Post Reply
Page 9 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 11:47AM #81
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:02PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:06PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:15PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:46AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:27PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:


I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."


The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.




The Mind/Brain dichotomy is nothing more than a logical paradox. Wholeness is neither Mind nor Brain, it is a Mind<->Brain Unity.


Why would Wholeness need connectivity?


 



Yes, even in science they say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If so, mind and consciousness can never be created or destroyed.




I think you're a little confused, williejhonlo.


The fact that energy cannot be destroyed doesn't imply that mind, or consciousness, cannot be a product of the brain, as it obviously is.


And I think the evidence is compelling that the mind can be reduced to the brain. There is certainly no compelling evidence pointing in the other direction. Wishful thinking; yes, evidence; no. The mind is what the brain does.



I think they say that energy can't be created as well.




Energy can't be created or destroyed, but most of its permutations are temporary. Consciousness is dependent on the brain that produces it.



Not all living things have brains but exhibit conscious behavior.


Really, williejhonlo, give some examples of living things without brains exhibiting "conscious" behavior? Of course, you'll have to define what you mean by 'consciousness' first.


No one can explain or show how something as ineffable or ethereal as consciousness or mind arises out of matter.


What is the essential difference between mind and matter?


IMHO the mind> brain debate fits in the same category as abiogenesis, it's a hypothesis.


Yes, but like abiogenesis, there are some compelling explanations. There is no need to invoke magic.






As for living things without brains that exhibit consciousness that link address in post 46 was interesting. As for what I mean by consciousness, Mr. Schwartz gave a good example,"Consciousness is more than perceiving and knowing;it is knowing that you know." The difference between mind and matter is that matter has properties that give it physicality. I can touch, feel, smell,hear,taste something physical but mind and consciousness are too ineffable or ethereal for you to do that.


Yes, there is no need to invoke magic, but like abiogenesis, the brain producing consciousness is not something observable because consciousness is not something you can see.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 11:57AM #82
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:59AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Namchuck wrote:


You wrote, willejhonlo, that:


'Wisdom doesn't come from the brain, wisdom comes from experience.'



Wisdom comes from a brain capable of analysing and learning from its experiences.


I have not encountered the kind of "wisdom" that might come from the absence of a brain, have you?



This would go against epiphenomenalism whichs states that a nonphysical phenomena cannot act on anything physical.




What would go against epiphenomenalism?



The brain learning. Nothing innert can learn anything, could you actually teach your computer something?




I'll answer your question should you give me an example of the sort of "wisdom" that arises other than from creatures with brains? 



My contention is that we learn from our mistakes from experience. And experience comes in "time" without time to learn, we can learn nothing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 4:17PM #83
Namchuck
Posts: 11,869

Apr 21, 2012 -- 11:47AM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:02PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:06PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:15PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:46AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:27PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:


I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."


The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.




The Mind/Brain dichotomy is nothing more than a logical paradox. Wholeness is neither Mind nor Brain, it is a Mind<->Brain Unity.


Why would Wholeness need connectivity?


 



Yes, even in science they say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If so, mind and consciousness can never be created or destroyed.




I think you're a little confused, williejhonlo.


The fact that energy cannot be destroyed doesn't imply that mind, or consciousness, cannot be a product of the brain, as it obviously is.


And I think the evidence is compelling that the mind can be reduced to the brain. There is certainly no compelling evidence pointing in the other direction. Wishful thinking; yes, evidence; no. The mind is what the brain does.



I think they say that energy can't be created as well.




Energy can't be created or destroyed, but most of its permutations are temporary. Consciousness is dependent on the brain that produces it.



Not all living things have brains but exhibit conscious behavior.


Really, williejhonlo, give some examples of living things without brains exhibiting "conscious" behavior? Of course, you'll have to define what you mean by 'consciousness' first.


No one can explain or show how something as ineffable or ethereal as consciousness or mind arises out of matter.


What is the essential difference between mind and matter?


IMHO the mind> brain debate fits in the same category as abiogenesis, it's a hypothesis.


Yes, but like abiogenesis, there are some compelling explanations. There is no need to invoke magic.






As for living things without brains that exhibit consciousness that link address in post 46 was interesting.


You've dodged answering that one, williejhonlo. 


As for what I mean by consciousness, Mr. Schwartz gave a good example,"Consciousness is more than perceiving and knowing;it is knowing that you know." The difference between mind and matter is that matter has properties that give it physicality. I can touch, feel, smell,hear,taste something physical but mind and consciousness are too ineffable or ethereal for you to do that.


Then give an example of a life form without a brain that exhibits activity that conforms with Chalmers definition of consciousness?


