Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

I wonder what AB thinks of the news that a paralyzed man can play a video game, via his own thoughts.   It seems to be strong evidence of a close brain/mind connection.   His thoughts are registered as signals in his brain, which an implant sends to a computer, which sends electrical impulses to a sleeve around his arm, triggering motion. 

It's getting really hard to deny the brain/mind link.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-13/thought-control-technology-helps-paralysed-man-move-fingers/

I think you'll find he's the soul person they are doing this experiment on.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

It's getting really hard to deny the brain/mind link.

The brain/mind link is quite logical when you consider that the physical brain is the mind's interface to this world.  The brain is essential for processing the information data obtained from our sense organs into something that can be perceived by the conscious mind.

The thing I find fascinating is the difference between existence and awareness of existence.  For example, the brain's interpretation of the image information from our eyes must exist as some pattern within our brain cells, but it is the mind's perception and interpretation of that pattern which forms the colours and shapes we perceive, producing conscious awareness.

Your earlier post about the concept of God was very interesting.  A Catholic priest, explaining the trinity, once said that God the Father is essentially the ultimate source of everything that exists and beyond any comprehension within the dimensions of our universe.   God the son (Jesus) is the physical representation of God in our universe.  The Holy Spirit is God's invisible presence in our universe.  And though God is the source of all that exists, all that exists is not God.

[torridon]

The brain/mind link is quite logical when you consider that the physical brain is the mind's interface to this world.  The brain is essential for processing the information data obtained from our sense organs into something that can be perceived by the conscious mind.

The thing I find fascinating is the difference between existence and awareness of existence.  For example, the brain's interpretation of the image information from our eyes must exist as some pattern within our brain cells, but it is the mind's perception and interpretation of that pattern which forms the colours and shapes we perceive, producing conscious awareness.

I don't think there is a useful distinction to be made between funtionality of mind and functionality of brain.  The functionality is identical as they are the same thing, the difference between mind and brain is one of aspect; the mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.  Perception, along with most brain function occurs subconciously, our conscious minds are only a tiny fraction of what is going in mind/brain, and there is little benefit to be had in distinguishing mind from brain as regards subconscious processes.

[Sassy]

Along with bumping off people who would not go along with it, and also making it compulsory.

Don't mistake false faith for Christianity.

Christ restored the ear of the man who came to arrest him. The Christians were fed to the lions and put to death.
In truth the true faith and saving power of God is not found in the ways of the world.
Christ did not fight back and neither did the true believers.
Man especially the Romans just had to find a way to save their empire from becoming extinct.
They could not fight and conquer in the usual way so they claimed Christianity and built a purpose built way of ruling the world through a religion mingled in with their own false deity worship.

But the true faith, that which Christ and the Apostles started here was nothing to do with a purpose built way or Kingdom on earth outwardly. It is the true Kingdom from within a person. One changed by God through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Not of this world but that which is always within the person.

[floo]

Don't mistake false faith for Christianity.

Christ restored the ear of the man who came to arrest him. The Christians were fed to the lions and put to death.
In truth the true faith and saving power of God is not found in the ways of the world.
Christ did not fight back and neither did the true believers.
Man especially the Romans just had to find a way to save their empire from becoming extinct.
They could not fight and conquer in the usual way so they claimed Christianity and built a purpose built way of ruling the world through a religion mingled in with their own false deity worship.

But the true faith, that which Christ and the Apostles started here was nothing to do with a purpose built way or Kingdom on earth outwardly. It is the true Kingdom from within a person. One changed by God through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Not of this world but that which is always within the person.

If any of that was true, it hasn't done much for you Sass, your attitude really sucks.

[wigginhall]

AB wrote:

Your earlier post about the concept of God was very interesting.  A Catholic priest, explaining the trinity, once said that God the Father is essentially the ultimate source of everything that exists and beyond any comprehension within the dimensions of our universe.   God the son (Jesus) is the physical representation of God in our universe.  The Holy Spirit is God's invisible presence in our universe.  And though God is the source of all that exists, all that exists is not God.

Well, that misses my point.  Ancient ideas about God see God as I not it, that is, as pure subjectivity.   Thus the Upanishads talk about this, and actually the Jewish Bible, 'I am that I am'.

The Abrahamic religions have generally steered clear of this, although some of the mystics did go there, and got punished for it, e.g. the Sufis. 

Interestingly, modern gnostic ideas seem to bring it back, although often in a rather naff way.

To be finicky about it, if you search for God, you are doomed, as you have reified God as an object, forever beyond reach, since you are the barrier.   In some Eastern religions, the solution is to abandon the dualism of self/other, but this is unpalatable or nonsensical to most Westerners.   Of course, Christianity also contains ideas of self-annihilation, but these are not generally popular among the middle classes.

[wigginhall]

I don't think there is a useful distinction to be made between funtionality of mind and functionality of brain.  The functionality is identical as they are the same thing, the difference between mind and brain is one of aspect; the mind is the subjective aspect of a brain.  Perception, along with most brain function occurs subconciously, our conscious minds are only a tiny fraction of what is going in mind/brain, and there is little benefit to be had in distinguishing mind from brain as regards subconscious processes.

AB is clinging on desperately to a distinction between incoming information to the brain, e.g. along the optic nerve, and then the processing of this information.   It seems very unlikely that the second function is by some soul or mind, which is separate from the brain.  In fact, there is clear evidence that the brain processes visual information, and constructs visual representations. 

Incidentally, I learned recently that ravens recognize faces, and can count, so people who go into a hide to watch them have to be very cunning, as the ravens will count who has left before emerging.   Raven is God!

[Brownie]

AB might be interested in the course on the Mind on which Torridon has started a thread in General.

[wigginhall]

There is an old Zen story about mind.  A beginner goes to the abbot of a monastery and demands, 'please pacify my mind', and the old codger replies, 'show it to me first'.  Actually, beg pardon, this is supposed to be Bodhidharma, I will now perform a thousand acts of contrition, well, I'll start tomorrow.

[Alan Burns]

In fact, there is clear evidence that the brain processes visual information, and constructs visual representations. 

Just as a computer does to present visual images on a screen, but you still need a human to perceive the visual image.  Processing does not constitute perception.

[torridon]

Just as a computer does to present visual images on a screen, but you still need a human to perceive the visual image.  Processing does not constitute perception.

And therefore an antelope needs an antelope soul to perceive the visual image formed in its occipital lobe. According to Mr Burns, antelopes either have souls, or they are blind.  Neither position is true of course.

[wigginhall]

Just as a computer does to present visual images on a screen, but you still need a human to perceive the visual image.  Processing does not constitute perception.

Well, the brain does perceptual processing.   Otherwise, how come brain damage can cause some people to stop recognizing faces, although their vision is OK?

[wigginhall]

Yes, just realized after torridon's post, what AB is saying exactly - that you need a human to perceive a visual image?   Ah, I get it, he will say that antelopes don't perceive, they just react.   A thousand goal-posts have been shredded in the last few weeks by AB.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And therefore an antelope needs an antelope soul to perceive the visual image formed in its occipital lobe. According to Mr Burns, antelopes either have souls, or they are blind.  Neither position is true of course.

Antelopes could be P Zombies.

[torridon]

Antelopes could be P Zombies.

They could be, but there is no evidence for that.

Plus, nobody believes so, that I have ever come across. If you think a dog is a p-zombie you would have no qualms about going over and giving it a good kicking. The reason we would feel uneasy to do that is because we believe it to be a sentient creature, knowing fear and pain just like us.

[wigginhall]

That was Descartes' position, wasn't it?  Dogs have no soul, therefore they are machines, therefore it is OK to torture them.   It's said that he tortured his wife's dog to death, maybe a rumour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They could be, but there is no evidence for that.

Plus, nobody believes so, that I have ever come across. If you think a dog is a p-zombie you would have no qualms about going over and giving it a good kicking. The reason we would feel uneasy to do that is because we believe it to be a sentient creature, knowing fear and pain just like us.

Actually there is no evidence that anything is more than a p zombie. In factI understand that Dennetts model of humanity boils down to being a P Zombie.

In fact I cannot see how you can hold with the illusion of self and not believe we are all p zombies.

[wigginhall]

A zombie lacks sentience.   You don't have to believe in a permanent self or soul to accept that others also have sentience (including animals). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A zombie lacks sentience.   You don't have to believe in a permanent self or soul to accept that others also have sentience (including animals).

Perhaps p zombie is the wrong term. But one can envisage something that could act exactly like a human but have no self awareness.Such a thing would indeed be a machine. Can you prove you are not one?

[wigginhall]

Negative proof fallacy.   500 points. 

[Alan Burns]

And therefore an antelope needs an antelope soul to perceive the visual image formed in its occipital lobe. According to Mr Burns, antelopes either have souls, or they are blind.  Neither position is true of course.

Or they react to visual stimuli in accordance with instinct.

Information from visual images (or other sensory data) can be processed and reacted to without the need of conscious perception.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Negative proof fallacy.   500 points.

So you could be a machine

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

So you could be a machine

It depends on what you mean by a machine I suppose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It depends on what you mean by a machine I suppose.

With no self awareness or subjective experience or qualia...I believe it's called.

[Stranger]

Or they react to visual stimuli in accordance with instinct.

Information from visual images (or other sensory data) can be processed and reacted to without the need of conscious perception.

So, animals have no perception, so it would be OK to torture them?

You keep churning out your assertions - someday, maybe, you will provide just a hint of a shred of evidence or reasoning to back them up, then again, maybe not...