0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"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.
You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death?
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?
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.
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.
A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured.
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?
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.
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?
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.
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.
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, 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.