0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
while machines can just simulate the feeling of pain or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do consciously , and as other living organisms do as well .
QuoteSimply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus .And you know this how? Sounds like you're treading dangerously close to the "argument from incredulity" fallacy ("I don't understand how consciousness could arise from physical sources, therefore it cannot arise from physical sources).QuoteEmergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus .Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts There aren't any empirical facts behind your arguments either. Your arguments are basically philosophical and untestable. How do you get empirical facts out of that? Even if it seems "obvious" or "common sense" to you that qualia (personal perception of consciousness and the senses) can't be tied to the physical world, that doesn't mean that it can't truly be. There are many things that were once considered obvious or common sense which are now known to be wrong (flat earth, geocentric universe, objects only being in one place at a time, universal standards for space and time).QuoteConsciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus = who does ?That's obviously not true, as injury and amputation/removal of limbs and non-vital internal organs have no affect on one's mind or perceptions.Here's an interesting riddle for you: in order to treat seizures, some people have the corpus callosum of the brain cut. This is basically a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. However, when this is cut, the person's behavior changes in such a way as to suggest that there are two minds or consciousness now in control (as the two lobes of the brain are now unable to communicate with each other). Since each lobe controls a different side of the body, each side of the body can do different things, something in contradiction to each other. One hand may try to put pants on while the other tries to take them off. If you whisper a question into one ear, the person may give a different answer than if the same question is asked in the other ear. How exactly would this physical manipulation of the brain generate two minds if the mind does not arise physically?
Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus .
Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus .Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus = who does ?
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.That is science's biggest mistake, pushing this non-explanation as an explanation. It's manifestly wrong when it comes to pain and suffering, and by extension it's wrong about every other kind of quale too.
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.
Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...QuoteUp to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain then ,say, that are related to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ? If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?
QuoteUp to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/11/2013 18:15:25If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain then ,say, that are related to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ? If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ? Memories have been localized to even individual neurons in the brain, although researchers did not expect it. I can cite the articles in Nature, but I suspect you won't care. 200 years of science has definitely failed to show that brain is a receiver or has any structures in it that act as a receiver. If it were true, as you yourself say above, "then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain." 200 years of science has also failed to show that consciousness is transmitted as a signal. As one critic of this argument pointed out, "Considering the vast amount of information encoded in such a signal for all humans on Earth, it would have to be exceedingly energetic, VERY steady and not prone to interference, yet utterly elusive." Claiming this is just an "analogy" begs the question, analogy to what actual mechanism, and what is the evidence for for that mechanism? My argument is not even materialist - explain the mechanism, which should be easier for you to do now that Cooper has convinced you that mechanisms are required in science.
You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death?
The thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer.
A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured.
Computation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.
"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .
QuoteYou've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death?We don't yet know the answer to this, but to say that the fact that we don't understand it means that it can't be material is an argument from ignorance.
QuoteThe thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer.If it cannot "just emerge", then must it exist before the creation of the brain? Where does it exist in the meantime and how does it come into being, then?
QuoteA ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured.No, a ground-up car cannot motor along. That's the point.
QuoteComputation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.And you know this how?
Some people are born without the ability to feel pain. This lack of an ability to feel pain can be linked to physical causes, such as excessive endorphins in the brain and sodium channel anomalies, which in turn are caused by mutations.
If the experience of pain must be immaterial in origin...
...then why are purely physical processes able to eliminate it?
Wait, what? I'm not quite sure what you're arguing, as you now say that pain must be material because immaterial things can't suffer. It seemed before like you were arguing that the mind and its sensations must be immaterial because no single part of a material system can experience these things.
Once again, DonQuichotte, you did not specifically address my point about Split-Brain Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
On a second note, you keep emphasizing that science must not exclude the immaterial. However, you have also said that science cannot be applied to the immaterial. So, at best, science should simply ignore it instead of making any assumptions about it. If that is the case, then why complain that "science is being misused" if it is not appropriate to studying the immaterial in the first place? Science is a process, not an intelligence which can reason. It makes no assumptions. Only scientists are able to do that.
I believe in the immaterial as well, but the fact that so many properties of the mind can be linked so closely with (and controlled/manipulated by) physical processes suggests to me that the human mind has a physical origin. Take note that I believe in the spiritual realm, so I'm not a materialist.
Something strange happened. I tried to post a reply, but the forum informed me that I tried to post a "blacklisted term" and thus refused to post my message. Frustratingly, it would not inform me as to which term was blacklisted, so I could not correct my message. I would appreciate it if the mods would do something about that.
I think I figured out what the problem was. I used the "at" symbol in my post, which was probably picked up by the forum as an attempt to spell out an E-mail address. That's typical of spambot posts, so I'll just avoid the use of that in the future.
To DonQuichotte:There is no paradox if I only believe that the human mind originates in the physical (and by extension, animal minds). The existence of a physical mind is not incompatible with the existence of an immaterial mind that something like a spirit might possess. Both kinds of minds can exist simultaneously. The minds would simply have different natures and function in fundamentally different ways.