|
Nikk
United States63 Posts
On July 01 2013 15:11 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 15:00 Nikk wrote:On July 01 2013 14:45 D10 wrote:On July 01 2013 14:24 SnipedSoul wrote:
If something exists outside the brain, what is it made of? Do we have to rethink the standard model of physics to incorporate ethereal consciousness? Its a safe assumption to assume that the standard model will have to be "rethoght" a few times before our generation dies out But when you stop to think that we exist in a universe that is essentially made of energy, and mass is just a small part of it, I dont think its really outlandish for our mind to have some sort of energetic metaphysical component that is not currently measurable by our understanding of biology and physics I wouldnt be surprised if contiousness was the result of this metaphysical construct interfacing with reality from the inside of a human body, and the body acted in many times as a constraint of contiousness. Why would it happen ? I dont know, my personal theory is that there are neurological devices that allow for the "energy" necessary for complex cognitive hability, memory, personality traits, etc.. etc.. to aggregate on the brain over time, and over ones lifetime this energy in this vessel creates the result of what we perceive as a person. I have been trying to think of a way to prove/disprove my theory but so far nothing worth putting on a research has came up. So im just focusing on trying to study the existance of ESP atm. They are interesting subjects, and the fact that im an enthusiast make me biased, but I honestly think that when we think we are energy perceiving energy, it doesnt seem so far fetched for me. What do you mean by energy? Energy is not a thing, its simply a tool for describing the relationship between mass and momentum (ie conservation of energy, E^2 = Mo^2c^4 + P^2c^2 etc). It makes no sense to say the universe is "made of energy" or that energy exists in any literal sense. Ok then, imagine that by energy i mean things that dont have matter, but can interact and be perceived with matter, such as radio, electromagnetic waves, etc..
Again, there is a problem with the definition of terms (as there often is with metaphysical jargon). What do you mean by matter? Matter isn't a property something can have or not, rather something simply is or isn't matter. I'm guessing you meant "things that don't have mass"? Mass-less particles, such a photons, are still particles and not metaphysical. I just don't understand what this means.
I dont think its really outlandish for our mind to have some sort of energetic metaphysical component that is not currently measurable by our understanding of biology and physics"
|
On July 01 2013 15:33 Nikk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 15:11 D10 wrote:On July 01 2013 15:00 Nikk wrote:On July 01 2013 14:45 D10 wrote:On July 01 2013 14:24 SnipedSoul wrote:
If something exists outside the brain, what is it made of? Do we have to rethink the standard model of physics to incorporate ethereal consciousness? Its a safe assumption to assume that the standard model will have to be "rethoght" a few times before our generation dies out But when you stop to think that we exist in a universe that is essentially made of energy, and mass is just a small part of it, I dont think its really outlandish for our mind to have some sort of energetic metaphysical component that is not currently measurable by our understanding of biology and physics I wouldnt be surprised if contiousness was the result of this metaphysical construct interfacing with reality from the inside of a human body, and the body acted in many times as a constraint of contiousness. Why would it happen ? I dont know, my personal theory is that there are neurological devices that allow for the "energy" necessary for complex cognitive hability, memory, personality traits, etc.. etc.. to aggregate on the brain over time, and over ones lifetime this energy in this vessel creates the result of what we perceive as a person. I have been trying to think of a way to prove/disprove my theory but so far nothing worth putting on a research has came up. So im just focusing on trying to study the existance of ESP atm. They are interesting subjects, and the fact that im an enthusiast make me biased, but I honestly think that when we think we are energy perceiving energy, it doesnt seem so far fetched for me. What do you mean by energy? Energy is not a thing, its simply a tool for describing the relationship between mass and momentum (ie conservation of energy, E^2 = Mo^2c^4 + P^2c^2 etc). It makes no sense to say the universe is "made of energy" or that energy exists in any literal sense. Ok then, imagine that by energy i mean things that dont have matter, but can interact and be perceived with matter, such as radio, electromagnetic waves, etc.. Again, there is a problem with the definition of terms (as there often is with metaphysical jargon). What do you mean by matter? Matter isn't a property something can have or not, rather something simply is or isn't matter. I'm guessing you meant "things that don't have mass"? Mass-less particles, such a photons, are still particles and not metaphysical. I just don't understand what this means. Show nested quote +I dont think its really outlandish for our mind to have some sort of energetic metaphysical component that is not currently measurable by our understanding of biology and physics"
Ok ill try to be clear, forgive my english, its late sunday and Brazil just beat spain so bear with me
What I meant is that this metaphysical concept of energy could be some sort of crazy wavelenght unknown to us, and added to that the interaction of this hypothetical wavelenght with our own biochemical neurology, but this "ethereal fluid" if you wanna put it that way, could be a component operating outside the scope of chemical and electrical.
