Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2017, 01:40 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:25 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I hope this doesn't distract from the conversation but is anyone here competent with IT?

For a week now I've been trying to load an application over my laptop.

Not on it. Over it. About 2cm above it.

I simply can't get it to work.

Any suggestions?

Weeping

(18-03-2017 12:19 AM)JesseB Wrote:  ...
Edit^ Maybe you're not aware of current events in AI research. I have friends who work on this, and keep pretty up to date. So is your position that some magical force would give computers life?

I have an A.S. in Computer Networked Systems, I currently fix cell phones and PC's ect for a living and have been working in IT for a number of years. So as not to clutter here, why don't we go to PM.



OH FUCK ME lol Nice one. HAHA

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
18-03-2017, 01:41 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2017 01:47 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do you think the brain precedes self awareness?

Because consciousness - of which self-awareness is a part - is brain function, and you cannot have brain function without a brain.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is brain function.
You have to prove X=Y before you can prove Y=X silly kid Laugh out load

(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's just an opinion, it's not a fact.
Unbeliever Wrote:No, it's a fact.

You're just an idiot.
Saying something is a fact without providing evidence, means it's just your opinion. Facepalm

(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Corals and jellyfish (Cnidarians) are just two animals that have no brain & are self aware.
Unbeliever Wrote:Neither of these things are "self-aware" by the definition that you just gave. They have extremely primitive and limited forms of consciousness at best, as they do not have brains; any residual level of consciousness that they do have is running on very primitive stimulus-response hardware.

And you still aren't even beginning to make an argument for the existence of souls or consciousness existing outside of brain function. You're just following your irresistible compulsion to mouth off about things you don't understand.

Because you're an idiot.
FFS another opinion. Shocking
I'm beginning to think you never do any research at all because all you ever seem to do is give your unsubstantiated opinions. Drinking Beverage

Maybe we aren't communicating on the same level.
See if this helps:
You are a fucking retard. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 01:42 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
Dude.... I totally jumped into tech support mode lol (solve the emotions of the person so you can fix their computer... Then I read what you said.... DOH I got punked lol)

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
[+] 4 users Like JesseB's post
18-03-2017, 01:45 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because consciousness - of which self-awareness is a part - is brain function, and you cannot have brain function without a brain.
You have yet to prove that consciousness is brain function.
You have to prove X=Y before you can prove Y=X

(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's just an opinion, it's not a fact.
Saying something is a fact without providing evidence, means it's just your opinion.

(17-03-2017 11:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Corals and jellyfish (Cnidarians) are just two animals that have no brain & are self aware.
FFS another opinion. Shocking
I'm beginning to think you never do any research at all because all you ever seem to do is give your unsubstantiated opinions. Drinking Beverage

Maybe we aren't communicating on the same level.
See if this helps:
You are retarded. Facepalm

WHAT?! Dude... have you EVER taken a math class? What you're saying is gibberish.

I remember a quote "Dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit"

Except.... You're failing to baffle anyone....


ALSO people have provided evidence. you've ignored all of it and parrot yourself. Seriously its like talking to a poorly programmed bot here. YOU have not shared ANY fucking evidence, or links EXCEPT one or two word definitions that .... well you're the only one who fails to know what those words mean. People have linked a TON of stuff for you to look at you've ignored it all.

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
18-03-2017, 02:38 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have yet to prove that consciousness is brain function.

No, Shane. You have yet to learn that consciousness is brain function, despite everyone here being very kind and patient with you and explaining it multiple times.

Unfortunately, you won't ever learn it, because you're an idiot.

(18-03-2017 01:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm beginning to think you never do any research at all because all you ever seem to do is give your unsubstantiated opinions. Drinking Beverage

Your inability to recognize facts is no concern of mine.

I am not bothered with the opinion of an idiot.

(18-03-2017 01:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Maybe we aren't communicating on the same level.
See if this helps:
You are a fucking retard. Facepalm

See, it kind of loses its punch when it's not demonstrably true.

Since you are demonstrably an idiot, no one here cares about you trying to call others names.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-03-2017, 02:40 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:45 AM)JesseB Wrote:  People have linked a TON of stuff for you to look at you've ignored it all.

