Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2017, 09:25 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2017 09:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 04:28 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I never agreed that self awareness is dependent on the brain.

Yes you did. You agreed that NDE's say something when "bodies were dead, but brains aren't". You didn't realize what you were stupidly agreeing with.

Quote:I posit that the brain & body is dependent of self awareness & that self awareness does not reside within the body

You can "posit" anything. You have no evidence for your woo. None.
I posit you are a wizard, and go to Hogwarts.

Quote:By that definition a brainless Jelly Fish should be classified as Self Aware. It has the ability to recognize itself when it feeds & reproduces & is therefore aware of itself, it's environment & others.

Nope. It has feeding instincts and reproductive instincts. you have no evidence it "sees itself" as anything. You're projecting.

Quote:It would appear you & many others here, are conflating Self Awareness with Cognition

Nope.

Quote:I argue that a sense of self is independent of a brain and others argue that a sense of cognition is dependent on the brain.
Neither of us are wrong but the counter argument put forward is not relative to self awareness.

You "argue'' nothing. All you do as assert, and you have no mechanism of interaction, or any evidence of your baseless assertion.

Quote:This is the 7th time I have said this in this thread. Why is no-one willing to address or counter argue this point?

Because it's nothing but a stupid assertion, and you have presented NO EVIDENCE.

Quote:If I am wrong with my interpretation of Self Awareness then show me please, for I do not see how anyone here can posit self awareness (a sense of self) is not what causes a Jellyfish to feed.

There is NOT ONE marine biologist that says that. The are BORN with instincts. You REALLY should take a science class. They (and humans) start eating immediately they are born. LONG before they have developed a sense of self.

Quote:What would you call an ability to recognize the body you inhabit is hungry, that you need to feed it & how to feed it? This is self awareness in it's most purest/fundamental/basic sense.

Bullshit. It's called "instinct".

Quote:On what logical grounds would you ignore this point i have made? Is it not a logical statement & is it not in-keeping with the definition of self-awareness?

I DISMISS it as ignorant nonsense. NOT ONE scientist or psychologist agrees with your woo.

Quote:On what grounds do you or anyone else here claim self awareness starts when we begin to cognitively rationalize our existence? It obviously didn't come from the definition.

You didn't read the links I gave you. Self-awareness DEVELOPS.
Go get an education.
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/je...brain.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-03-2017, 11:11 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2017 11:44 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim "biology, neurology, and physics" is against mind-body duality.
Citation? Watch how you ignore this simple request.
Your claim is just an opinion until you provide some evidence.

You stupid cunt. You need to show how it works and by what means. But given what is already currently known about physics and biology, that's not a simple matter. So to support your mind-body duality, you need to propose a mechanism (unknown to biology) a medium (unknown to physics) and a method (unknown to neurology) that both better explains all of our current evidence (i.e. the entire field of neurology) and explains how cognitive function is not tied to the brain. So you'd need to explain why animals with smaller brains appear to lack self-awareness, how such a ephemeral 'soul' is affected by evolutionary pressure, how such a 'soul' is created or destroyed, how such a 'soul' interacts with the rest of the universe (matter, forces, and other 'souls'), how the 'soul' and brain work together, why brain trauma appears to affect cognitive function which is supposedly being done in the 'soul', how neurochemistry affects the 'soul', etc.

So, how does it work? How is it transmitted? We can detect quarks, gluons, and neutrinos, but none of them appear to have any influence on or be transmitters for the mind. So if there is communication between our brains and something else, how is that communication transmitted? And how come we haven't yet detected anything like it? Whatever mechanism you are proposing is outside of the currently understood 4 fundamental forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravity), or else we'd have already detected it by now. Do you have evidence for a 5th fundamental force?

This is what I mean when you literally have all of those fields stacked against you. It's not enough for you to pull an idea out of your ass, you need one backed by (at this point) Noble Prize winning levels of research and evidence, that can explain everything we already understand better than our current models do.

Do you have any of this? No? Then you're talking out of your ass. Drinking Beverage


(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A lack of evidence does not falsify a claim. There are ways to falsify a claim, why don't you use them instead of throwing your unsubstantiated opinions around?

Bitch, how can we falsify a claim made without evidence? You've yet to make a hypothesis, how come you expect us to do your work?

Extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence. Lacking that, we can dismiss your claims as the unevidenced garbage that they are.

Suck it.


(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I do not posit absolute truths.
Read my signature.
I posit the validity of a claim based on current knowledge.

Mind-body duality flies in the face of accepted mainstream physics, biology, and neuroscience. You are not working from 'current knowledge', you are shitting all over it in favor of a pet idea.


