Hi DeepSight. So this thread will carry on with our discussions from other threads. I will start with the following reply to your comment. I will also subsequently add replies to your other comments.

DeepSight:


Unfortunately I don't believe it is either apt or possible to treat the analogy in this way for two main reasons - both of which centre upon the factor of consciousness - which you cannot discountenance as it is central to this matter.

The first reason is the fact that in the case of a human you are dealing with a self conscious being possessed with personality, intentionality and even alleged free-will. There is no way in which this can be analogous to a driver-less car. The second reason is the fact that the functions of the body evidently serve a resident being. If you have a supposedly driverless car which is built to function with a seat for a driver, a steering wheel for him to handle, and accelerator and brake pads for him to operate, we can surmise that this car works with or for a driver. Applying this loose analogy to the human body, its many functions as I said, disclose a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."

On a general note, we should continue these thoughts in the other thread, or even migrate our discussion to a new thread dedicated to "Matter and Mind" - for the simple purpose of tidy-book-keeping and ease of future reference, not just for ourselves but possibly others interested.

Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it because all its integrated systems work to provide a safe driving experience with all the same features of a human driven vehicle. The car will brake, turn, slow down, speed up, allow for car spacing from cars in front of it, follow lane markings, etc just as well as a human. It would be futile to now say that because you cannot locate the driver inside therefore it is unable to function without a driver.

Also driverless cars do have seats and steering and all the other accoutrements that a "normal" car has so the question would be how do we distinguish between a driverless car and a human driven one? Which is directly analogous to the question how do we establish that a human being is "a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."" rather than the machine with all its attendant functions as an integrated whole?

I think for the purpose of tidy-book-keeping and to provide some context to any interested future participants in this discussion, we should lay out the background to this conversation before proceeding in detail - lest that which we are driving at is lost in translation or in heaps of follow-on.

In summary the discussion here centers around LordReed's position that mind derives from matter and my opposing position that mind is distinct from matter, matter being only a tool or vehicle for mind. While LordReed says that there is "no ghost in the car" (that there is no spirit in the body) I say that there is an indwelling immaterial being which is the actual "personal being" which the functions of the body serve. These conflicting positions had led me to argue that for LordReed to sustain his position, he must perforce grant intentionality to cells and neurons, and all those chemicals which constitute the body, as well as eliminate the concept of personal responsibility for actions. As the spambot was torturing me, I made my argument in the word document attached to this post -

https://www.nairaland.com/6908566/boy-dead-20-minutes-what/5#109025848

- And LordReed responded with this post (and the four posts which follow it) -

https://www.nairaland.com/6908566/boy-dead-20-minutes-what/5#109239457

- My responses follow on from there in that thread, but we have, for the purposes of good book keeping, decided to migrate here.

The central question here is thus that of "Matter and Mind" - and pretty much as I have summarized it above.
In my next post, I will take a moment to refer to one or two other posts which I believe are relevant to this discussion.

PS: I herewith invite IMAliyu (as he had taken an interest in this discussion from the NDE thread).
cc: AgentofAllah

DeepSight:
I think for the purpose of tidy-book-keeping and to provide some context to any interested future participants in this discussion, we should lay out the background to this conversation before proceeding in detail - lest that which we are driving at is lost in translation or in heaps of follow-on.

In summary the discussion here centers around LordReed's position that mind derives from matter and my opposing position that mind is distinct from matter, matter being only a tool or vehicle for mind. While LordReed says that there is "no ghost in the car" (that there is no spirit in the body) I say that there is an indwelling immaterial being which is the actual "personal being" which the functions of the body serve. These conflicting positions had led me to argue that for LordReed to sustain his position, he must perforce grant intentionality to cells and neurons, and all those chemicals which constitute the body, as well as eliminate the concept of personal responsibility for actions. As the spambot was torturing me, I made my argument in the word document attached to this post -

https://www.nairaland.com/6908566/boy-dead-20-minutes-what/5#109025848

- And LordReed responded with this post (and the four posts which follow it) -

https://www.nairaland.com/6908566/boy-dead-20-minutes-what/5#109239457

- My responses follow on from there in that thread, but we have, for the purposes of good book keeping, decided to migrate here.

The central question here is thus that of "Matter and Mind" - and pretty much as I have summarized it above.
In my next post, I will take a moment to refer to one or two other posts which I believe are relevant to this discussion.

Good one.

LordReed, a little over eight years ago, I wrote the following in an attempt to argue the point we are discussing here - and say that "the person" is distinct from the body -

I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

https://www.nairaland.com/1565324/person

You may wish to consider the foregoing in this discussion.

Following

On that same thread, in response to ooman, who contended in response to my OP that "the brain has perception and experience" - I further said -


No, dear, the brain does not have perception of itself as a brain.

Address this point: Only a person can see. Not a brain. Not neurons or sensors. Only a person. . . .

. . . the materialist atheist infers or states that such are nothing but the work and product of tiny pieces of matter, which, for their own unknown purposes and motivations, collectively work together in an intricate system to deliberately produce such. . . . they cannot discern the clear evidence of a personal being existing therewith, and the aggregation of matter about it, which is called a body, being nothing but its material support system for life in a material world.

The eye.

The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.

Which is why I refer thinkers to meditate on the corpse. To observe its as-built functionalities and ask themselves: WHAT were those functions serving?

They are only functions built for a being.

DeepSight:
LordReed, a little over eight years ago, I wrote the following in an attempt to argue the point we are discussing here - and say that "the person" is distinct from the body -

I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

https://www.nairaland.com/1565324/person

You may wish to consider the foregoing in this discussion.

These are assertions you are yet to provide any evidence for. Can you provide any evidence there is a ghost in the machine? Simply stating it is not sufficient.

BTW I have identified, defined and located the self. It is all that makes you up as a human being both the seen and unseen aspects.

DeepSight:
LordReed, a little over eight years ago, I wrote the following in an attempt to argue the point we are discussing here - and say that "the person" is distinct from the body -

I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

https://www.nairaland.com/1565324/person

You may wish to consider the foregoing in this discussion.

hmmm... I understand where you are coming from... this is a question that has not been sufficiently addressed. It one that has challenged scuentists, computer programmers, and psychologists for a long time.
Can machines be sentient?

In my opinion, we are looking at it the wrong way. I think we are assuming so much and not being properly thorough.

Can humans really see?
Can humans really taste?
Do we fear?
Do we love?
This are things that we think machines cannot do, but honestly we are mistaken.

What makes a human fear?
First you need receptors to pick up the fear factor, secondly this message is processed in the mind based on memories and logical associations or why that fear factor should be of concern. Then there is a response.

All these stages can be disrupted, influenced and recreated. It shows that the human body functions even as a machine and there is no "mind" involved really.

Without receptors, you cannot taste, see, feel, hear the world.

Without receptors there is nothing for the mind to work with.

Without receptors, memories cannot be formed.

Without memories, there is nothing for the mind to work with.

The chemical process involved that makes us, sleep, fear, enjoy food and sex.. has been properly studied and can be recreated, manipulated... because that is what controls you from the brain, not a spiritual mind.

If the mind was independent, it would not depend so heavily on chemical and electrical process that enables our sentience.
We basically are machines that are just capable of performing high level computing of our environment and that environment includes our own selves.

I think the below is an important point you need to address yourself to, Lordreed.
(in addition to the other responses i made to your responses in the NDE thread, but I am most interested in this point on determinism as I have responded below.

LordReed:
@DeepSight response to DP4: Determinism

Now this is a proper argument from ignorance, we don't know how life stated therefore mind is not connected to matter. This is totally fallacious, mind has been almost conclusively shown to be inextricably tied to matter even if we don't know how life started.

Also not knowing how life started from dead matter doesn't mean we we can't see how life continues to propagate from dead matter. You don't eat living matter for instance, you eat dead matter and it aids in your survival and ability to replicate so to claim that our ignorance of the beginning of life precludes us from noting that life is natural process is very much fallacious.

That mind as an emergent property of matter clearly shows how dead matter can have properties that the individual matter particles do not. I previously made example from the property of water we call wetness which is not a property of the individual molecules of water but of the interactions of the molecules of water themselves, giving rise to a property that the individuals don't have. Same with life and mind, there are many interactions that take place to give rise to life and mind so there isn't any place to isolate life or mind. To be clear it is not every interaction in the body that gives rise to life and mind and we do not know at exactly what threshold those interactions combine to activate those functions but we have a pretty good idea. For instance we know that if there is loss of blood to the brain for certain periods you'll either get a damaged brain/damaged person or death. All of these thoroughly indicate that there is no separating of life and mind from the physical.

I think you are quite entirely wrong on this point and while there is much I could write in proof of that, perhaps its best to keep it short and simple: so long as you do not have any control of the cells, neurons and chemicals whose activity and interaction allegedly produce and direct your consciousness, then it is absurd and illogical to assert that you have any conscious control of yourself, your thoughts and your actions.

Determinism is thus inferred by the position that mind is the result of the interaction and activity of matter alone: because if it is true that your consciousness and mind are a function of such interactions of matter, in order to have control of your consciousness and mind you must have control of the said interactions of matter in the first place. It is an irredeemable circular conundrum.

DeepSight:
On that same thread, in response to ooman, who contended in response to my OP that "the brain has perception and experience" - I further said -


No, dear, the brain does not have perception of itself as a brain.

Address this point: Only a person can see. Not a brain. Not neurons or sensors. Only a person. . . .

. . . the materialist atheist infers or states that such are nothing but the work and product of tiny pieces of matter, which, for their own unknown purposes and motivations, collectively work together in an intricate system to deliberately produce such. . . . they cannot discern the clear evidence of a personal being existing therewith, and the aggregation of matter about it, which is called a body, being nothing but its material support system for life in a material world.

The eye.

The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.

Which is why I refer thinkers to meditate on the corpse. To observe its as-built functionalities and ask themselves: WHAT were those functions serving?

They are only functions built for a being.

The eye is part of the being. I don't see how the complexity of the eye proves there is a ghost staring through it. The eye is part of the systems that provide sensory perception to the being. Is this ghost able to have perception without any of the body parts? How is it an independent existing thing? Perhaps you should clearly define this ghost.

HardMirror:
hmmm... I understand where you are coming from... this is a question that has not been sufficiently addressed. It one that has challenged scuentists, computer programmers, and psychologists for a long time.
Can machines be sentient?

In my opinion, we are looking at it the wrong way. I think we are assuming so much and not being properly thorough.

Can humans really see?
Can humans really taste?
Do we fear?
Do we love?
This are things that we think machines cannot do, but honestly we are mistaken.

What makes a human fear?
First you need receptors to pick up the fear factor, secondly this message is processed in the mind based on memories and logical associations or why that fear factor should be of concern. Then there is a response.

All these stages can be disrupted, influenced and recreated. It shows that the human body functions even as a machine and there is no "mind" involved really.

Without receptors, you cannot taste, see, feel, hear the world.

Without receptors there is nothing for the mind to work with.

Without receptors, memories cannot be formed.

Without memories, there is nothing for the mind to work with.

The chemical process involved that makes us, sleep, fear, enjoy food and sex.. has been properly studied and can be recreated, manipulated... because that is what controls you from the brain, not a spiritual mind.

If the mind was independent, it would not depend so heavily on chemical and electrical process that enables our sentience.
We basically are machines that are just capable of performing high level computing of our environment and that environment includes our own selves.

Thank you for your contribution here, but I think what you are missing out is the ability to consciously experience. Even with the best receptors, does a robot consciously experience anything in the way a conscious human does? Does a robot enjoy a sunset, taste an orange, can a robot enjoy sexx, can a robot have emotions such as love, hatred, and the like?

Can any conceivable robot even in the future have these attributes if it is not imbued with self-consciousness as a being?

DeepSight:
I think the below is an important point you need to address yourself to, Lordreed.
(in addition to the other responses i made to your responses in the NDE thread, but I am most interested in this point on determinism as I have responded below.



I think you are quite entirely wrong on this point and while there is much I could write in proof of that, perhaps its best to keep it short and simple: so long as you do not have any control of the cells, neurons and chemicals whose activity and interaction allegedly produce and direct your consciousness, then it is absurd and illogical to assert that you have any conscious control of yourself, your thoughts and your actions.

Determinism is thus inferred by the position that mind is the result of the interaction and activity of matter alone: because if it is true that your consciousness and mind are a function of such interactions of matter, in order to have control of your consciousness and mind you must have control of the said interactions of matter in the first place. It is an irredeemable circular conundrum.

you err in this.... while you cannot control your own brain (directly), you quickly and promptly forget that you can do this through drugs?
You quickly forget or deliberately ignore the fact that drugs and absolutely alter reality. Which is proof that a chemical process affects what we think is the mind... therefore proving that the mind is not spiritual. Your reality is in and through you brain activities only

DeepSight:


Thank you for your contribution here, but I think what you are missing out is the ability to consciously experience. Even with the best receptors, does a robot consciously experience anything in the way a conscious human does? Does a robot enjoy a sunset, taste an orange, can a robot enjoy sexx, can a robot have emotions such as love, hatred, and the like?

Can any conceivable robot even in the future have these attributes if it is not imbued with self-consciousness as a being?

do you think we humans are consciously living? We are slaves to our brains. That is why if a child is born with a brain defect, it determines the life experience if that child. If the mind was independent, such brain damage would have no bearing on the life experience of the child.

DeepSight:
I think the below is an important point you need to address yourself to, Lordreed.
(in addition to the other responses i made to your responses in the NDE thread, but I am most interested in this point on determinism as I have responded below.



I think you are quite entirely wrong on this point and while there is much I could write in proof of that, perhaps its best to keep it short and simple: so long as you do not have any control of the cells, neurons and chemicals whose activity and interaction allegedly produce and direct your consciousness, then it is absurd and illogical to assert that you have any conscious control of yourself, your thoughts and your actions.

Determinism is thus inferred by the position that mind is the result of the interaction and activity of matter alone: because if it is true that your consciousness and mind are a function of such interactions of matter, in order to have control of your consciousness and mind you must have control of the said interactions of matter in the first place. It is an irredeemable circular conundrum.

Again this like asserting that because individual water molecules do not have the property called wetness therefore the wetness of water is some kind of ghost in the machine. This would be clearly an erroneous view since what we call wetness is borne out of the interactions of the water molecules. Just as it is erroneous to keep asking why cells and neurons have no intent since we are made up of cells and neurons.

There is no illogic in saying you have control over certain bodily functions, thought routines or actions because it is evident, I am writing this with my fingers consciously controlled by me to hit the keys for instance. However it is a strawman to say I said we have complete control since I never said that. I even went as far as saying we have no control over what our cells are doing nor can we consciously control them. The will we possess is limited in scope and function. This is the position of a compatiblist not a determinist.

Insisting that the only way matter can be controlled is if you have complete control down to the individual components is the illogical position. When you press your remote to put on the TV are you in control of any of the constituent molecules of the remote control or the TV or are you controlling a particular function of the whole remote and TV? It would be absurd to say that we are not controlling the TV because we are not controlling its individual molecules when evidently our control is over specific functions.

HardMirror:
do you think we humans are consciously living? We are slaves to our brains. That is why if a child is born with a brain defect, it determines the life experience if that child. If the mind was independent, such brain damage would have no bearing on the life experience of the child.

Damage to the body and especially the brain can of course always impair the ability of the person to experience/ live fully in the physical realm. This goes without saying because the body is that tool which enables experience of the physical.

Further, the statement that we are slaves to our brains coincides with my argument that the materialist must dispense with personal responsibility.

LordReed:


Again this like asserting that because individual water molecules do not have the property called wetness therefore the wetness of water is some kind of ghost in the machine. This would be clearly an erroneous view since what we call wetness is borne out of the interactions of the water molecules. Just as it is erroneous to keep asking why cells and neurons have no intent since we are made up of cells and neurons.

There is no illogic in saying you have control over certain bodily functions, thought routines or actions because it is evident, I am writing this with my fingers consciously controlled by me to hit the keys for instance. However it is a strawman to say I said we have complete control since I never said that. I even went as far as saying we have no control over what our cells are doing nor can we consciously control them. The will we possess is limited in scope and function. This is the position of a compatiblist not a determinist.

Insisting that the only way matter can be controlled is if you have complete control down to the individual components is the illogical position. When you press your remote to put on the TV are you in control of any of the constituent molecules of the remote control or the TV or are you controlling a particular function of the whole remote and TV? It would be absurd to say that we are not controlling the TV because we are not controlling its individual molecules when evidently our control is over specific functions.

absolutely. But this even further proves that our minds are not embodied in a spiritual sphere, but by the collective activities in our brains.
Our cells can be influenced, our neurons can be influenced intrusively, chemically and physically (electrically or even by physical distruption)

LordReed:


Again this like asserting that because individual water molecules do not have the property called wetness therefore the wetness of water is some kind of ghost in the machine. This would be clearly an erroneous view since what we call wetness is borne out of the interactions of the water molecules. Just as it is erroneous to keep asking why cells and neurons have no intent since we are made up of cells and neurons.

There is no illogic in saying you have control over certain bodily functions, thought routines or actions because it is evident, I am writing this with my fingers consciously controlled by me to hit the keys for instance. However it is a strawman to say I said we have complete control since I never said that. I even went as far as saying we have no control over what our cells are doing nor can we consciously control them. The will we possess is limited in scope and function. This is the position of a compatiblist not a determinist.

I think you need to settle down and take a cold dispassionate view of the conundrum presented. It is illogical to say, for example, that a car is exclusively controlled by its steering-wheel and simultaneously insist that you have control over that car if you have no control over its steering wheel. What you are doing is quite circular and it surprises me that you cannot see the inherent circularity. To break it down -

- - -> You assert that minds arise from matter
- - -> You assert that the interactions and activities of matter are responsible for mind
- - -> You then imply that mind has some independent will of its own in what you have written above, because you insinuate that by this will, mind controls its body - - -> notwithstanding that the body is what produces mind in the first place, and that the interactions of the matter of the body are responsible for every thought and action of mind under your worldview

- - - > This is just circular. It is logically impossible. You cannot derive mind from matter and at the same time seek to infuse mind with some inchoate separate will of its own by which it can control matter. This would be absurd because what you are in fact trying to do here is eat your cake and have it - you are trying to assert that all the thoughts and actions of mind arise from the interactions of matter and at the same time insist that mind controls the matter. This patently self contradictory.

It doesnt help you that you say that you have said that we cannot control our cells. This in fact works directly against you. Because the action of those cells (in your worldview) is what activates the functions of mind. You will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action.

There is actually some scientific research on this matter which suggests that split seconds before we have a thought, take an action or make a decision, neurons have already coalesced in the direction of such a thought, action or decision. Such research naturally aligns with the overall argument you are making - that cells and neurons are responsible for the activity of mind. The only problem here is your refusal to accept the natural consequence of this - namely that there is nothing like free will, that all our thoughts and actions are determined by cells and neurons beforehand - over which we have no control. This is of course not my position since I make a distinction between matter and mind. Nor do I even entirely accept the results of that research - for reasons I will later go into. But you see, from my position, I needn't accept the results of that research. Whereas, not only does the research line up with your argument, but you must also be bound by its implications. You simply cannot eat your cake and have it. There is no way you can insist that you have conscious control of anything if indeed the prior activity of cells and neurons - which you have no control over - determines all the activity of your mind.

This is iron cast logic and I don't expect you to deny it.

Insisting that the only way matter can be controlled is if you have complete control down to the individual components is the illogical position. When you press your remote to put on the TV are you in control of any of the constituent molecules of the remote control or the TV or are you controlling a particular function of the whole remote and TV? It would be absurd to say that we are not controlling the TV because we are not controlling its individual molecules when evidently our control is over specific functions.

Its very simple to indicate why this analogy fails. The constituent molecules of the TV remote are not said to be responsible for your own independent action of pressing down on the remote buttons! They are not your cells and neurons and it is not their activity that is said to be responsible for your actions! - which is what your position is with regard to humans and their cells and neurons.

In the case of the human being under the worldview you have described as your position, the constituent parts - the cells and neurons must perforce act prior to your being able to exercise any function of mind. Their action must precede your every thought, word and deed. For this reason it would be circular to say that you control anything outside of this. Indeed the minute you make such a claim you actually cede the debate entirely because you are thereby conceding that mind must precede and control matter.

In short, mind over matter.
There is just no way you can logically get around this.

The experiment on neurons and freewill I was referring to above -

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-a-flawed-experiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/

(As you may see the article also includes the flaws of the experiment which is why I said I do not entirely accept it anyhow).
But note: your worldview as described must align with the position of the experiment because you say that it is the activity of matter which is responsible for the functions of mind.

A more detailed take on the issue of neurons and freewill -
"What does Neuroscience say about Freewill?"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00262/full

DeepSight:
The experiment on neurons and freewill I was referring to above -

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-a-flawed-experiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/

(As you may see the article also includes the flaws of the experiment which is why I said I do not entirely accept it anyhow).
But note: your worldview as described must align with the position of the experiment because you say that it is the activity of matter which is responsible for the functions of mind.

A more detailed take on the issue of neurons and freewill -
"What does Neuroscience say about Freewill?"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00262/full

interesting read. Truth is I always say it that we are not in control of our thoughts, the fact that our brain has to capture and process so much data and dismiss most even without us being conscious of it, shows that we are beings affected by our environment and subconscious. But this does not in anyway dismiss the fact that all such mental activities are physical and there is no independent mind involved. The brain. Is still in charge

HardMirror:
interesting read. Truth is I always say it that we are not in control of our thoughts, the fact that our brain has to capture and process so much data and dismiss most even without us being conscious of it, shows that we are beings affected by our environment and subconscious. But this does not in anyway dismiss the fact that all such mental activities are physical and there is no independent mind involved. The brain. Is still in charge

Even though I dispute the fundamental argument that mind arises exclusively from matter, I have never quibbled about the indubitable fact that matter has effects on mind. That is so patently obvious that one would have to be beyond pedantic to dwell too much on it, much less dispute it. It is also true that the brain (and the body by extension) deals with a great deal beneath the radar of our conscious cognition. For me, all this is in line with its role as a biological super-computer responsible for dwelling in, apprehending, acting in and experiencing the physical world.

You have at least taken the somewhat consistent position that we do not infact have true control - what LordReed cannot sustain is his contradictory position wherein he asserts mind to be the product of the activity of matter and simultaneously seeks to infer that mind has control over said matter.

DeepSight:


I think you need to settle down and take a cold dispassionate view of the conundrum presented. It is illogical to say, for example, that a car is exclusively controlled by its steering-wheel and simultaneously insist that you have control over that car if you have no control over its steering wheel. What you are doing is quite circular and it surprises me that you cannot see the inherent circularity. To break it down -

- - -> You assert that minds arise from matter
- - -> You assert that the interactions and activities of matter are responsible for mind
- - -> You then imply that mind has some independent will of its own in what you have written above, because you insinuate that by this will, mind controls its body - - -> notwithstanding that the body is what produces mind in the first place, and that the interactions of the matter of the body are responsible for every thought and action of mind under your worldview

- - - > This is just circular. It is logically impossible. You cannot derive mind from matter and at the same time seek to infuse mind with some inchoate separate will of its own by which it can control matter. This would be absurd because what you are in fact trying to do here is eat your cake and have it - you are trying to assert that all the thoughts and actions of mind arise from the interactions of matter and at the same time insist that mind controls the matter. This patently self contradictory.

It doesnt help you that you say that you have said that we cannot control our cells. This in fact works directly against you. Because the action of those cells (in your worldview) is what activates the functions of mind. You will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action.

There is actually some scientific research on this matter which suggests that split seconds before we have a thought, take an action or make a decision, neurons have already coalesced in the direction of such a thought, action or decision. Such research naturally aligns with the overall argument you are making - that cells and neurons are responsible for the activity of mind. The only problem here is your refusal to accept the natural consequence of this - namely that there is nothing like free will, that all our thoughts and actions are determined by cells and neurons beforehand - over which we have no control. This is of course not my position since I make a distinction between matter and mind. Nor do I even entirely accept the results of that research - for reasons I will later go into. But you see, from my position, I needn't accept the results of that research. Whereas, not only does the research line up with your argument, but you must also be bound by its implications. You simply cannot eat your cake and have it. There is no way you can insist that you have conscious control of anything if indeed the prior activity of cells and neurons - which you have no control over - determines all the activity of your mind.

This is iron cast logic and I don't expect you to deny it.



Its very simple to indicate why this analogy fails. The constituent molecules of the TV remote are not said to be responsible for your own independent action of pressing down on the remote buttons! They are not your cells and neurons and it is not their activity that is said to be responsible for your actions! - which is what your position is with regard to humans and their cells and neurons.

In the case of the human being under the worldview you have described as your position, the constituent parts - the cells and neurons must perforce act prior to your being able to exercise any function of mind. Their action must precede your every thought, word and deed. For this reason it would be circular to say that you control anything outside of this. Indeed the minute you make such a claim you actually cede the debate entirely because you are thereby conceding that mind must precede and control matter.

In short, mind over matter.
There is just no way you can logically get around this.

Before we go on, can you properly define spirit that inhabits the human being and outline its characteristics.

DeepSight:


Even though I dispute the fundamental argument that mind arises exclusively from matter, I have never quibbled about the indubitable fact that matter has effects on mind. That is so patently obvious that one would have to be beyond pedantic to dwell too much on it, much less dispute it. It is also true that the brain (and the body by extension) deals with a great deal beneath the radar of our conscious cognition. For me, all this is in line with its role as a biological super-computer responsible for dwelling in, apprehending, acting in and experiencing the physical world.

You have at least taken the somewhat consistent position that we do not infact have true control - what LordReed cannot sustain is his contradictory position wherein he asserts mind to be the product of the activity of matter and simultaneously seeks to infer that mind has control over said matter.

lordreed could be right, if I understand him clearly. The activities of the brain (matter) could further affect or spur more activities.

Are you aware there are computer codes that self edit? What you would call self learning codes. And this is still basic to the capacity of the human brain. The human brain is indeed capable of learning, memorizing and using this memory to create objectives, this is basically us influencing matter with mind which is still a product of matter. It is not absurd

HardMirror:
lordreed could be right, if I understand him clearly. The activities of the brain (matter) could further affect or spur more activities.

Are you aware there are computer codes that self edit? What you would call self learning codes. And this is still basic to the capacity of the human brain. The human brain is indeed capable of learning, memorizing and using this memory to create objectives, this is basically us influencing matter with mind which is still a product of matter. It is not absurd

Here is the problem: a circular conundrum is created where it is claimed that mind (and all its activity) arises from the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter must precede every thought, every feeling, every memory-deposit, and every action of mind. In this case, how can mind direct matter? From what will, can it direct matter. Will such "will" not need to be preceded by and actuated by the activity of matter as well? Can you see the circularity? Its a vicious cycle which cannot be answered, hence the absurdity. Because this is what LordReed has implied, whether he knows it or not.

As for self-learning codes of a computer I am not convinced that this presents a problem since you have not suggested that such computers thereby have a self conscious mind which circles back to control the components of the computer into actuating itself.

(Even the body has self-learning codes such as the circadian rhythm and too many others to mention).

post=109444936:


Before we go on, can you properly define spirit that inhabits the human being and outline its characteristics.

deepsight, seems you missed this.... please clarify this.

LordReed:


Before we go on, can you properly define spirit that inhabits the human being and outline its characteristics.

Are you trying to avoid the difficult issues posed by the circular position you have taken as now clearly pointed out?

It is better that we deal with that circular conundrum first because it sets up the argument I wish to make that in the same way as cosmologists/physicists/astronomers infer the existence of dark matter, I am compelled to infer the existence of an immaterial being which I call the spirit.

PS: I will not evade your question, I will address it soon.

DeepSight:


Are you trying to avoid the difficult issues posed by the circular position you have taken as now clearly pointed out?

It is better that we deal with that circular conundrum first because it sets up the argument I wish to make that in the same way as cosmologists/physicists/astronomers infer the existence of dark matter, I am compelled to infer the existence of an immaterial being which I call the spirit.

PS: I will not evade your question, I will address it soon.

I want to have a better grasp of your position before I respond.

DeepSight:


Here is the problem: a circular conundrum is created where it is claimed that mind (and all its activity) arises from the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter must precede every thought, every feeling, every memory-deposit, and every action of mind. In this case, how can mind direct matter? From what will, can it direct matter. Will such "will" not need to be preceded by and actuated by the activity of matter as well? Can you see the circularity? Its a vicious cycle which cannot be answered, hence the absurdity. Because this is what LordReed has implied, whether he knows it or not.

As for self-learning codes of a computer I am not convinced that this presents a problem since you have not suggested that such computers thereby have a self conscious mind which circles back to control the components of the computer into actuating itself.

(Even the body has self-learning codes such as the circadian rhythm and too many others to mention).

It might be a conundrum for you,it certainly isn't for me. Maybe because I don't know better to express the idea that even though mind is produced by matter it has become a sum that is greater than its parts. Yes we know that ordinary matter has no volition but in our case ordinary matter is producing something that is no longer ordinary and is now able in turn to affect the matter that gives rise to it. Your position is like claiming a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving.

LordReed:


It might be a conundrum for you,it certainly isn't for me. Maybe because I don't know better to express the idea that even though mind is produced by matter it has become a sum that is greater than its parts. Yes we know that [b]ordinary matter has no volition but in our case ordinary matter is producing something that is no longer ordinary [/b]and is now able in turn to affect the matter that gives rise to it. Your position is like claiming a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving.

perhaps it is ordinary, we only ascribe relevance to it because we think it is. Everything in nature is extraordinary. The whole cosmos and all about it is super extraordinary even atoms are extraordinary... little wonder in perplexity we bow and say God must be behind all these.

HardMirror:
perhaps it is ordinary, we only ascribe relevance to it because we think it is. Everything in nature is extraordinary. The whole cosmos and all about it is super extraordinary even atoms are extraordinary... little wonder in perplexity we bow and say God must be behind all these.

Indeed. I only say not ordinary because it is not tangible like matter is.

LordReed:


Your position is like claiming a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving.

This is a very bad analogy. Quite worse than your analogy with the TV remote control (which I trust you have seen the problem with). This analogy is bad because we are questioning the idea of component parts of a physical thing as the trigger for the emergence of a mind - we do not say that something does not exist because other things like it did not exist previously or have the faculties that it has - which is what you have now equated what we are saying to, with this analogy.

I trust you see that you have "straw-manned" me here.

LordReed:


Indeed. I only say not ordinary because it is not tangible like matter is.

just like gravity has perplexed scientists to the extent some even propose it does not exist, so is the human mind. But we need to step back and look at all of nature even plants. We have all developed means of reacting to our environment. The response if plants may be slow, but when properly observed, they are as interesting as that of animals. Yet people do not say bacteria, fungi and plants have "minds" we humans must be the most special specie, we attribute too much to ourselves. In the end, we are no better than any bacteria, we basically live by same rules... to survive... to find pleasure... to flee harm and discomfort... we only go about these objectives differently. Our very complex actions such as showing love, are by products of a desire for pleasure. Showing love makes us feel good just as eating makes us feel good. Our ever busy brains, so busy it take almost a third of all the energy in our bodies, is busy churning out a lot of by products of it's working to fulfill fundamental objectives of survival. Because it is going about it in an extremely complex manner, it is inevitable we have the by product called sentience.

Imagine how much factors are involved in just picking an apple and eating it. As simple as this process seems, our brain engages so much neurons to achieve it. So much goes into such a simple act, you see the color, you anticipate the taste, your nostrils anticipate the smell, you are sensitive to the texture and feel of the apple in your hand, your memories of apples are activated, in the process you remember better or worse apples you have eaten. You take mental notes.. all this happening subconsciously. You even think of the apple being dirty and needs washing because it is in your unnatural memory that germs exist. Lol.

When we begin to study how much energy the brain expends on everyday actions, even when sleeping our brains are still busy sorting our memories and experiences that the whole mess becomes a dream...

Its hopeless but fascinating

HardMirror:
just like gravity has perplexed scientists to the extent some even propose it does not exist, so is the human mind. But we need to step back and look at all of nature even plants. We have all developed means of reacting to our environment. The response if plants may be slow, but when properly observed, they are as interesting as that of animals. Yet people do not say bacteria, fungi and plants have "minds" we humans must be the most special specie, we attribute too much to ourselves. In the end, we are no better than any bacteria, we basically live by same rules... to survive... to find pleasure... to flee harm and discomfort... we only go about these objectives differently. Our very complex actions such as showing love, are by products of a desire for pleasure. Showing love makes us feel good just as eating makes us feel good. Our ever busy brains, so busy it take almost a third of all the energy in our bodies, is busy churning out a lot of by products of it's working to fulfill fundamental objectives of survival. Because it is going about it in an extremely complex manner, it is inevitable we have the by product called sentience.

Imagine how much factors are involved in just picking an apple and eating it. As simple as this process seems, our brain engages so much neurons to achieve it. So much goes into such a simple act, you see the color, you anticipate the taste, your nostrils anticipate the smell, you are sensitive to the texture and feel of the apple in your hand, your memories of apples are activated, in the process you remember better or worse apples you have eaten. You take mental notes.. all this happening subconsciously. You even think of the apple being dirty and needs washing because it is in your unnatural memory that germs exist. Lol.

When we begin to study how much energy the brain expends on everyday actions, even when sleeping our brains are still busy sorting our memories and experiences that the whole mess becomes a dream...

Its hopeless but fascinating

You are surprising me. Well put, interesting thoughts.
However do remember that humans engage in some extraordinary activities which are not easy to tie to mere physical survival or pleasure etc. Such as intricate philosophy and the search for meaningfulness.