I did warn you. Shane has the reading comprehension ability of a toddler and the memory span of a goldfish. I have seen him deny that people have explained something while quoting the explanation that he is saying never happened.

I normally don't go in for the sort of pointless ridicule that my posts in this thread have consisted of, but really, there's no point in anything else when it comes to him.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-03-2017, 06:08 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2017 07:07 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I forgot to mention just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's totally useless. It's only scientifically useless (Rob did say this btw).

Take for example Axioms:
Wiki:
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
eg. a + b = b + a
Mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable but it is extremely USEFUL
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Except, we can falisfy that.

Take a pile of 2 rocks and a pile of 4 flowers, then combine them.

Take another pile of 4 flowers and add 2 rocks to it.

Do both piles now have 2 rocks and 4 flowers?

If you remove a rock or a flower from one of the piles, are they both still equivalent?

Congrats, you just tested the axiom. Drinking Beverage

Shocking
Did you not read where I stated:
Mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable but it is extremely USEFUL
see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
That's what wiki said, not me idiot. Facepalm
You're saying that Mathematics is experimentally falsifiable? This is just another example of you pulling something stupid out your ass to prove your point Facepalm
As Joshua Engel so eloquently put it:
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-mathemati...alsifiable
"Falsify" means "check against experience". You look out in the world and see if it actually behaves the way your theory thinks it does. You can't do that with mathematics.

That may seem counterintuitive, and that highlights a really crucial distinction of just what it means for something "to be math". You might think, for example, that you could run the following experiment:

Take three apples
At the same time, have a friend add two more apples
Check that the result is five apples
If there aren't five apples, you've just falsified addition, yes?

No. What you'd have falsified is your physical theory that apples behave in a particular way. Here, for example, is a very similar experiment:
Sit there for three minutes
At the same time, have a friend sit there for two minutes
Check your watch. Ascertain that five minutes have elapsed.
We haven't falsified mathematics. What we've falsified is the physical theory that time adds up in the same way that apples do.

That's the difference between science and mathematics. Science consists of taking the world, translating it into mathematics, and manipulating the math, and then translating it back. When the science is right, the result matches the world, every single time. Falsification is what happens when it doesn't. The back-and-forth translation steps are science.

The line gets blurred easily in that mathematics was originally developed to deal with those really obvious, straightforward translations. And it's remarkable that the same mathematics often apply other situations beyond those that they were originally developed. There is a version of "addition" that applies to time, and it works remarkably well, as long as you pay scrupulous attention to just what it is you're quantifying. The world really does often seem to fall into patterns involving a smallish number of mathematical formalisms, and nobody really knows why. And it seems that the entire world does seem to follow some mathematical formalism or other, and again, nobody really knows why.

There is a thing in mathematics corresponding to falsification. It's called "finding a counterexample". I can disprove your mathematical idea by finding a set of numbers for which it doesn't work. But that's not telling you anything about the world. It's just telling you something about the formalism you've chosen. That's only important to your scientific theory if your theory relies on that formalism.

So don't confuse the map for the territory. Mathematics can't be falsified because that's not what the mathematics does. Mathematics is just the set of rules for manipulating formalisms, some of which correspond to the real world, and some of which don't. Science is the process of figuring out what in the real world corresponds to the math.

(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is a common misconception that science brings us closer to absolute truths aka reality.
This is circular logic, in that you will first need an example of an absolute truth to determine if science brings you closer to an absolute truth.
If you need X to prove X then you cannot prove X.
EvolutionKills Wrote:Except that's not how it works. Science is a method, and through experimentation and evidence, we come to closer approximations in our understanding of how the world around us works and interacts. Newtonian mechanics works pretty damn good, it can even calculate the exact moment that the Voyager probe left the solar system to within a second; but it is not the most accurate approximation we have. There are anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, for which we needed Einstein's relativity to explain, as it produced a more accurate approximation of observable reality.