Yes, there is no need to invoke magic, but like abiogenesis, the brain producing consciousness is not something observable because consciousness is not something you can see.


There are a whole lot of things that we cannot directly see but can confidently explain without having to draw baroque assumptions about 'ineffability'. Ineffability is simply the license some give themselves to postulate mystical forces.










Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 4:20PM #84
Namchuck
Posts: 11,869

Apr 21, 2012 -- 11:57AM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:59AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Namchuck wrote:


You wrote, willejhonlo, that:


'Wisdom doesn't come from the brain, wisdom comes from experience.'



Wisdom comes from a brain capable of analysing and learning from its experiences.


I have not encountered the kind of "wisdom" that might come from the absence of a brain, have you?



This would go against epiphenomenalism whichs states that a nonphysical phenomena cannot act on anything physical.




What would go against epiphenomenalism?



The brain learning. Nothing innert can learn anything, could you actually teach your computer something?




I'll answer your question should you give me an example of the sort of "wisdom" that arises other than from creatures with brains? 



My contention is that we learn from our mistakes from experience. And experience comes in "time" without time to learn, we can learn nothing.




That's not much of a contention, williejhonlo. I think most would agree, and I've said as much myself. But you've failed - again- to address the question I posed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 11:03AM #85
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

Apr 21, 2012 -- 4:17PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 11:47AM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:54AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:02PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:06PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:15PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:46AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:27PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Neomonist wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:


I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."


The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.




The Mind/Brain dichotomy is nothing more than a logical paradox. Wholeness is neither Mind nor Brain, it is a Mind<->Brain Unity.


Why would Wholeness need connectivity?


 



Yes, even in science they say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If so, mind and consciousness can never be created or destroyed.




I think you're a little confused, williejhonlo.


The fact that energy cannot be destroyed doesn't imply that mind, or consciousness, cannot be a product of the brain, as it obviously is.


And I think the evidence is compelling that the mind can be reduced to the brain. There is certainly no compelling evidence pointing in the other direction. Wishful thinking; yes, evidence; no. The mind is what the brain does.



I think they say that energy can't be created as well.




Energy can't be created or destroyed, but most of its permutations are temporary. Consciousness is dependent on the brain that produces it.



Not all living things have brains but exhibit conscious behavior.


Really, williejhonlo, give some examples of living things without brains exhibiting "conscious" behavior? Of course, you'll have to define what you mean by 'consciousness' first.


No one can explain or show how something as ineffable or ethereal as consciousness or mind arises out of matter.


What is the essential difference between mind and matter?


IMHO the mind> brain debate fits in the same category as abiogenesis, it's a hypothesis.


Yes, but like abiogenesis, there are some compelling explanations. There is no need to invoke magic.






As for living things without brains that exhibit consciousness that link address in post 46 was interesting.


You've dodged answering that one, williejhonlo. 


As for what I mean by consciousness, Mr. Schwartz gave a good example,"Consciousness is more than perceiving and knowing;it is knowing that you know." The difference between mind and matter is that matter has properties that give it physicality. I can touch, feel, smell,hear,taste something physical but mind and consciousness are too ineffable or ethereal for you to do that.


Then give an example of a life form without a brain that exhibits activity that conforms with Chalmers definition of consciousness?


Yes, there is no need to invoke magic, but like abiogenesis, the brain producing consciousness is not something observable because consciousness is not something you can see.


There are a whole lot of things that we cannot directly see but can confidently explain without having to draw baroque assumptions about 'ineffability'. Ineffability is simply the license some give themselves to postulate mystical forces.












Nam, this planet is a lifeform, where is its brain? A tree is a lifeform where is its brain? Since there are a lot things we cannot directly see, as you agree, makes the so called explanation, just speculation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 11:15AM #86
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

Apr 21, 2012 -- 4:20PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 11:57AM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 2:59AM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Namchuck wrote:


You wrote, willejhonlo, that:


'Wisdom doesn't come from the brain, wisdom comes from experience.'



Wisdom comes from a brain capable of analysing and learning from its experiences.


I have not encountered the kind of "wisdom" that might come from the absence of a brain, have you?



This would go against epiphenomenalism whichs states that a nonphysical phenomena cannot act on anything physical.




What would go against epiphenomenalism?



The brain learning. Nothing innert can learn anything, could you actually teach your computer something?




I'll answer your question should you give me an example of the sort of "wisdom" that arises other than from creatures with brains? 



My contention is that we learn from our mistakes from experience. And experience comes in "time" without time to learn, we can learn nothing.




That's not much of a contention, williejhonlo. I think most would agree, and I've said as much myself. But you've failed - again- to address the question I posed.



You are assuming that because you have a brain you have wisdom, but nothing can manufacture wisdom, it is its own entity. Just knowing that you "know" is wisdom.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 5:17PM #87
Namchuck
Posts: 11,869





williejhonlo: Nam, this planet is a lifeform, where is its brain?


No, williejhonlo, this planet is not a lifeform, so your question is redundant. 


williejhonlo: A tree is a lifeform where is its brain?


Nobody was claiming that all lifeforms have brains, were they? 


williejhonlo: Since there are a lot things we cannot directly see, as you agree, makes the so called explanation, just speculation.


How can somebody be so consistently wrong!? 


Can we see gravity? No, be we can deduce considerable information about the universe from its operations, very little of it being speculative. Your benighted equivocations are beginning to tire me. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 5:37PM #88
Namchuck
Posts: 11,869

Apr 22, 2012 -- 5:30PM, Namchuck wrote:



williejhonlo: You are assuming that because you have a brain you have wisdom.


I am assuming no such thing.


I am merely stating that 'wisdom' comes, if it comes at all, from the human ability to analyse and learn from experience.


williejhonlo: (B)ut nothing can manufacture wisdom, it is its own entity.


What unthinking and unadulterated tosh!


Wisdom is not an "entity", it's a product of reflective minds. Provide the evidence that 'wisdom' exists independently outside of minds capable of reflection (it beats me how you are going to be able to do that)?


You just keep digging holes for yourself with your unjustified assertions, williejhonlo, holes that you are simply unable to extricate yourself from. One would have to ask if there is any wisdom in such a predisposition? 


Just knowing that you "know" is wisdom.


A [false] proposition that you have failed to provide the least evidence for. Just "knowing" that one knows is not wisdom. A person can know that they know smoking is bad for them, but they may continue to smoke despite it. Is that wisdom?


And speaking of failing to advance evidence for outrageous claims, you have yet to show just how lifeforms without brains are capable of self-reflective consciousness? Time to put your money where your mouth is, huh?


You'll have time to do it as I'll be away for a few days.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 12:42PM #89
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

Apr 22, 2012 -- 5:17PM, Namchuck wrote:






williejhonlo: Nam, this planet is a lifeform, where is its brain?


No, williejhonlo, this planet is not a lifeform, so your question is redundant. 


williejhonlo: A tree is a lifeform where is its brain?


Nobody was claiming that all lifeforms have brains, were they? 


williejhonlo: Since there are a lot things we cannot directly see, as you agree, makes the so called explanation, just speculation.


How can somebody be so consistently wrong!? 


Can we see gravity? No, be we can deduce considerable information about the universe from its operations, very little of it being speculative. Your benighted equivocations are beginning to tire me. 




This planet is something that is not alive? As for the explanations being speculations David Chalmers expressed it nicely when he said, "There is an obvious problem that plagues the development of a theory of consciousness, and that is the paucity of objective data. Conscious experience is not directly observable in an experimental context. So we cannot generate data about the relationship between physical processes and experience at will."


All the explanations are just speculations and hypothesis.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 1:17PM #90
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,908

Apr 22, 2012 -- 5:37PM, Namchuck wrote:


Apr 22, 2012 -- 5:30PM, Namchuck wrote:



williejhonlo: You are assuming that because you have a brain you have wisdom.


I am assuming no such thing.


I am merely stating that 'wisdom' comes, if it comes at all, from the human ability to analyse and learn from experience.Yes, and like all human abilities and qualities like integrity,honor,love,and compassion you cannot trace these qualities to neurons.


williejhonlo: (B)ut nothing can manufacture wisdom, it is its own entity.


What unthinking and unadulterated tosh!


Wisdom is not an "entity", it's a product of reflective minds. Provide the evidence that 'wisdom' exists independently outside of minds capable of reflection (it beats me how you are going to be able to do that)?Yes, reflective minds not brains.


You just keep digging holes for yourself with your unjustified assertions, williejhonlo, holes that you are simply unable to extricate yourself from. One would have to ask if there is any wisdom in such a predisposition? 


Just knowing that you "know" is wisdom.


A [false] proposition that you have failed to provide the least evidence for. Just "knowing" that one knows is not wisdom. A person can know that they know smoking is bad for them, but they may continue to smoke despite it. Is that wisdom? Yes,if you know something is bad for you, that is wisdom. If you can't stop smoking even if you know it's bad for you gives you the wisdom of how lacking self-control overrides intelligence. It tells you something about yourself, and that's wisdom.


And speaking of failing to advance evidence for outrageous claims, you have yet to show just how lifeforms without brains are capable of self-reflective consciousness? Time to put your money where your mouth is, huh?How do you know they are not self-reflective?


You'll have time to do it as I'll be away for a few days.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook