[alancalverd]

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 .

Correct, except for two words: "cannot" and "obviously"

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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  .

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).

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 

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).

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 ?

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?

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Well said , Dave :

The biggest error ever made in science is that the image of the process gets confused with the cause of the process , and hence that silly materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origins or nature of consciousness is false :

The biggest error ever made in the name of science :

.............

Folks :

The core issue here is , once again , as follows :

We shouldn't try to ossify science as to hold it imprisonned within a certain false conception of nature , as it has been the case since the 19th century at least thus .
Science that's a kind of an effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that should be completly free in its inquiry in relation to reality whatever the nature of which   might turn out to be .
So, to keep science confined to just  a certain conception of nature is like pretending that we do already know what the nature of reality is , and it is more like dictating to an adeventurer such as science what specific part of reality it must explore , and no other .
Science that's still a relatively young effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that  cannot pretend to know the nature of reality as a whole already , an adventurer that must be totally free in  exploring reality , or just the parts of reality it can dela with empirically , free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be thus .
The mainstream materialist conception of nature , and hence the 'scientific world view " , just hold back science and restrict its scope ,realm ,reach and jurisdiction , by keeping science imprisonned within the materialist version of reality that's obviously false.
The materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature , in the sense that reality is just material or physical , is false , and hence the materialist 'scientific world view " is false also .
Reality is thus not just physical or material ,which means that all physical sciences for that matter must undergo a revolutionary and radical change , in order to be able to deal with the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the materialist false "scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ,if all physical sciences want to fully deserve being called sciences at least : science thus has no choice but to include the missing part of reality in its attempts to try to describe , explain or understand reality as a whole .
Science must be totally free to explore reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be , instead of being held captive within a particular conception of nature, a false one at that  .
Science whose nature is to try to go beyond what it has already revealed , including beyond the laws of physics themselves .
There might be some more fundamental processes or whatever that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves thus , who knows ? and that might turn out to be totally different from any human notion of law that's just a human projection .
No wonder that modern physics do speak in terms of fields , for example : electro-magnetic and other fields thus : even the most basic particules are a matter of waves and mass ...
Do the maths then .

Cheers.

[Kryptid]

Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...

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.

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...

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.

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]


It all comes down to the following  :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .

So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?

Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus  :
Even evolution itself  cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence  ,the same goes for  the origins of human language....and the rest .

[cheryl j]

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 ?

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

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.

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 ?

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.

[/quote]

(Prior note :
You are just confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process , in relation to the old-new -eternal body-mind issue  memory is just a part of .
Second : the mind is in the brain, or that memory is stored in the brain ....are just surreal absurd false implausible ...extensions of the materialist version of reality as a whole , in the sense that reality is just physical or material .
Third : Cooper did convince me of nothing regarding causation , see my reply to you on the subject there on the consciousness thread : there might be some more fundamental ,deeper , and hence other unknown forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , maybe totally different forms of causation at that ,science might be able to find out about somehow , relatively speaking ,  if the missing part of reality would be included , as it will be in fact , by all sciences when they will reject materialism whose end is nearer than ever  .
Science will be able to do the latter and much more , science whose very nature is to try to dispell any dogmas , lies, deceit , self-deceit , half -truths , make -believe ...relatively speaking then .
Science whose very nature is to try to go beyond what it has been able to reveal so far .)



Dear lady :
Nice to have been knowing  you all , this way at least ,it's been an enormous  pleasure , you have no idea ,despite all my disappointments in you, guys :
But , as the author of "I am strange loop " (dlorde mentioned that in some of his posts , a book i did download and read some parts of : you would be delighted to read it , simply because he shares what you said here above with you and much more  , via his highly elaborate mathematical maze and complex abstractions , models ... through his materialist belief  ,he did take for granted as  the forest  or as the whole pic ,while that was just a tree in fact that did hide the forest from his blinded-by-materialism  sight  , a metaphor he used himself in that book of his , but he could not see it did apply perfectly to his core message and life ,as displayed in that book of his thus ) ,as the author thus of that book said :

"The gain is worth the loss " : it goes without saying thus that this same saying applies in totally different ways and contexts to he and i .

So, i am gonna just have to leave you with the following , while wishing you the very best from the very bottom of my heart , to all of you in fact , regarding your own lives , work, search , journeys ....on this temporary mortal world .

Here you go , i do hope that you would just absorb the core message of this  final message  of mine  , as follows , not via your cognitive human unparalled intelligence that's not the highest kind of human intelligence :

Folks :

Sorry, but  i do have to say the following : no insults , just facts, facts i cannot but deduce from your own stubborn attitudes here , in the very face of reality that stares at you via both of its eyes , via its  physical material and via its  mental eyes ,metaphorically speaking then  :
You're so dogmatic ,so narrow-minded ,so irrational ....and hopeless that science proper will be able to move on beyond your false materialist beliefs  and beyond you , guys , ,and leave you behind as a result , no doubt about that= inevitable = just a matter of ...time thus ,simply because materialism's end is nearer than ever  .
You cannot stop progress,seriously  .
You are just fighting against windmills ,as the fictitious  Don Quichot used to do .
That's 1 o the reasons why i did choose this nick of mine , in order to state the fact that we are all one or other relative forms of Don Quichot , in many ways , at some points of our own journeys,including myself thus  .
Don Quichot that applies to many situations ,false beliefs ,  states of mind , positions, attitudes ,dogmas , delusions, illusions,fairy tales  ...in many ways .
Don Quichot that's an endless and an ever-changing source of inspiration , and an endless source of irony , sarcasm, humor ......which can be applied to all peoples '  dogmas , false beliefs , delusions, states of mind , illusions , fairy tales ...

The dogmatic delusional illusory ...tragic-hilarious absurd implausible , inconsitent , incoherent ....pathetic ...you name it ....materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " is an unparalleled  major example of Don Quichotian Kafkaian pursuit and chasing of a mirage in the form of trying to explain "everything = nothing " just in terms of physics and chemistry , by assuming that reality is just material or physical , an absurd  surreal  false implausible dogmatic ideological  .....materialist version of reality ,that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " for so long now , at the expense of science , and hence at the expence of the truth, at the expense of humanity and humanity's progess -evolution ....= what a huge crime against humanity that has been , what an unparalleled ultimate con and scam , science will be able to reject and leave behind = science whose very nature is to dispell any dogmas , any untruths ,any half-truths even ,  any lies , any deceit , self-deceit , make-believe ....for that matter .

"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .

Nice week-end though , have fun , do not take yourselves too seriously as to ossify yourselves ,otherwise , we would be forced to put you in some sort of a museum haha , try to ridicule  yourselves if you wanna detect your intrinsic silly imperfect sides and your human, all too human , flaws .

Science is just a human activity , and hence just a reflection of all the highest and of all the lowest which are in all of us ,or as a great poet said :

"...But i say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each of you ,
So, the wicked and the weak cannot fall below the lowest which is in you also .."

Know thy self   then , i must add : science is nothing but ...you, as human beings , science is just a reflection of the highest and of the lowest which are in all of us thus .

Best wishes .

[Kryptid]

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.

You'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.

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.

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?

A 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.

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.

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?

[SimpleEngineer]

Why do we not consider to resolve this discussion by burden of proof..

Scientists will continue to work their thing and see if things are materialistic..

DQ can work his magic to prove that things arent materialistic.

Give us 1 piece of proof and you win the argument.. Science provides plenty of proof disproving what was previously thought of as immaterial so far.. yet they will keep heading towards fully understanding the universe (with or wihtout materialistic explanations) and if they do find the immaterial, science will try to find the patterns or determinism of said immaterial. (although that would then turn the immaterial > material by your view)

Give 1 example of something which you have solid proof of being immaterial, if you cannot supply 1 unattested fact, then why do you even bother trying to argue your point?

[alancalverd]

"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .

but demonstrably untrue. The only puzzle is why you keep repeating nonsense llike this. Are you trying to convince yourself?

[David Cooper]

You'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.

That's one of Don's mistakes. There's no reason to suppose that if a brain can feel pain in some way that the material of the brain doesn't feel pain, so it's pretty easy to solve this part of the problem and to identify a possible sufferer (or sufferers) which have enough substance to them to be able to suffer. The fact that all the material of the brain is repeatedly replaced is unimportant, because the sufferer needn't be the same one throughout your life - the "soul" could be replaced with a new one and the new one would have no way of telling that it wasn't the old one.

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.

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?

There's no reason why whatever it is that suffers can't be eternal. The material in rocks could be sentient too for all we know. The real problem for science is not so much in identifying the actual sufferer though, but in how you can get knowledge of experience of qualia out of the sufferer and into an information system capable of generating data about that experience.

A 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.

That was a bad edit - clearly I meant to say non-ground-up, but I started trying to phrase the whole thing a different way and my modification of it then went wrong.

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.

And you know this how?

Do you seriously think you can torture an action or pure geometry or number?

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.

Some light bulbs are attached to light fittings which are not connected up to the electricity supply due to a breakage. Some light fittings don't have bulbs in them. There are many reasons why a light may not work, but the causes of the failure do not necessarily tell you anything about how light is produced in the bulb. In the case of the brain, it's communications that are being disrupted rather than power, so disrupting them tells you even less. What it may eventually do is pinpoint locations where pain is experienced though, but that could be hard to do because you could be breaking the connections that prevent the experience or you may be breaking connections that report the experience - you can't tell the difference.

If the experience of pain must be immaterial in origin...

Why should it be immaterial? My argument is that it should be material because immaterial things such as actions/geometry/number can't suffer.

...then why are purely physical processes able to eliminate it?

If you interfere with any part of the chain of causation, of course the effect will be affected by that, regardless of how the suffering part is done. My complaint here is that the standard scientific account of consciousness involves qualia such as pain being experienced by something that doesn't exist as anything that could realistically experience pain (e.g. an action, geometry or plurality) while denying that those parts of the system which could more reasonably experience qualia (e.g. matter or energy) are banned from doing so. The reality with emergence is that anything that "emerges" is always 100% rooted in the components of the system (which includes the fabric of space and the rules which it imposes on the contents). If pain is experienced collectively by n items in arrangement x and arrangement x is not something capable of experiencing pain, then at least one of the n items (or a part of at least one of them) must be experiencing the pain. Alternatively, pain could be a compound sensation and different components of the system could experience different parts of the sensation, but to have them all experienced by a system without any of the parts experiencing anything is simply not viable.

Alternatively, if none of the n items in a system arranged with geometry x experienced anything, but pain was experienced by the system, then geometry x must have experienced the pain. Sentient geometry is the only solution left open in such a case, but it is infinitely more far fetched. [We can actually rule out the whole idea of sentient plurality because that would not be disrupted by the break up of the system, so it's only geometry that remains.]

[Kryptid]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

Your initial interpretation must have been performed too quickly to judge what you were reading correctly. Here's the starting point again:-

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.

[Kryptid]

I'm on vacation right now, so I'm not feeling too much into debating, but let me see if I follow. So your stance is that consciousness is not a phenomenon that emerges by the combination of different parts of the brain working together, but instead comes from some sub-part of the brain that is already conscious?

[David Cooper]

My position on it is that nothing can emerge to do such an important thing as to suffer without any of the physical components feeling anything. If a heap of atoms can't suffer and they aren't allowed to suffer even once they are rearranged into a functioning brain, what is it in there that's capable of suffering that wasn't in the original heap? Complexity? Can you torture something so abstract as complexity? Where's your sufferer? If you can't propose something that could realistically suffer, you don't have any suffering, or any other qualia, or consciousness. Emergence produces a magical sufferer of no substance whatsoever, and that's a very poor solution.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Once again, DonQuichotte, you did not specifically address my point about Split-Brain Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

That's an extremely puzzling phenomena indeed : i would not call that "split-brain " syndrome though : it is just a specific brain disorder , like when specific areas of the brain are damaged , so their corresponding aspects of consciousness woud just have a "hard time " communicating with them properly , whatever that communication might be, by coordinating between them , which results in that "spli brain " phenomena , i guess, i dunno  .

I do still see the physical brain as just some sort of both a generator and a receiver , while consciousness is some sort of a transmitter .

How the immaterial consciousness does communicate or interact with the physical brain , is anybody's guess indeed

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.

You do seem not to know the fact that science   ( science  is just the scientific method used or practiced by scientists  humans , science is just a human activity thus : personifying science is just a metaphor ) , science thus  is driven by the assumption that the universe is intelligible ,a scientific core assumption  without which there would be no point in trying to explain describe and hence understand the universe through science thus ,   and by the materialist meta-paradigm , the latter that "sees " reality as a whole as just being material or physical .

So, science has thus been assuming for so long now that reality as a whole is just material or physical , thanks to materialism thus .
When science will reject materialism, and hence the latter's false version of reality or false conception of nature in all sciences for that matter , then, science will be able to expand its realm , reach and jurisdiction as to include the missing part of reality , the immaterial one ( or just the part of it though that can be dealt with empirically: see how Sheldrake, for example , tries to study telepathy scientifically. )  , that has been labeled as being non-existent or as false by the mainstream "scientific world view " , or as being just material or physical .

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.

How can you then believe in the existence of the immaterial or spiritual , while believing at the same time in the "truthfulness " of the materialist mainstream " scientific world view ", the latter that excludes , per definition, the existence of the immaterial or spiritual as such then ? = a real paradox you gotta try to sort out or solve for yourself , if you wanna be consistent with yourself at least .

P.S.: To say that the immaterial or non-physical mind can have a physical origin, as you put it is just yet another extension of the materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , just an extension of the materialist false conception of nature , just an extension thus of the materialist false version of reality , just an extension of the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " concerning the nature of reality that's allegedly just material or physical .

So, if the mind or consciousness can originate from the physical brain, then , everything is physical or material , including the mind or consciousness, and therefore there are no such things such as the immaterial realm or spirituality ......

Try to solve that paradox of yours , in the above mentioned sense thus : Good luck indeed : you cannot have it both ways :

You either do believe in the "truthfulness " of the -in-fact- false 'scientific world view"  , which means that reality as a whole is just material or physical and therefore there are no such things such as the immaterial side of reality or spirituality as such , or you do reject the false 'scientific world view " while believing in the existence of the immaterial realm or spirituality .

[Kryptid]

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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.

[/quote]

The exact very same thing happened to me twice : i searched  and searched for a non-specified potentially blacklisted term, in vain , but then i removed that symbol one uses in email addresses  ( at or add or whatever ) from my post in questio , and that was the presumed blacklisted term  haha weird .

P.S: That puzzling so-called split-brain syndrome that's a kindda disconnection between the 2 brain hemispheres is very interesting indeed : when the both hemispheres are disconnected like that ,  their corresponding aspects of consciousness get also disconnected  as a result  ,which does result in the seemingly experience of 2 minds thus , i guess .

[Kryptid]

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 David Cooper:

So does consciousness exist on a different plane than physical matter? What is it about this plane that allows consciousness to come into existence? How does a conscious mind which exists in this plane locate and link itself to a brain made out of physical matter?

My best guess is that consciousness is not a consequence of any single concept such as complexity, geometry or particular materials, but rather an interplay between different factors acting together to create just the right process. I would probably liken it to life itself: there is no one factor (reproduction, growth, ingestion, excretion, metabolism, etc.) that makes something alive, but instead all of these things working together make something alive. When looking at dead matter like charcoal, air or water, it really is hard to fathom how the same atoms which make up those materials are capable of being arranged in such a way as to make something as novel as life. Nonetheless, we know that not only are living things made of atoms just as dead matter is, but that life can turn non-life into new life by ingesting and assimilating it into new tissue.

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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.

I did tell you about just that here above  ,you do seem to have missed somehow , weird .

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.

I do not get that : try to elaborate on that then .

The mind or consciousness in any given living organism cannot be physical , obviously, otherwise try to make some sort of a sentient machine then = cannot be done , obviously , not now , not tomorrow , and not in a trillion years to come either  .

I do just think of human consciousness as a process , as the soul or the self .

Just tell me then how the soul or the self can be physical = a paradox .

Or just how the "unconscious " matter can give rise to the immaterial consciousness then .

Mission...impossible , obviously .