Still, history has shown us that it is the best method humanity has yet developed for determining things accurately.
Why are you conflating Best Method with Absolute Truth? Dodgy
Best Method ≠ Absolute Truth
Best Method = Best Method
And now we are back to:
If you need X to prove X then you cannot prove X. Facepalm

(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is the definition of Science:
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

No where in this definition does it say anything about absolute truths or reality now does it?
EvolutionKills Wrote:Your point?
That you are illiterate it seems. Weeping

(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We assume the physical & natural world is reality simply because we don't know anything else. This is another example of a logical fallacy in that:
Absence of X does not prove Y is true unless we assume the unfalsifiable claim that Y = the Absence of X
EvolutionKills Wrote:Fuck off. Complete lack of evidence is not a reasonable justification for making up whatever the hell you want. If you want other people to take your hypothesis seriously, you need evidence; of which nobody has yet produced any in support of the existence of the supernatural, souls, or mind-body duality.

So good luck with that.
Firstly,
I do not posit the existence of supernatural souls. So cut that dishonest shit out bitch Dodgy
Secondly,
There is no evidence that self awareness comes from the body or the brain either.
Thirdly,
When someone says "it is more rational to believe", they aren't speaking about knowledge of what that thing IS. They are speaking about knowledge of what that thing COULD BE.

An example of rational belief without knowing what something IS , is the prediction of Quarks & the Higs Boson.
The pursuit of this belief is what eventually led to the discovery of Quarks & the Higs Boson.

Please try to keep up with the conversation Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 08:03 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2017 08:07 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 06:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is a common misconception that science brings us closer to absolute truths aka reality.
This is circular logic, in that you will first need an example of an absolute truth to determine if science brings you closer to an absolute truth.
If you need X to prove X then you cannot prove X.
EvolutionKills Wrote:Except that's not how it works. Science is a method, and through experimentation and evidence, we come to closer approximations in our understanding of how the world around us works and interacts. Newtonian mechanics works pretty damn good, it can even calculate the exact moment that the Voyager probe left the solar system to within a second; but it is not the most accurate approximation we have. There are anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, for which we needed Einstein's relativity to explain, as it produced a more accurate approximation of observable reality.

Still, history has shown us that it is the best method humanity has yet developed for determining things accurately.
Why are you conflating Best Method with Absolute Truth? Dodgy
Best Method ≠ Absolute Truth
Best Method = Best Method
And now we are back to:
If you need X to prove X then you cannot prove X. Facepalm

Except you are assuming Absolute Truth™ both exists and is required, both of which are unfounded assumptions. Drinking Beverage

Philosophy has been debating the nature of Truth since it's foundation. But really, if you have a definitive universal definition that all can agree upon, go right the fuck ahead. Then we can work on falsifying that.


(18-03-2017 06:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is the definition of Science:
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

No where in this definition does it say anything about absolute truths or reality now does it?
EvolutionKills Wrote:Your point?
That you are illiterate it seems. Weeping

Yeah, what is your point?

Oh right, you incorrectly assume that Absolute Truth™ exists and is required to debunk your bullshit. Funny thing that...


(18-03-2017 06:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We assume the physical & natural world is reality simply because we don't know anything else. This is another example of a logical fallacy in that:
Absence of X does not prove Y is true unless we assume the unfalsifiable claim that Y = the Absence of X
EvolutionKills Wrote:Fuck off. Complete lack of evidence is not a reasonable justification for making up whatever the hell you want. If you want other people to take your hypothesis seriously, you need evidence; of which nobody has yet produced any in support of the existence of the supernatural, souls, or mind-body duality.

So good luck with that.
Firstly,
I do not posit the existence of supernatural souls. So cut that dishonest shit out bitch Dodgy

Unless you have the evidence to back up the theory of body/mind duality, as in you have evidence that it exists and how it works? That you have hitherto unknown insights into the function of both biology and physics, to give support for a process that is otherwise entirely undetectable by any current known means to science?

Yeah, you are deep into supernatural woo-woo bullshit territory. Suck it up buttercup. Drinking Beverage


(18-03-2017 06:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Secondly,
There is no evidence that self awareness comes from the body or the brain either.