If there is a direct relationship between the brain acting as a computer interface for this cognitive energy that is being contained there, this could mean that its possible there is a collective contiousness and try to shed some light on explaining the phenomenae.
If this theory holds any merit it could explain a lot of psychopathology as well as improve our understanding of dreams and their connection with time and space, not to mention all the social implications that increasing our knowledge of the mind always causes.
|
Nikk
United States63 Posts
On July 01 2013 15:48 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 15:33 Nikk wrote:On July 01 2013 15:11 D10 wrote:On July 01 2013 15:00 Nikk wrote:On July 01 2013 14:45 D10 wrote:On July 01 2013 14:24 SnipedSoul wrote:
If something exists outside the brain, what is it made of? Do we have to rethink the standard model of physics to incorporate ethereal consciousness? Its a safe assumption to assume that the standard model will have to be "rethoght" a few times before our generation dies out But when you stop to think that we exist in a universe that is essentially made of energy, and mass is just a small part of it, I dont think its really outlandish for our mind to have some sort of energetic metaphysical component that is not currently measurable by our understanding of biology and physics I wouldnt be surprised if contiousness was the result of this metaphysical construct interfacing with reality from the inside of a human body, and the body acted in many times as a constraint of contiousness. Why would it happen ? I dont know, my personal theory is that there are neurological devices that allow for the "energy" necessary for complex cognitive hability, memory, personality traits, etc.. etc.. to aggregate on the brain over time, and over ones lifetime this energy in this vessel creates the result of what we perceive as a person. I have been trying to think of a way to prove/disprove my theory but so far nothing worth putting on a research has came up. So im just focusing on trying to study the existance of ESP atm. They are interesting subjects, and the fact that im an enthusiast make me biased, but I honestly think that when we think we are energy perceiving energy, it doesnt seem so far fetched for me. What do you mean by energy? Energy is not a thing, its simply a tool for describing the relationship between mass and momentum (ie conservation of energy, E^2 = Mo^2c^4 + P^2c^2 etc). It makes no sense to say the universe is "made of energy" or that energy exists in any literal sense. Ok then, imagine that by energy i mean things that dont have matter, but can interact and be perceived with matter, such as radio, electromagnetic waves, etc.. Again, there is a problem with the definition of terms (as there often is with metaphysical jargon). What do you mean by matter? Matter isn't a property something can have or not, rather something simply is or isn't matter. I'm guessing you meant "things that don't have mass"? Mass-less particles, such a photons, are still particles and not metaphysical. I just don't understand what this means. I dont think its really outlandish for our mind to have some sort of energetic metaphysical component that is not currently measurable by our understanding of biology and physics" Ok ill try to be clear, forgive my english, its late sunday and Brazil just beat spain so bear with me What I meant is that this metaphysical concept of energy could be some sort of crazy wavelenght unknown to us, and added to that the interaction of this hypothetical wavelenght with our own biochemical neurology, but this "ethereal fluid" if you wanna put it that way, could be a component operating outside the scope of chemical and electrical. If there is a direct relationship between the brain acting as a computer interface for this cognitive energy that is being contained there, this could mean that its possible there is a collective contiousness and try to shed some light on explaining the phenomenae. If this theory holds any merit it could explain a lot of psychopathology as well as improve our understanding of dreams and their connection with time and space, not to mention all the social implications that increasing our knowledge of the mind always causes.
What I meant is that this metaphysical concept of energy could be some sort of crazy wavelenght unknown to us
Energy is not a meta-physical concept, which is why I don't understand where you are coming from. It's simply used as a tool in describing reality. For example, multiplying 2 negative integers always produces a positive integer. Is that a metaphysical concept? It's abstract in the same way as energy, it's a mathematical principle.
Edit: Here is a classic Feynman quote that helps illustrate the disconnect.
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
—The Feynman Lectures on Physics
|
On July 01 2013 13:26 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 13:14 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2013 13:12 D10 wrote:
We cant say for certain at this point, but unless we can discover things later on that prove otherwise, there certainly is more to the mind than simple chemicals and electrical charge. You're saying that we should prove that there is nothing else. It's impossible to prove a negative. To support your viewpoint, you should bring evidence that there exists something external to the brain that plays a role... but there's no evidence of any such thing. Essentially all you've got is our lack of a perfect understanding of the human brain through science, but that's thin. but what we DON'T know about the brain is > than what we DO know about the brain. So....using your logic...who's viewpoint is thin? i provided links already, there are theories as to quantum mechanics operating in our brain. It's really not that farfetched. If we've managed to do it in a lab, why should it be impossible for nature to have figured out its own biological way? edit: im out for the night, interesting topic though, hopefully i find some more comments on this tomorrow. night all :D
First your inequality is nonsensical. Let's ignore the fact that you are quantifying knowledge using completely undefined measure. It is quite possible that we know less about subatomic particles than we do not know about them. Does not mean that what we do know is worthless and that we cannot make good predictions. Actually we can only make predicitons only based on what we know. Predictions based on what we do not know are completely worthless and that is what you are doing.
There are no thories of quantum mechanics involved in brain operations that have any popularity in biology. There are some shots in the dark, but that is it. But consensus is rather that there is no such involvement. There are multiple reasons to think that.
1) Lack of evidence.
2) Starting already at subcelullar level it seems everything evolved to filter out anything remotely quantum related. (Not to say that there are no quantum mechanisms in all of life processes, that would be impossible).
3) There is no phenomenenon right now that would seem to require any such involvement to explain.
4) How qould wuantum mechanics in any way help to keep you from being "deterministic" machine. Instead of being basically deterministic machine, you would be deterministic machine with random component. Still no "free will", does not explain conscioussness any better than without the random component. What is the quantum component of our minds even supposed to bring to the table that was already not there.
It would seem the internet proponents of quantum component in the mind do not really know much about quantum mechanics, it is just a buzzword.
|
On July 01 2013 15:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Think of the brain as a computer, and the person (soul) as the user. If the computer's hardware or software is messed up, the output (thoughts, actions, words, chemical reactions, etc.) will be messed up, even if the user (soul) is perfectly fine.
I'm kind of drunk (birthday tonight WOOT!), so if this doesn't make sense I'll have to post a deeper explanation tomorrow.
Except we know enough about the brain to know that the brain isn't a simple computer waiting for inputs. I mean ... it is "well" known where and how the decision making occur in the brain. Even though we don't know everything about our brain, we at least know the basic logic behind it, we know every step it takes to make an action.
A computer doesn't take any decision. Give it a software that reproduce the human brains and the computer will start making internet thread "do I have a soul ?  ".
|
On July 01 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it. What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know
I found that quite an interesting read, but I don't agree with your conclusion and I don't see where you got it from as the conclusion from that paper was that the Mary Intuition remains compatible with physicalism.
If anything I am more inclined to agree with David Lewis' theory:
“Imagine a smart data bank. It can be told things, it can store the information it is given, it can reason with it, it can answer questions on the basis of its stored information. Now imagine a pattern-recognizing device that works as follows. When exposed to a pattern it makes a sort of template, which it then applies to patterns presented to it in future. Now imagine one device with both faculties… There is no reason to think that any such device must have a third faculty: a faculty of making templates for patterns it has never been exposed to… If it has a full description about a pattern but no template for it, it lacks an ability but it doesn’t lack information. (Rather, it lacks information in usable form.) When it is shown the pattern it makes a template and gains abilities, but it gains no information.”
“We might”, Lewis suggests, “be rather like that.”
In that I agree that one could not really "know what it is like" to see a colour just by knowing all the facts about it, but I don't see how this makes the information gained from experiencing the colour first hand any less physical.
|
On July 01 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it. What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know
(bold) That conclusion doesn't follow from an investigation of physicalism unless you cherrypick arbitrary attributes of physicalism. It seems totally absurd to propose it's possible to "know everything there is to know" about color, and why should physicalism require that such a thing is possible? It's equally absurd to then claim based on human experience and intuition that an agent capable of omniscience would experience color anew at the first. How can you make any claims about such an agent? The whole criticism relies on manipulating definitions outside the bounds of the claim.
|
On July 01 2013 10:11 electronic voyeur wrote:
What are your thoughts? Is the mind all physical?
Depends on what you include in the term "mind". If it includes consciousness then I say no, its not pysical.
Toughts, music, all that other wonderfull stuff you described, for those I believe they are "pysical". As in a product of the brain. However I do not believe consciousness is too a product of the brain, I believe the brain is just there to project its toughts and experiences onto consciousness. Consciousness is you ofcourse.
How I see it:
Mind is a TV, consciousness is the watcher. (its sort of a quote and a really useful example by Amit Goswami)
EDIT: and therefore, mind is pysical, consciousness is not
|
On July 01 2013 10:13 travis wrote:
Your brain is all chemical and electricity. The mind is a type of phenomena that isn't physical.
Why wouldn't it be physical?
Look up mind-body identity theory.
|
On July 01 2013 12:44 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 12:34 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:30 HeavenS wrote:On July 01 2013 12:23 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 12:12 Hilmar wrote:
The idea of an exclusively physical universe is an arbritrary philosophical construct.
There are "things" that are real and non-physical, those are called constructs of the mind.
Information is "real" in any relevant way of interpreting the word, and is by definition non-physical.
The same information can be stored in vastly different medias including mass, energy or both. Thus the physical attributes, of a book for instance, is not in itself the interesting part, but the "meaning" so to say of the information transmitted by the matter and energy.
Languages are real non-physical constructs of the mind, as are all social contracts non-physical, like a friendship or a marriage.
This isn't a question of an idea of a language stored in some physical part of the brain. The construct is not only not part of the body itself, it is also distinguishable for other people, or minds if you will. How is information non-physical. I don't see how these things aren't physical. Maybe the physical attributes of a book are not the interesting part but the way that the words impact the mind or their "meaning" can certainly be explained as something that is physical. We are able to track the way brain activity changes when someone is processing different kinds of information or when people feel different emotions. This suggests that all the things you've listed are physically grounded within the brain. but the information doesn't have to be experienced to be there. the information is already in the book, by reading it you are simply assimilating the information. at that point sure, you can call it physical. however, when you close that book, the entire story is there, the information is there, it exists even if its not being experienced. I'm saying that it always exists in the physical. That all ideas or information are always physical. see idk about all that. i think this delves a little too much into the philosophical/metaphyisical but information isn't really defined until it is experienced. take the color blue for example, it exists right? in the physical according to you. if we wipe out all life on earth, does blue stop existing? why? because it stops being experienced by someone? i don't think so. i think blue still exists, the POSSIBILITY of blue still exists. it is just information waiting to be assimilated. IMO, if something CAN exist, it already does, even if it hasn't been assimilated. like i said, maybe a bit too philosophical and whatnot...but w.e
No, the colour blue does not exist.
Blue is how my eyes and my brain process light at a certain wavelength. My eyes and my brain are both physical, as are the associated processes that make them work. Other animals will probably see a different colour there, and are perhaps capable of seeing many less or many more colours than we can, also infra red spectrum etc.
Even if they also see blue the same way we see it, it doesn't imply blue is something that actually exists, rather that our brains function similarly enough that light of that frequency is represented in this way for the same reasons. Nothing supernatural going on here imo.
Just because you can't imagine colours you haven't seen before doesn't mean anything, the mind has plenty of limitations as can be shown by falling victim to the same optical illusion over and over, even once you know it's simply a trick of the mind.
|
everything you ask for like love passion etc is explained and broke down to the basics so sadly yes ...
love is just to move you to sex and stuff ... its not really special our brain is a blind computer just getting electric data from your testicles
|
An interesting thought in all this is that your mind lives in the future. By that I mean what our brain interprets out of visual imagery is actually not the image itself but what your brain thinks the image will be in ~10 ms. This is to offset of the delay of about 10 ms from visual stimuli enters our eye until it is processed. Considering our brain literally changes how we view things (this how many optical illusions work), how do other similar unvoluntary processes define how we percieve our conciousness? Also how does that figure into this debate? Just a thought 
|
|
|
On July 01 2013 18:53 Spekulatius wrote:
there is no soul.
there is a soul.
|
I think there is something more. Not saying the brain isn't purely physical, of course it is, but there is some form of "more than the sum of its parts" going on, which is individual concioussness. You can damage your brain to have your personality changed... but you can't damage your brain so you start to experience the world from a different persons brain. You are you, and you experience everything from your perspective, and you can reflect over this fact. You can wonder why you can feel the stone you're holding in your hand, but you can't feel the stone you see another person holding in his hand. The problematic part is not the feeling of the stone, there are no nerv-endings between his hand and your brain... the wonderous concept come from the fact that you can contemplate the situation, the fact that you're fully aware of who you are contrary to who that other person is. You can wonder why you're experiencing the world from this body and not his body.
I would call this concept a soul, even though it's nothing spiritual about it. It's just a philosophical fact.
|
On July 01 2013 19:05 Tobberoth wrote:
I think there is something more. Not saying the brain isn't purely physical, of course it is, but there is some form of "more than the sum of its parts" going on, which is individual concioussness. You can damage your brain to have your personality changed... but you can't damage your brain so you start to experience the world from a different persons brain. You are you, and you experience everything from your perspective, and you can reflect over this fact. You can wonder why you can feel the stone you're holding in your hand, but you can't feel the stone you see another person holding in his hand. The problematic part is not the feeling of the stone, there are no nerv-endings between his hand and your brain... the wonderous concept come from the fact that you can contemplate the situation, the fact that you're fully aware of who you are contrary to who that other person is. You can wonder why you're experiencing the world from this body and not his body.
I would call this concept a soul, even though it's nothing spiritual about it. It's just a philosophical fact.
Because you are your brain. If you really think about it, everything makes sense.
I just want to ask, do you think insects, animals, babies have a "soul" or not ?
|
People really enjoy the thought that they have some higher order of existence in the world.
|
Should probably just read a scientific book on neuropsychology if you want to know the anwser to this.
|
On July 01 2013 19:39 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 19:05 Tobberoth wrote:
I think there is something more. Not saying the brain isn't purely physical, of course it is, but there is some form of "more than the sum of its parts" going on, which is individual concioussness. You can damage your brain to have your personality changed... but you can't damage your brain so you start to experience the world from a different persons brain. You are you, and you experience everything from your perspective, and you can reflect over this fact. You can wonder why you can feel the stone you're holding in your hand, but you can't feel the stone you see another person holding in his hand. The problematic part is not the feeling of the stone, there are no nerv-endings between his hand and your brain... the wonderous concept come from the fact that you can contemplate the situation, the fact that you're fully aware of who you are contrary to who that other person is. You can wonder why you're experiencing the world from this body and not his body.
I would call this concept a soul, even though it's nothing spiritual about it. It's just a philosophical fact. Because you are your brain. If your really think about it, everything makes sense. I just want to ask, do you think insects, animals, babies have a "soul" or not ?
I want to ask you; do you think insect, animals, babies have a consciousness?
"Soul" is a risky word for a hard core forum like TL. Its an invitation to get destroyed is it not?
Also Im not dismissing your claim that "you are your brain". I could very well be true. Im a bit experienced with all that trippy stuff like astral projection and ive come to a conclusion that you are not your brain. Brain is just an organ like every else. It does what its made for doing, thinking, learning, etc. "You" on the other hand are this tiny dot that cant really be explained in any way called consciousness. Everything makes sense for me when I think in those terms.
|
On July 01 2013 19:39 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 19:05 Tobberoth wrote:
I think there is something more. Not saying the brain isn't purely physical, of course it is, but there is some form of "more than the sum of its parts" going on, which is individual concioussness. You can damage your brain to have your personality changed... but you can't damage your brain so you start to experience the world from a different persons brain. You are you, and you experience everything from your perspective, and you can reflect over this fact. You can wonder why you can feel the stone you're holding in your hand, but you can't feel the stone you see another person holding in his hand. The problematic part is not the feeling of the stone, there are no nerv-endings between his hand and your brain... the wonderous concept come from the fact that you can contemplate the situation, the fact that you're fully aware of who you are contrary to who that other person is. You can wonder why you're experiencing the world from this body and not his body.
I would call this concept a soul, even though it's nothing spiritual about it. It's just a philosophical fact. Because you are your brain. If your really think about it, everything makes sense. I just want to ask, do you think insects, animals, babies have a "soul" or not ?
By my definition of soul, anything which is self-concious has it, even including a theoretical synthetic lifeform. We obviously can't know to what degree insects are concious though. If something is alive and can ponder it's unique individualism, it has a "soul", something which differentiates it from any other concious individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
