all of us debating with them anyway?

Well, you're always going to get a believer that simply refuses to look at anything critically. The point I'm trying to make is that if you deal with believers, asking them why something works the way they think it works will only give you more of their beliefs. To me it's better to try and target the concept rather then get them to explore it. It's like they're building a house on shaky foundations, the more we get them to question it, the more they put on top of those foundations to answer our questions.


Asking them to explain how an observation relates to thier belief
does force them to examine it more closely if not critcally. It also gives them an oppourtunity to provide evidence, if they have some. I once read a post where they asked what evidence would materialists accept. Well, here's a start, try to show evidence which supports your befief which explains this observation. When they begin to explain with more unfounded beliefs or philosophical poeticism, it exposes them for what they are. (look at Interesting Ian) I'm sure that's a moot point, but then again what is the point of debating with them? And if it pisses them off, then so what, find some evidence and prove their belief to be correct.

Yes but that only shows it to us or people who share our views. It does not show anything to them. While I agree with you that sometimes asking a believer why something does something may cause them to examine their beliefs, it seems to push them into learning more about whatever subject it is they're telling you about.

That's my whole beef with trying to ask a believer why they think say a ghosts are real. You end up getting an entire explanation using their frame of belief. They feel they have explained themselves to you so when you begin to question that, they think you're an a****le that never listens. If a believer tells you, they believe in psychics, divert them towards cold reading, explain how it works. Demonstrate it even, but don't start to question why they think psychics are real. When you expose them to an alternative theory from the start, you're planting seeds of skepticism in their minds. Basically you've exposed them to "but what if....".

When you question them why they believe what they believe and then start to attack it or further question, they'll begin to think you're not listening to them. If they don't know it'll only make them think, well I better learn more about this from .....(insert new age book source here). After all, they've explained to you their ideas already, you're suddenly the one who's not listening.

And if they're kooks there's nothing you can do to change their minds anyway :D


--snipped rest since it's not for me :)--

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I think if you define both positions carefully, you'll find that they have the same number of assumptions and the same number of inconsistencies.
Other than the speed-bumps materialists have to clear to get from non-life to life(i.e. mind), and at the human end HPC/qualia.


Idealism has trouble explaining why we bother with an external world and why it's consistent.
Er, Idealism accepts that "objective reality" exists; it's just mind rather than matter.


Of course, all that evaporates if you just give up on the ontology nonsense.
~~ Paul

Checking ... yup, this IS the R & P forum.


Originally posted by Dymanic
Do you see it as absolutely necessary to choose one or the other?

Unfortunately for me, yes. I've tried my damnedest to be a dualist but just can't find any logical version that makes sense to me. Stimpy's Postulate -- if it effects or affects the "physical" world it is also physical -- does it for me; mind or matter.


uruk: My "you" was also rhetorical and only for 100% sure materialists/atheists. It's beginning to seem we have fewer of them here on JREF forums than we used to( but I could be wrong;) ).

BTW, your arguments to date are, at heart, let's agree a material, objective what-is exists, and you'll then prove that an objective physical world exists. :(

[uruk]

And if they're kooks there's nothing you can do to change their minds anyway

Ditto. But like I said, I've asked for proof and evidence in the past but got zip from them. So If I can let them play out enough rope to hang themselves, I've done my job. Besides I've been called an a$$h*le before.

quote by hammegk
BTW, your arguments to date are, at heart, let's agree a material, objective what-is exists, and you'll then prove that an objective physical world exists.

Well the thing is, You have to start from some point. You don't have to just "accept" the existance of a materialistic, objective reality. But there is evidence and proof for it. What evidence and proof do you have to support your view?

BTW, If your sitting there typing away on your computer, your pretty much buying into the objective, materialist reality anyway.:p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Other than the speed-bumps materialists have to clear to get from non-life to life(i.e. mind), and at the human end HPC/qualia.
Hammy, come on, idealists have the same problems. They just say "mind did it." They just proclaim it as a given. But they have no explanation for it. At least materialists are attempting to understand the source of consciousness.

Er, Idealism accepts that "objective reality" exists; it's just mind rather than matter.
Then how is idealism any different, except for having different vocabulary?

Checking ... yup, this IS the R & P forum.
Ontology is still nonsense, even in this forum.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by uruk

Well the thing is, You have to start from some point. You don't have to just "accept" the existance of a materialistic, objective reality. But there is evidence and proof for it. What evidence and proof do you have to support your view?
I almost hate to do this as it usually draws catcalls from the bleachers, but, one-incontrovertible-datapoint ... *I* think.

*Me* is the bag-o-bones stuff that perceives & is perceived as (by other sentiences) "material". Avoiding solipsism is so far as I can determine logically, only by gentlemens' agreement; viz. *I* think, and have faith that *your I* does also.


BTW, If your sitting there typing away on your computer, your pretty much buying into the objective, materialist reality anyway.:p
No. Just "objective reality".


Originally posted by Pauly

Hammy, come on, idealists have the same problems. They just say "mind did it." They just proclaim it as a given. But they have no explanation for it. At least materialists are attempting to understand the source of consciousness.
Again, your choice. Mind, or Matter. If your logical analysis of your worldview convinces you "Matter", sobeit. My logic implies to me that "Mind" is the better answer.


Then how is idealism any different, except for having different vocabulary?
For the umpteenth time, again directly to you asking the question,
two basic things; 1) Since everything is "mind" (= "alive, in some sense") Idealists have no emergent property called "life" to contend with; and 2) at homo sap level HPC & qualia are expected rather some mystery to be explained (or explained away). :)



Ontology is still nonsense, even in this forum.
We can agree to disagree on that assertion. :p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:For the umpteenth time, again directly to you asking the question, two basic things; 1) Since everything is "mind" (= "alive, in some sense") Idealists have no emergent property called "life" to contend with; and 2) at homo sap level HPC & qualia are expected rather some mystery to be explained (or explained away).
You've got an awful lot at stake there with the word expected. First you define mind to be all the things you think are difficult to explain, then you say that those difficult things are expected from a mind. I'm dizzy from the circle game.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
You've got an awful lot at stake there with the word expected. First you define mind to be all the things you think are difficult to explain, then you say that those difficult things are expected from a mind. I'm dizzy from the circle game.

~~ Paul

Oh, I agree, it's definitely better to add another unsolvable proposition: "an objective, material, world exists", and then debunk all else as though that were fact. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile *I* continue to "think" while you continue to "be". ;)

:D

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by ceptimus
An elephant's brain is bigger than a human's.

yes but I believe what is important is the relationship between brain mass and body mass, not just the brain mass alone. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:Oh, I agree, it's definitely better to add another unsolvable proposition: "an objective, material, world exists", and then debunk all else as though that were fact.
Hammy, it's not another proposition. It's a replacement for the proposition that subjective mind exists. Both proposals have one fundamental proposition.

Anyhoo, that's all ontological nonsense. I have no idea what actually exists. I can only investigate how it behaves.

~~ Paul

[ImpyTimpy]

Alright, getting back on track, I've been thinking about the brain having two seperate conciousness streams (or whatever) and the idea just feels strange to me. As I'm typing this, there's only one "me" staring at the computer screen. How can there be two of me inside my brain if only one of "me" is aware. Isn't conciousness being self aware? If so, that means I only have one conciousness.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Imagine your corpus callosum was removed. Now imagine that each hemisphere had a consciousness stream. Would they know about each other? Further, imagine one couldn't talk. Would someone else know about both of them?

~~ Paul

[uruk]

Hammegk wrote

*Me* is the bag-o-bones stuff that perceives & is perceived as (by other sentiences) "material". Avoiding solipsism is so far as I can determine logically, only by gentlemens' agreement; viz. *I* think, and have faith that *your I* does also.

I asked for evidence. Oh well, Impy was right.

Ok so how does this go counter to a materialists view of *I*?
You admit that there is a physical material (the bag-o-bones)
which percieves and is percieved. Are calling into question the existance of the material world and other sentience because
of the fact that we percieve via an external means and that the perception could be generated by other means? The question becomes "how do we know we are not being fooled or are you really real?"If that is the case, then is there any indication that this might be the case? If not, then it becomes an academic issue. A nice conundrum to think about but it serves no practical purpose. If my assesment is incorrect, please clarify.

If you approach the question from a materialist view, you have a framework inwhich to address the problems. Nerou-science is able to measure the mechinisms of perception all the way to the brain and observe the brain processing the information (signals).
The brain is the seat of conciousness. So in there is the answer to the metaphyiscal conundrum. Excuse the pun.

quote:
BTW, If your sitting there typing away on your computer, your pretty much buying into the objective, materialist reality anyway.

No. Just "objective reality".


Oops. that should have been objective materialistic reality.

But your halfway there.