Yo cunt! Mirror experiment. Self awareness appears to be correlated to cognitive function, and operates on a gradient. Meaning that as you move lower and lower down the scale of high level cognitive functionality, you get further and further away from human levels of self awareness. Somewhere along that gradient (well before jellyfish) you pass the point where such functions simply cannot be supported by the creature's available grey matter, and self awareness is not able to emerge because their wetware lacks sufficient complexity.

Because if jellyfish are truly self aware, with all of the evolutionary advantages that brings, then how come other species kept evolving larger and larger brains? They're the most calorie intensive organ in our bodies, and evolutionary speaking, are very risky and expensive. So much so that our distant cousins, Homo neanderthalensis, might have very well suffered greater extinction pressure because their larger than human brains cost too much in resources for them to be competitive with humans in the last ice age; their brains were too large and costly. Homo sapiens, with their relatively smaller brains, were comparatively more efficient; and thus better adapted to the current environment, given the relative scarcity of resources during the ice age.

Plus, humans with brain trauma and other born with certain genetic disabilities that can hamper the mind also show diminished cognitive function. So, you know, the state of the mind appears to be directly tied to the brain itself. If not, then how do anti-depressant work?


(18-03-2017 06:08 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thirdly,
When someone says "it is more rational to believe", they aren't speaking about knowledge of what that thing IS. They are speaking about knowledge of what that thing COULD BE.

An example of rational belief without knowing what something IS , is the prediction of Quarks & the Higs Boson.
The pursuit of this belief is what eventually led to the discovery of Quarks & the Higs Boson.

Please try to keep up with the conversation Drinking Beverage

Dude, you are out in fucking la-la land. You are advocating for mind-body duality, which means that everything we know about biology, neurology, and physics is currently stacked against you. You don't even have theoretical models and hypothetical experiments backing you up. Comparing yourself to quantum physicists is fucking sad and hilarious. You got nothing to say but 'you can't prove me wrong without Absolute Truth™' which, as already noted, isn't so much an argument as it is a logical fallacy.

Fuckin' bush league son.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 08:23 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 01:45 AM)JesseB Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 01:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You have yet to prove that consciousness is brain function.
You have to prove X=Y before you can prove Y=X

Saying something is a fact without providing evidence, means it's just your opinion.

FFS another opinion. Shocking
I'm beginning to think you never do any research at all because all you ever seem to do is give your unsubstantiated opinions. Drinking Beverage

Maybe we aren't communicating on the same level.
See if this helps:
You are retarded. Facepalm

WHAT?! Dude... have you EVER taken a math class? What you're saying is gibberish.

I remember a quote "Dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit"

Except.... You're failing to baffle anyone....


ALSO people have provided evidence. you've ignored all of it and parrot yourself. Seriously its like talking to a poorly programmed bot here. YOU have not shared ANY fucking evidence, or links EXCEPT one or two word definitions that .... well you're the only one who fails to know what those words mean. People have linked a TON of stuff for you to look at you've ignored it all.
Let's examine your claim:
"YOU have not shared ANY fucking evidence, or links EXCEPT one or two word definitions that .... well you're the only one who fails to know what those words mean."

Here is a list of claims/backup links I posted during this thread:

14-03-2017 A soul is nothing more than a self aware being capable of thought.
Citation/Explanation 15-03-2017 From dictionary.com
Quote:The principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

15-03-2017 "A soul is not an incoherent concept"
Citation/Explanation: 15-03-2017 From dictionary.com
Quote:The principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

15-03-2017: "Not all assertions without evidence can be discarded as irrational."
Citation 15-03-2017: wiki "Take for example an Axiom."

15-03-2017: Amoebas have no brain
Citation/Explanation 18-03-2017: [url]http://www.answers.com/Q/Does_an_amoeba_have_a_brain_cell]"An amoeba is considered a single cell organism and does not have a brain" [/url]

15-03-2017: a decrease in brain activity does not cause a decrease in self awareness
Citation/Explanation: 15-03-2017: "Blind Deaf people are no less self aware than you are."

15-03-2017 self awareness is required for cells to propagate and grow
Citation/Explanation: 17-03-2017: dictionary.com Self Awareness definition

Here is a list of claims/backup links my objectors posted during this thread:

Unbeliever:
14-03-2017 "That is not what "soul" means."
To date: No citation or explanation given

15-03-2017 & 17-03-2017 "Consciousness is Brain Function."
To date: No citation given & 15-03-2017: Tells me it is MY duty to do research to backup his claim Facepalm
15-03-2017 "a soul is an incoherent concept."
To date: No citation or explanation given

15-03-2017 "he's an idiot."
To date: No citation or explanation given

17-03-2017 "fractal wrongness is pretty much the defining trait in any post Shane makes"
To date: No correlation given between Shane's posts & fractal wrongness

17-03-2017: "things have already been proven"
To date: He hasn't proven anything. He just posits that he does in every single post

17-03-2017: Claims "It wouldn't be self-awareness if something that wasn't part of the self was being aware of you" is a definition.
To date: Hasn't shown how this is a definition. Until then it remains an opinion.

Heart Tierny:

15-03-2017 "consciousness/self awareness is brain function."
Citation/Explanation: 15-03-2017 The links he provided as evidence says that consciousness is:
"reducible to certain component parts and another that is experiential and irreducible"
"Nothing we can say using the fundamental categories like mass-energy, space, time etc. seems to describe consciousness. "
"Until the problem is better understood, a formal definition of consciousness is likely to be either misleading or overly restrictive,"
This guy provided evidence contrary to his claimFacepalm

15-03-2017: "Assertion without evidence, therefore it can be discarded as irrational."
To date: No citation or explanation given

15-03-2017: "a decrease in brain activity causes a decrease in self awareness"
To date: No citation or explanation given

DLJ:
15-03-2017 he disagrees when I say amoebas have no brain
To date: No citation or explanation given

JesseB :
15-03-2017 "There is no need for self awareness for cells to propagate and grow"
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given. Premise is the Conclusion

15-03-2017 memories = the self
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given.

16-03-2017: your word choices betray certain errors in the logical thought process behind your statements
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given.

16-03-2017: 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
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given.

16-03-2017: claim's I posit what the soul IS. When have I ever done this?
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given.

17-03-2017: Your argument fails both at Science and Philosophy.
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given.

Jay Vogelsong:
15-03-2017 consciousness isn't continuous during life
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given

15-03-2017 'commonly understood' means unequivocated
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given

Momsurroundedbyboys
17-03-2017 Consciousness comes from the brain
To date: No citation, examples or explanation given, yet brainless jelly fishes are self aware.

Clearly I am not the one guilty of making unsubstantiated claims so how do you arrive at the conclusion:
"YOU have not shared ANY fucking evidence, or links EXCEPT one or two word definitions that .... well you're the only one who fails to know what those words mean."

This is a perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Wiki:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
fail to accurately gauge skill in others
recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill

The facts speak for themselves
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 08:29 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(17-03-2017 11:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 10:35 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's Circular because the cause of something cannot lie within that something. It has to be outside of the system for it to be a cause or it does not satisfy the question.
Why is this so hard to understand?

It's illogical to claim:
The brain is the cause of self awareness in the brain (a subset of the entire body).
That's circular logic

My grandma used to say common sense comes before book sense.
You cannot examine the science of a claim if the claim is not logical to begin with.

No. It's neither illogical, or about "causation".
Consciousness "emerges" (it is not *caused*) by brains. Brains evolved over millions of years until they eventually had the capacity for consciousness. One brain does not *cause* it's own multiple functions. They evolved.
Emergence is not "causation". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
The neurological systems EVOLVED, (for example the visual system is not *caused* by a brain). Brains evolved the capacity to interpret the way light enters the eye, and works on the optical systems. Nothing is *caused*. The word is inappropriate. Many things we observe EMERGE from properly functioning complex systems. It has nothing to do with "causation".
wiki:
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

Brainless Jelly fishes are self aware (they eat) & they interact with their environment. They are conscious of themselves and their environment.
Therefore this statement is illogical:
"Consciousness "emerges" (it is not *caused*) by brains."

You cannot apply further science if you logic is flawed
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: