Atheists, do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self?

[Jack Knave]

and where have I laid out this system?

Oh I see, you're just standing on the side-lines and picking fault with peoples' ideas without taking a position of your own. So nothing constructive to contribute then?

[torridon]

The one where this process of consciousness stops at the brain and is a function of an emergent process.

Are there any grounds to suppose that consciousness is not brain function ?

[Jack Knave]

Are there any grounds to suppose that consciousness is not brain function ?

Are there any reasonable and plausible grounds to suggest it is wholly a function of the brain....I think not.

[torridon]

Are there any reasonable and plausible grounds to suggest it is wholly a function of the brain....I think not.

If you contend there is something else beyond brain also involved, then you have the burden of proof to substantiate that.

[Stranger]

Are there any reasonable and plausible grounds to suggest it is wholly a function of the brain....

Well, let's see, it's all we have any evidence of, for a start. Then there's the fact that damage to the brain changes the mind.

What else do you think there is, what is its function and what evidence do you have?

[Jack Knave]

Well, let's see, it's all we have any evidence of, for a start. Then there's the fact that damage to the brain changes the mind.

What else do you think there is, what is its function and what evidence do you have?

If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power? The brain is a connection in the process, without doubt, but how can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts? There has to be something else.....difficult to say what, but in my view my argument above points to that.

[Nearly Sane]

If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power? The brain is a connection in the process, without doubt, but how can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts? There has to be something else.....difficult to say what, but in my view my argument above points to that.

You mean your argument from personal incredulity?

[torridon]

If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power? The brain is a connection in the process, without doubt, but how can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts? There has to be something else.....difficult to say what, but in my view my argument above points to that.

That's a poor analogy.  We have evidence of other parts of the process, for instance wall sockets, house wiring, the National Grid ...

Not so with mind.

If we have good evidence for other elements beyond the body and brain involved in the production of mental states then we have something to go on, otherwise it is just like some theists argue, wow, I can't understand this, therefore God.

[wigginhall]

I would think that brain damage (mentioned by Stranger) is relevant here.  If certain kinds of brain damage result in impaired perception, this seems strong evidence that the brain is organizing those perceptions.  A famous example is failure to recognize faces, even though vision is OK, (prosopagnosia).   

[wigginhall]

Also, the stuff about paralyzed people using thought control over their own (paralyzed) body is pretty mind-blowing, isn't it?  If I've got it right, your thoughts are transmitted to a computer as electrical signals, then software in turn drives his hand, which is normally paralyzed.  So, we have the sequence, thought → neurostimulus → computer decoding → electrical stimulation to paralyzed arm. 

Apart from therapy for the paralyzed, the implications seem incredible, e.g. thought-driven cars.

[Jack Knave]

You mean your argument from personal incredulity?

That doesn't make sense.

But I gather this meaningless response indicates that you have no cogent reply to what I have said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and so on ad infinitum. If there isn't a who viewing inside the 'who' that you inserted by begging the question, it's pink elephants all the way down.

But if there is viewing then there has to be something doing the viewing.
If there are no viewers in a viewing then there is no such thing as a drinker..say.

[Nearly Sane]

That doesn't make sense.

But I gather this meaningless response indicates that you have no cogent reply to what I have said.

Your 'argument' in the post boiled  down to you saying you couldn't believe it could happen other than your position. That's an argument from personal incredulity and is a fallacy. One that Alan Burns indulges in frequently.

[Jack Knave]

That's a poor analogy.  We have evidence of other parts of the process, for instance wall sockets, house wiring, the National Grid ...

Not so with mind.

If we have good evidence for other elements beyond the body and brain involved in the production of mental states then we have something to go on, otherwise it is just like some theists argue, wow, I can't understand this, therefore God.

Sorry I wasn't clear, when I said connection I meant like cutting out a resistor or something - echoing the damage done to a part of the brain. The analogy is not a weak one it is about how easy it is to come up with wrong explanations based on prima facie.

I did say though I knew not what, but you conveniently ignored the other part of my argument which makes me say I know not what. That is, this lump of jelly that consists of nothing but atoms somehow creates and comes up with ideas, thoughts and emotions and most of all an awareness of oneself. This would imply that there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains etc. It can't be the atoms doing this hence why I don't accept the emergent property idea and as such my know not what...

[Stranger]

I did say though I knew not what, but you conveniently ignored the other part of my argument which makes me say I know not what. That is, this lump of jelly that consists of nothing but atoms somehow creates and comes up with ideas, thoughts and emotions and most of all an awareness of oneself.

Personal incredulity fallacy.

This would imply that there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains etc.

Computer chips are just lumps of atoms, do you think there are stray computer programs in rocks and mountains?

It can't be the atoms doing this hence why I don't accept the emergent property idea and as such my know not what...

Personal incredulity fallacy (again).

[Jack Knave]

Your 'argument' in the post boiled  down to you saying you couldn't believe it could happen other than your position. That's an argument from personal incredulity and is a fallacy. One that Alan Burns indulges in frequently.

No Nearly, it is an argument based on rational thinking and reasonable speculation. Stuff - a large lump of atoms - does not conceivably, from present theory about matter, could create ideas, thoughts and consciousness. Where in the atomic structure would these thoughts and ideas lie - an energy field dedicated to these elements?

If this was so why are not thoughts and ideas coming from the rest of my body? Though there is some speculation about your arse!!! - sorry I couldn't resist.

[Jack Knave]

Personal incredulity fallacy.

Straw man.

Computer chips are just lumps of atoms, do you think there are stray computer programs in rocks and mountains?

Another straw man. Computer chips don't think and are not conscious. The physics which govern them also governs the matter and world around us. There may not be actual chips in nature but the chemistry that allows them to work also functions in nature. The fundamental underlining principles are the same.

Personal incredulity fallacy (again).

Oh dear. Are you upset that I won't accept your little god? I've met little children like you who are so annoyed the adults won't believe their little version of the world. You do realise I could accuse you of the same thing about not accepting my idea - you know pot, kettle, black....

[Stranger]

Straw man.

So, you don't understand the term straw man.

Another straw man. Computer chips don't think and are not conscious. The physics which govern them also governs the matter and world around us. There may not be actual chips in nature but the chemistry that allows them to work also functions in nature. The fundamental underlining principles are the same.

I didn't say computer chips were conscious - but they can run computer programs - something that atoms can't do.

Your previous 'argument' (using the term very loosely) was that because brains think, create ideas, thoughts and consciousness then these things must be present in the atoms themselves.

Atoms can't run software, but large groups of them can. Hell, atoms can't have a colour or texture but large groups can. So why do you think large groups of atoms thinking would imply that "there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains"?

Let's just reword what you said:-

Brains think and are conscious. The physics which govern them also governs the matter and world around us. There may not be actual brains in nature but the chemistry that allows them to work also functions in nature. The fundamental underlining principles are the same.

This is what all the evidence we have points to, so what makes you dismiss it - apart from incredulity, that is?

Oh dear. Are you upset that I won't accept your little god? I've met little children like you who are so annoyed the adults won't believe their little version of the world. You do realise I could accuse you of the same thing about not accepting my idea - you know pot, kettle, black....

Resort to insult - amusing.

[torridon]

That is, this lump of jelly that consists of nothing but atoms somehow creates and comes up with ideas, thoughts and emotions and most of all an awareness of oneself. This would imply that there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains etc.

That doesn't quite follow; the behaviour of materials depends upon context.  Water can behave like a gas in one context, like a liquid in another, like a solid in another. What the evidence suggests, is that matter exhibits conscious behaviour given the right context. We are what we eat; I am the hamburger and fries I ate yesterday, thus the implication, very crudely. is that a hamburger and fries will start being conscious when rearranged into a brain shape.  That is what the evidence is telling us; it is up to us to try to understand it.

[Jack Knave]

So, you don't understand the term straw man.

Of course I know what a straw man is and what you have said here is a sub-species of it; say a Hay Man. It is also an ad hominem and a non sequitur. So well done in being grossly obnoxious!!!

I didn't say computer chips were conscious - but they can run computer programs - something that atoms can't do.

But consciousness is the topic or its relation to the self. You're trying to move the goal posts.

Your previous 'argument' (using the term very loosely) was that because brains think, create ideas, thoughts and consciousness then these things must be present in the atoms themselves.

No it was not. You really are all confused and mixed up. I was just following the logic of the argument of you lot.

Atoms can't run software, but large groups of them can. Hell, atoms can't have a colour or texture but large groups can. So why do you think large groups of atoms thinking would imply that "there are stray thoughts and ideas flowing through rocks and mountains"?

Who said anything about software? Again you are finding it hard to following the argument and 'seeing' what you won't to, not what has been presented.

Let's just reword what you said:-
This is what all the evidence we have points to, so what makes you dismiss it - apart from incredulity, that is?

Sounds to me you don't really understand the nature of emergent properties which is partially what my statement (not your reworking of it) was alluding to or getting at, that is, you people throw this (EPs) into the ring as if it answers anything but it has been misappropriated and misused.

Resort to insult - amusing.

You started it, mate. See first comment to this post.

[jeremyp]

If I break a connection in my Hi-Fi it won't work. Do I then conclude that that connection was the sole part creating all the power?

If I take a sledge hammer to your hi-fi, the music stops coming out of the speakers. Do you then conclude there must be something else you can't see that the hi-fi was merely channeling? No you don't, so why do the same with the brain?

How can a mass of atoms create ideas and thoughts?

These are the kinds of questions science is good at answering. In fact there are people around the World using it to try to find the answer to that one.

There has to be something else....

Why does there?

[Jack Knave]

That doesn't quite follow; the behaviour of materials depends upon context.  Water can behave like a gas in one context, like a liquid in another, like a solid in another. What the evidence suggests, is that matter exhibits conscious behaviour given the right context. We are what we eat; I am the hamburger and fries I ate yesterday, thus the implication, very crudely. is that a hamburger and fries will start being conscious when rearranged into a brain shape.  That is what the evidence is telling us; it is up to us to try to understand it.

Well, yes, but I was making a point in a slightly humorous way.

Your (plural) argument presupposes that the nature of emergent properties will create this consciousness and self etc. from the constituents of the formation of the brain. My argument is that that is not how EPs work. They do not create aspects which are of a different nature to the base components. All emergent properties do is to rearrange in some fashion what is already there into another order or level based on some threshold which is reached, usually based on the increase in energy input which brings out qualities that were dormant and in potential form. So if you lot are saying that the brain does create an EP that reveals or presents a consciousness then this consciousness has to be in a dormant form within the atomic structure itself. It has to be part of the standard model and all that. It has to be a fundamental component, or aspect, of the law of physics for your proposition on this issue to work out and be true.

Because in my view consciousness, ideas, thoughts etc., the self, are not of the order of matter and can't fit into the known structure that makes up the material world and that thoughts and the self are a focused, malleable and willed process (but not always), something that is not compatible with the mechanisms of EPs, - an EP occurs and is fixed if all else is constant for its phenomena to occur, they do not wilfully shift to other orders and levels as it is dependant on the base's structure and properties and the required energy inputs etc. to bring about the phenomena of the EP - then something else has to be going on. In other words the direction and flow of thoughts as an act of will are not dependent upon the whim of the workings of the brain but in fact the boot is on the other foot and the brains actions are at times, like these wilful actions, dependant on the will of the thought process - this is not how the properties and nature of EPs function, and so this is in fact something else, but I know not what...

[Jack Knave]

If I take a sledge hammer to your hi-fi, the music stops coming out of the speakers. Do you then conclude there must be something else you can't see that the hi-fi was merely channeling? No you don't, so why do the same with the brain?

My analogy is a thought process on the principle of reason and logic and how people arrive at conclusions etc. not a literal demonstration of the brutal facts of life. You need to read between the lines and see the principles being presented to understand it.

These are the kinds of questions science is good at answering. In fact there are people around the World using it to try to find the answer to that one.

How they are going to do that when no one knows exactly what consciousness and self is beats me. This is how science comes up with the wrong answer because they lack the depth needed to grasp the philosophical understanding behind it.

Why does there?

See my #71.

[Bubbles]

The trouble is "self " is all my experiences and illusions, including the one that might not subscribe to the illusion of self.

In fact the hardest thing to escape is yourself.

 

When I meet old childhood friends after many many years, they don't really know me anymore, and I don't know really know them.

All we share are a few memories in common, and even those seem to change with the passing of time.

[torridon]

Well, yes, but I was making a point in a slightly humorous way.

Your (plural) argument presupposes that the nature of emergent properties will create this consciousness and self etc. from the constituents of the formation of the brain. My argument is that that is not how EPs work. They do not create aspects which are of a different nature to the base components. All emergent properties do is to rearrange in some fashion what is already there into another order or level based on some threshold which is reached, usually based on the increase in energy input which brings out qualities that were dormant and in potential form. So if you lot are saying that the brain does create an EP that reveals or presents a consciousness then this consciousness has to be in a dormant form within the atomic structure itself. It has to be part of the standard model and all that. It has to be a fundamental component, or aspect, of the law of physics for your proposition on this issue to work out and be true.

Because in my view consciousness, ideas, thoughts etc., the self, are not of the order of matter and can't fit into the known structure that makes up the material world and that thoughts and the self are a focused, malleable and willed process (but not always), something that is not compatible with the mechanisms of EPs, - an EP occurs and is fixed if all else is constant for its phenomena to occur, they do not wilfully shift to other orders and levels as it is dependant on the base's structure and properties and the required energy inputs etc. to bring about the phenomena of the EP - then something else has to be going on. In other words the direction and flow of thoughts as an act of will are not dependent upon the whim of the workings of the brain but in fact the boot is on the other foot and the brains actions are at times, like these wilful actions, dependant on the will of the thought process - this is not how the properties and nature of EPs function, and so this is in fact something else, but I know not what...

I'm not sure I'd agree with your objections. Conscious experience is all about communication and information flow brought to a particular state of high integration, and at base levels of fundamental matter, all matter communicates with all other matter naturally; the action of brains is to procure a highly integrated communication state of what is already there in dilute form. We don't know all there is to know about consciousness for sure but there again our understanding of fundamental physics also has gaping holes in it; we cannot reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, noone knows what most of the cosmos is made of (dark matter), nobody understands entanglement, black holes are impossible but we know there are billions of them somehow.  There's enough slack in our current knowledgebase to accommodate whatever new understandings of matter need to emerge for a sound model of consciousness.

All the stuff about 'will' is red herring I think; all will is merely part of the cause and effect cycle manifesting through phenomenological pathways of mind, and thus poses no major challenge in particular, or at least no greater than any other aspect of mind.