(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Absolute truths aka Reality requires none subjective interpretation. There is no such thing as none subjective interpretation therefore Absolute truths are historically unreachable.

You fundamentally lack the cognitive ability to even begin to grasp the philosophy of science or truth.

Good luck with that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-03-2017, 11:40 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
BB - Self awareness is developed.

AS - Jellyfish, without brains, are self aware; cause my overly broad interpretation of the definition (which would include bacteria and computer programs) says so.

EK - Okay. So a baby human with a brain lacks object permanence at birth (it too must be developed, it's why the game of peek-a-boo is so enthralling), but a brainless jellyfish is capable of self awareness?

[Image: crickets.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2017, 12:18 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 12:35 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 09:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 04:28 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I never agreed that self awareness is dependent on the brain.

Yes you did. You agreed that NDE's say something when "bodies were dead, but brains aren't". You didn't realize what you were stupidly agreeing with.
I never spoke about NDE's. I spoke about life support.
It simply means Self Awareness is evident in a bodyless brain (life supported bodies). I then went on to say self awareness is evident in a brainless body (jellyfishes)
Logic dictates if you eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
Therefore self awareness must be evident regardless of the brain & body.
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:I posit that self awareness is independent of the brain/body.
You can "posit" anything. You have no evidence for your woo. None.
I posit you are a wizard, and go to Hogwarts.
You don't need evidence to prove something doesn't exist in a certain location.
That's like me saying God doesn't exist in the physical/natural world & you telling me I have no evidence.
"Narrowing Down: The research stage, through a process of elimination, will narrow and focus the research area."
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:By that definition a brainless Jelly Fish should be classified as Self Aware. It has the ability to recognize itself when it feeds & reproduces & is therefore aware of itself, it's environment & others.
Nope. It has feeding instincts and reproductive instincts. you have no evidence it "sees itself" as anything. You're projecting.
Why is "seeing itself" as something relevant to self awareness?
In the articles you posted earlier it clearly states that "Self Awareness is manifest at birth"
The ability to see oneself is called Metacognition
Metacognition (awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes) is earliest manifest at 18 months & not at birth.

Therefore you cannot posit Metacognition ("seeing itself" as something) is a defining characteristic of self awareness or it would contradict the article you posted earlier. According to the article you posted it's a characteristic of a higher level of self awareness.
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:It would appear you & many others here, are conflating Self Awareness with Cognition

Nope.
See Above
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:I argue that a sense of self is independent of a brain and others argue that a sense of cognition is dependent on the brain.
Neither of us are wrong but the counter argument put forward is not relative to self awareness.

You "argue'' nothing. All you do as assert, and you have no mechanism of interaction, or any evidence of your baseless assertion.
You don't need evidence to prove something doesn't exist in a certain location.
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:This is the 7th time I have said this in this thread. Why is no-one willing to address or counter argue this point?

Because it's nothing but a stupid assertion, and you have presented NO EVIDENCE.
See above
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:If I am wrong with my interpretation of Self Awareness then show me please, for I do not see how anyone here can posit self awareness (a sense of self) is not what causes a Jellyfish to feed.

There is NOT ONE marine biologist that says that. The are BORN with instincts. You REALLY should take a science class. They (and humans) start eating immediately they are born. LONG before they have developed a sense of self.
Humans eating "LONG before they have developed a sense of self" is a direct contradiction to the articles you posted earlier which specifically state "self awareness is manifest at birth"
As i stated before Metacognition is simply a higher state of self awareness.

With regards to instincts being contradictory to self awareness I would need a citation. As far as I can tell, instinct & self awareness can co-exist in the same body.
Here is a list of 10 animals the have a degree of self awareness
These animals also show instinctive behavior. Therefore having instinct does not contradict having self awareness.
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:What would you call an ability to recognize the body you inhabit is hungry, that you need to feed it & how to feed it? This is self awareness in it's most purest/fundamental/basic sense.

Bullshit. It's called "instinct".
See Above
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:On what logical grounds would you ignore this point i have made? Is it not a logical statement & is it not in-keeping with the definition of self-awareness?

I DISMISS it as ignorant nonsense. NOT ONE scientist or psychologist agrees with your woo.
See above
Bucky Ball Wrote:
Quote:On what grounds do you or anyone else here claim self awareness starts when we begin to cognitively rationalize our existence? It obviously didn't come from the definition.

You didn't read the links I gave you. Self-awareness DEVELOPS.
Go get an education.
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/je...brain.html
I did read the links.
Develop does not mean Start
It means to Grow
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 12:54 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.




My relationship with this entire thread, summed up in one video.

"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
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
19-03-2017, 12:55 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 12:59 AM by JesseB.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(18-03-2017 11:11 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You claim "biology, neurology, and physics" is against mind-body duality.
Citation? Watch how you ignore this simple request.
Your claim is just an opinion until you provide some evidence.

You stupid cunt. You need to show how it works and by what means. But given what is already currently known about physics and biology, that's not a simple matter. So to support your mind-body duality, you need to propose a mechanism (unknown to biology) a medium (unknown to physics) and a method (unknown to neurology) that both better explains all of our current evidence (i.e. the entire field of neurology) and explains how cognitive function is not tied to the brain. So you'd need to explain why animals with smaller brains appear to lack self-awareness, how such a ephemeral 'soul' is affected by evolutionary pressure, how such a 'soul' is created or destroyed, how such a 'soul' interacts with the rest of the universe (matter, forces, and other 'souls'), how the 'soul' and brain work together, why brain trauma appears to affect cognitive function which is supposedly being done in the 'soul', how neurochemistry affects the 'soul', etc.

So, how does it work? How is it transmitted? We can detect quarks, gluons, and neutrinos, but none of them appear to have any influence on or be transmitters for the mind. So if there is communication between our brains and something else, how is that communication transmitted? And how come we haven't yet detected anything like it? Whatever mechanism you are proposing is outside of the currently understood 4 fundamental forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravity), or else we'd have already detected it by now. Do you have evidence for a 5th fundamental force?

This is what I mean when you literally have all of those fields stacked against you. It's not enough for you to pull an idea out of your ass, you need one backed by (at this point) Noble Prize winning levels of research and evidence, that can explain everything we already understand better than our current models do.

Do you have any of this? No? Then you're talking out of your ass. Drinking Beverage


(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A lack of evidence does not falsify a claim. There are ways to falsify a claim, why don't you use them instead of throwing your unsubstantiated opinions around?

Bitch, how can we falsify a claim made without evidence? You've yet to make a hypothesis, how come you expect us to do your work?

Extraordinary claims like yours require extraordinary evidence. Lacking that, we can dismiss your claims as the unevidenced garbage that they are.

Suck it.


(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I do not posit absolute truths.
Read my signature.
I posit the validity of a claim based on current knowledge.

Mind-body duality flies in the face of accepted mainstream physics, biology, and neuroscience. You are not working from 'current knowledge', you are shitting all over it in favor of a pet idea.


(18-03-2017 08:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Absolute truths aka Reality requires none subjective interpretation. There is no such thing as none subjective interpretation therefore Absolute truths are historically unreachable.

You fundamentally lack the cognitive ability to even begin to grasp the philosophy of science or truth.

Good luck with that.

Can someone define absolute truth, and why anyone should think such a thing COULD exist, let alone DOES exist?

Another imaginary construct imposed on the world without reason.

add it to the list, God, Soul, Absolute Truth, Objective Morality, sin.... The list goes on. I mean... what do you think BB and EK?


(Also not insinuating anyone is a theist, just that the arguments are just as piss poor and full of woo as any theists are. Not believing in a god doesn't automatically make people less crazy).

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
19-03-2017, 12:57 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 12:54 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  



My relationship with this entire thread, summed up in one video.

HAHAHAHA ..... I should have listened to you more closely.......

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
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
19-03-2017, 01:07 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 06:31 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
Another fun thing to ponder.

Octopus have a distributed neural network. They don't have a large central brain, rather they have nerves and neurons spread out mostly among their body, including all of their eight appendages.

Now if a brainless jellyfish is 'self aware', then surely a far more complex octopus is.

If you remove one arm from an octopus, it will continue to function on it's own for a time. It will continue to search for food, and upon capturing it, will attempt to return it to a nonexistent mouth. The severed arm, capable of locomotion, sensory perception, and hunting prey, is conversely not aware that it has been removed from the rest of the body.

Severed Octopus Arms Have a Mind of Their Own @ Smithsonianmag.com
Octopus tentacles still react up to an hour after being severed from their dead owner, and even try to pick up food and feed a phantom mouth


Please AgnosticShane, feel free to attempt to circle this square to fit into your round hole of bullshit. Good luck.


EDIT: Actually, a severed starfish limb will regrown a whole additional starfish. Does it also grow an whole new 'soul', or does it share a 'soul' with it's former body? Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2017, 01:20 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2017 04:06 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 12:55 AM)JesseB Wrote:  Can someone define absolute truth, and why anyone should think such a thing COULD exist, let alone DOES exist?

Another imaginary construct imposed on the world without reason.

add it to the list, God, Soul, Absolute Truth, Objective Morality, sin.... The list goes on. I mean... what do you think BB and EK?


(Also not insinuating anyone is a theist, just that the arguments are just as piss poor and full of woo as any theists are. Not believing in a god doesn't automatically make people less crazy).

Absolute truth is a terrible concept. The problem is that all of us experience the world subjectively; it's both a necessity of reality and how we evolved.

Ignoring for a moment that the concept of 'truth' is something that has been incessantly debated and contested since the formation of language itself.

We understand the world through language. Words have meaning that we give them and that we collectively agree upon, so that we can communicate with one another and with ourselves in our own thoughts. Seriously, deaf people who are not taught sign language will have trouble developing mentally because they don't have an inner voice, built upon a language (in this case, sign language), to help them conceptualize and deal with more abstract concepts. Hence the derogatory term 'deaf and dumb'. Its not that they were actually mentally handicapped, they just lacked the tools to function as well as their peers. Once they were taught the tools they needed (sign language), their cognitive ability averaged out. Deaf people think in sign language, much as how a typical speaker thinks in their native language (and people who speak more than one often think in more than one).

The inner voice is also a driver of self awareness in humans. Funny thing that. Deaf people deprived learning sign language can suffer from an underdeveloped sense of self awareness, but Jellyfish (without brains) somehow seem to manage it, according to AgnosticShane. Consider

Perhaps the jellyfish don't have deaf 'souls'... Dodgy





In case you haven't noticed, language is not objective. Our whole conception of ideas, even something as seemingly objective as a 'fact', is built around subjective interpretation. While you might like to look at a fact, such as that the cessation of molecular motion is zero degrees Kelvin, even the 'absolute truth' of that fact is built around subjective human interpretation, objectification, and language.

Can absolute truth exist?

First get a definition of 'truth' that everyone can universally agree with. Then we'll worry about finding out if it's absolute or not. Drinking Beverage


Regardless, all of that is incidental to dismissing extraordinary claims that lack the extraordinary evidence to back them. The burden of proof does not need absolute truth to be a useful and functioning heuristic.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2017, 02:06 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 01:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 12:55 AM)JesseB Wrote:  Can someone define absolute truth, and why anyone should think such a thing COULD exist, let alone DOES exist?

Another imaginary construct imposed on the world without reason.

add it to the list, God, Soul, Absolute Truth, Objective Morality, sin.... The list goes on. I mean... what do you think BB and EK?


(Also not insinuating anyone is a theist, just that the arguments are just as piss poor and full of woo as any theists are. Not believing in a god doesn't automatically make people less crazy).

Absolute truth is a terrible concept. The problem is that all of us experience the world subjectively; it's both a necessity of reality and how we evolved.

Ignoring for a moment that the concept of 'truth' is something that has been incessantly debated and contested since the formation of language itself.

We understand the world through language. Words have meaning that we give them and that we collectively agree upon, so that we can communicate with one another and with ourselves in our own thoughts. Seriously, deaf people who are not taught sign language will have trouble developing mentally because they don't have an inner voice, built upon a language (in this case, sign language), to help them conceptualize and deal with more abstract concepts. Hence the derogatory term 'deaf and dumb'. Its not that they were actually mentally handicapped, they just lacked the tools to function as well as their peers. Once they were taught the tools they needed (sign language), their cognitive ability averaged out. Deaf people think in sign language, much as how a native speaking thinks in their native language (and people who speak more than one often think in more than one).

The inner voice is also a driver of self awareness in humans. Funny thing that. Deaf people deprived learning sign language can suffer from an underdeveloped sense of self awareness, but Jellyfish (without brains) somehow seem to manage it, according to AgnosticShane. Consider

Perhaps the jellyfish don't have deaf 'souls'... Dodgy





In case you haven't noticed, language is not objective. Our whole conception of ideas, even something as seemingly objective as a 'fact', is built around subjective interpretation. While you might like to look at a fact, such as that the cessation of molecular motion is zero degrees Kelvin, even the 'absolute truth' of that fact is built around subjective human interpretation, objectification, and language.

Can absolute truth exist?

First get a definition of 'truth' that everyone can universally agree with. Then we'll worry about finding out if it's absolute or not. Drinking Beverage


Regardless, all of that is incidental to dismissing extraordinary claims that lack the extraordinary evidence to back them. The burden of proof does not need absolute truth to be a useful and functioning heuristic.

Very well written. Thank you.

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
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: