Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:59 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:01 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You are woo. We're all woo living in Wooville. All you can do is try to at least be an interesting woo in Wooville.


Solipsisim is clearly flawed. It requires me to stipulate to a premise that I find neither clear and self-evident nor indisputable. In fact, it is an intrinsically untenable position just not for the reasons most think. "I AM" is intrinsically indefensible.

Are you saying that assuming that "I" exist is an unfounded assumption, and solipsism as stated actually assumes too much? I would agree. If I'm positing that "I" am something more than the sum of my body parts and their functions, which I cannot know really exist, that's unfounded.

I think most people assume that if "I" am not existent in the way it feels like I am, I must be existent "somewhere else". I don't agree, that just seems like an assertion.

All I can really think is that "I" am the brain functioning. My experience is some sort of manifestation of this... the brain experiencing itself. After all, "I" never experience anything outside of the brain anyway, I'm just in a VR it creates.

Is this the brain-in-the-vat argument?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
16-03-2017, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 01:17 PM by JesseB.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 01:07 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:59 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Are you saying that assuming that "I" exist is an unfounded assumption, and solipsism as stated actually assumes too much? I would agree. If I'm positing that "I" am something more than the sum of my body parts and their functions, which I cannot know really exist, that's unfounded.

I think most people assume that if "I" am not existent in the way it feels like I am, I must be existent "somewhere else". I don't agree, that just seems like an assertion.

All I can really think is that "I" am the brain functioning. My experience is some sort of manifestation of this... the brain experiencing itself. After all, "I" never experience anything outside of the brain anyway, I'm just in a VR it creates.

Is this the brain-in-the-vat argument?

Yes, that would be an example of hard solipsism.

I mean... my point, and I think rob's too was that there's a degree of discomfort knowing that hard solipsism can't be solved. But it would be impractical to take such a position, for all practical purposes we deal with the real world we can observe and test. I think he was just pointing out that that lack of certainty makes him a bit uncomfortable at times, which to me is a reasonable emotion to have.

I think Girlyman may have taken his comment more seriously than I think he intended, though I'd have to re read that little exchange to be sure. Then again I could have been mistaken in my initial comment to rob's statement.

oh and Morning mama!

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
16-03-2017, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 02:38 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 01:07 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:59 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Are you saying that assuming that "I" exist is an unfounded assumption, and solipsism as stated actually assumes too much? I would agree. If I'm positing that "I" am something more than the sum of my body parts and their functions, which I cannot know really exist, that's unfounded.

I think most people assume that if "I" am not existent in the way it feels like I am, I must be existent "somewhere else". I don't agree, that just seems like an assertion.

All I can really think is that "I" am the brain functioning. My experience is some sort of manifestation of this... the brain experiencing itself. After all, "I" never experience anything outside of the brain anyway, I'm just in a VR it creates.

Is this the brain-in-the-vat argument?

I hope I'm not presenting it that way. Brain-in-the-vat is more designed to thwart attempts at refuting solipsism. I'm suggesting that it's not worth refuting because its fundamental premise is unsound. There's no point in debating the validity of an argument if its premises are unsound. While trying to prove the opposite, Descartes' inadvertently showed that the premise is unfounded and groundless.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-03-2017, 01:23 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:59 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  All I can really think is that "I" am the brain functioning. My experience is some sort of manifestation of this... the brain experiencing itself. After all, "I" never experience anything outside of the brain anyway, I'm just in a VR it creates.

I don't think you should confuse your self with your consciousness. You don't disappear when you fall asleep. Consciousness is just a part of your body and its functions, which is your total self.

Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thoreauvian's post
16-03-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 12:38 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:04 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You're not questioning the logic of my train of thought are you? Just my choice of words. I have a way of getting around the semantics though.

Give me a word that means "able to be interacted with"

Due to my limited vocabulary I'll call it "interactability" for now. (spell check went off so that's a good sign)

So instead of me saying:
Self Awareness requires an unseen driving force.
I'll say:
Self "Interactability" requires an unseen driving force.

The ability to interact with oneself. A trait specific to life & individuality.
Unless you would have me believe that self "interactability" is the cause of random events that give me the illusion of individuality.

I posit that this ability comes from an unseen force.
If science has already found the source of this ability then my argument is flawed.

So go ahead, debunk the argument. Hopefully the semantics don't get in the way this time

I am questioning your logic and choice of words.

A rock isn't aware. An iPhone isn't aware.
Yes aware may be the wrong word but only because we don't have a better one to describe this specific behavior.
It get's used a lot when describing the behavior of particles in in delayed choice experiments. Should we start accusing physicists of being illogical because they can't find a better word to describe the behavior.

Can we change the word aware to "interact-ability" since your understanding of the word aware does not match my understanding of that word.
If we don't the argument will boil down to semantics & we will get nowhere.

As I was saying:
Everything is interact-able. Iphones included.
What causes self interaction?
Science has not pin-pointed where this force comes from but it is the fundamental difference between the living and the dead.
Theists call it a Soul
If the word Soul is too theistic I'll be happy to swap it for some other word since I'm not a theist, but until then i'll just call it a Soul.

This topic is titled "Brain vs Soul"
I can't fathom what a Soul is but I can fathom what it does.
A Soul causes "self awareness" or "self-interact-ability"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 01:47 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 01:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:38 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I am questioning your logic and choice of words.

A rock isn't aware. An iPhone isn't aware.
Yes aware may be the wrong word but only because we don't have a better one to describe this specific behavior.
It get's used a lot when describing the behavior of particles in in delayed choice experiments. Should we start accusing physicists of being illogical because they can't find a better word to describe the behavior.

Can we change the word aware to "interact-ability" since your understanding of the word aware does not match my understanding of that word.
If we don't the argument will boil down to semantics & we will get nowhere.

As I was saying:
Everything is interact-able. Iphones included.
What causes self interaction?
Science has not pin-pointed where this force comes from but it is the fundamental difference between the living and the dead.
Theists call it a Soul
If the word Soul is too theistic I'll be happy to swap it for some other word since I'm not a theist, but until then i'll just call it a Soul.

This topic is titled "Brain vs Soul"
I can't fathom what a Soul is but I can fathom what it does.
A Soul causes "self awareness" or "self-interact-ability"

The brain causes self awareness..... and all that implies.... there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and lots of evidence that suggests this is true.

And I think this is at the crux of the various misunderstandings you've made, and people's attempts to correct you on this.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
16-03-2017, 02:20 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
Trimming things down for brevity...


(16-03-2017 01:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I can't fathom what a Soul is but I can fathom what it does.

So... you have no idea/concept of what a 'soul' actually is?

(16-03-2017 01:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A Soul causes "self awareness" or "self-interact-ability"

But you can throw out an assertion of what this unknown thing does?

Even after people have pointed out that a being's awareness demonstrable changes when the brain of said awareness is under different effects/damage?

Consider

The first point needs more explanation, definitely.

The second point needs to be addressed.

Other wise we're back to talking to Naeliss about 'Duality' again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
16-03-2017, 02:21 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 01:47 PM)JesseB Wrote:  The brain causes self awareness..... and all that implies.... there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and lots of evidence that suggests this is true.

And I think this is at the crux of the various misunderstandings you've made, and people's attempts to correct you on this.

And the animal brain is the result of kabillions of years of evolution.
A greater understanding evolution might be a good place to further one's education. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
16-03-2017, 02:32 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 02:39 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 01:23 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  I don't think you should confuse your self with your consciousness. You don't disappear when you fall asleep.

Unless you're a mad girl in love of course.

I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;
I lift my lids and all is born again.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

The stars go waltzing out in blue and red,
And arbitrary blackness gallops in:
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed
And sung me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

God topples from the sky, hell's fires fade:
Exit seraphim and Satan's men:
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.

I fancied you'd return the way you said,
But I grow old and I forget your name.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)

I should have loved a thunderbird instead;
At least when spring comes they roar back again.
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
(I think I made you up inside my head.)"


(16-03-2017 01:23 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  Consciousness is just a part of your body and its functions, which is your total self.

Some AI researchers, neuroscientists, philosophers, psychologists, cognitive scientists, et al. propose that consciousness is the inevitable result of maintaining stasis in a sufficiently complex system. I am just the parameters of a complex, non-linear homeostasis function. I can only hope our robot overlords will hug me and squeeze me and call me George.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
16-03-2017, 02:40 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(16-03-2017 02:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I can only hope our robot overlords will hug me and squeeze me and call me George.

Why? Is your name "George"? Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: