₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
It is only a bad analogy because you are unwilling to consider a different point of view. You insist on interpreting everything based on your position.

Surely you see the distinction I point out? That it is not on account that something such as mind has not preceded mind that my argument against yours is based on? To be clear - the argument is this simple: you have said that mind arises from matter and the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter is necessary to actuate mind. Thus there must be preceding actions and interactions of cells and neurons before mind does anything. Hence before mind even comes up with a will there must also be preceding actions of matter which actuate that will of mind. Therefore you cannot say that mind controls matter without ceding the argument. You are making a circular argument which reaches round right back to itself. It is a contradictory argument. I have explained this in detail.

As I said before, you will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action. This is not on all fours with saying that a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving. The apt analogy to use the elements of your example would rather be that if the components that make a car self-driving are necessary for it to be self-driving, then you simply cannot declare the car self driving without the prior activity of those components.

I hope you see the difference. In your bad analogy you compare the existence of one thing to a previously existing model with different capacities. In the proper analogy which you should make, you should be looking at the existence of the one thing viz-a-viz the components that comprise it, and make it function.

Just to conduct a quick check to make sure you are being open minded about where you may have got things wrong with analogies: did you at least see what was wrong with your analogy of the TV remote?

Because what was wrong with it was that the components of the TV remote do not control you. Whereas the argument in this thread is about components that control you, components, the activity of which, allegedly spawn your mind. The same thing wrong with that analogy is wrong with your present one: you are talking of a prior existing type of car and not the components of the same car in question.

Still waiting for you to define spirit and outline it's attributes.

I will shortly. Let me have dinner.

_{In the meantime there are other responses of mine from the NDE thread you are yet to react to. Or do you also want the definition of spirit before addressing those too?}

HardMirror:
I dont agree.
Experiments have been carried out to study what we call perception and it was discovered that we are unable to pay attention to most of the stimuli that we receive. For example what you think you see everyday is just a tiny fraction of what you eyes actually see and what your brain actually retains. You see more than you are aware of, you hear more than you are aware of, your brain is crunching a massive load of information and working over time to help you stay connected with your reality as much as possible. The interpretation of these data can be misleading most times.

For example an hung coat could look like a ghost to you in the darkness of night. Such malformed informations lead to malformed memories, most of which goes unnoticed. Many of these useless thoughts and memories would eventually be dumped.

For lack of distraction when you are asleep, your brain is busy joggling most of these memories even the malformed ones.

When awake, you have enough to distract you from these wmalformed memories

I am aware of all these and I am not talking of anything related to such. I am referring to other worldly dreams of a nature that cannot be derived from this world. However this will take us far far away from the remit of this thread. So let us park it for now.

HardMirror:
...even when sleeping our brains are still busy sorting our memories and experiences that the whole mess becomes a dream...

Humans regularly have dreams that have nothing to do with either memories or experiences. In fact they also have prescient dreams as well as lucid dreams but let me not create a tangent which will be too distracting.

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.

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:
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.

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).

Kobojunkie:
I don't require an explanation....I don't really care to read an epistle on this. A simple "yes" or "no" is all that is necessary. Either your understanding is the Satan character works for the God character, or not.

If I may interject, doesn't the story of Job directly suggest this?

PastorAIO:
Dis guy. you don come again o. 'stranded'?!! What?, The lips went on excursion and couldn't afford the bus fare back to their base.

You get it.
Exactly bros.

PastorAIO:
When I see this emoji at the end of all your posts after a while I'm starting to wonder if that is that actual shape of your mouth in real life. lol.

I pray that isn't so...

I know several people whose lips are stranded in that peculiar position in real life though.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

LordReed:
The reason I asked you to watch it is to underline the point that the mind and body are one. There is no ghost in the machine. the machine is the ghost. If I was to use your car analogy it would be like saying there is no driver, it's a self driving car. It would be very futile to look for the "driver" in a self driving car.

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.

Steep:
reading words according to context is not making things up. Ritual killing of Jesus?
Jesus death was a judicial sacrifice not a ritual enlighten yourself.
till now you have not provided a single shredd of evidence of yahweh commanding human sacrifice

This is shameful. You actually deny the very meanings of the words "ritual" and "sacrifice" in a bid to flee the self evident. In a bid to flee from your very own faith, strangely. I have watched people of faith do this so often that it's become meaningless to me - the lengths to which you guys would go to deny things written in black and white in your own scripture is staggering beyond belief. I am tired of wondering just how people could lie so blatantly to their own selves.

nuclearboy:
There are 3 people who's blessings he needs.... he doesn't even know them yet and might feel too big to seek them out.

With them, yes

Happy New Year chief!
Who are the three musketeers?

LordReed:
DeepSight, triplechoice

When you have the time watch this video, I highly recommend:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53RX2ESIqsM

PS: Ignore the "not available" message, just click the link.

While I understand what you are trying to hint at here, and I have already accepted your point about how the thoughts and actions of others in ones past can affect one's reality and future, this doesn't take away the point I believe you are reacting to, unless I am mistaken about your reason for posting this.

On a general and perhaps tangential note however, the truth is that one is not denying either the fact that the physical body is impacted by trauma or the fact that physical factors can affect psychological experiences. If you are involved in a motor accident, the car will have its damage and you can also go away with invisible psychological scars. For me, the human being is the driver inside the car who goes away with psychological scars while the body is the car, which goes away with physical scars. And yes, the condition of that car can affect the drivers reality.

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.

LordReed:
@DeepSight response to DP3: The Chicken & Egg Problem

This point is kinda funny, it is similar to claiming that a house has to be built instantaneously whole or else you can't build a house. One only has to look at how a house is built to see that the work in progress is way different from the finished outcome. You are basically saying to me that the foundations and skeletal framework that will support the finished outcome cannot come before the building is finished.

The things that provide the basis for our more advanced intellectual concepts by necessity started as very primitive concepts. Our written history is a literal documentation of our progress from the primitive to the sophisticated. Saying that evolution would limit us to primitive concepts seems to me to suggest that you completely miss the point even as you are looking at it. Evolution moved us from primitive form to our present day form and you seem to think we should have stuck with the primitive concepts we started with. Are you not seeing that you are contradicting yourself or else you'd also be asking why didn't we stay with our primitive forms. Just as our bodies evolved our thoughts and concepts also evolved.

I knew this particular point I was trying to make would be specially difficult to convey. It is either I failed to convey it properly or you failed to grasp it properly or some combination of both. Let me dwell a bit on the most succinct way to reformulate the point. Therefore let us park this Discussion Point for now. I will be back on this.

LordReed:
@DeepSight response to DP2: Evolutionary imperatives

I am not sure why you think evolution has no explanation of the origin of consciousness. There are many scientific papers detailing the answer to that. . .

This is news to me. Perhaps you can assist me with pointing out such scientific papers which hopefully resolve the problem of consciousness conclusively.

. . . but the summary of it is what I have been harping on already, it is an emergent property which means there was a build up to this current state of consciousness we see in humans.

That there is a build-up to our current form and physical capacities is beyond cavil for me. Perhaps this is a good juncture at which to emphasize once again that I believe in evolution. I only do not believe that it is sufficient to account for the totality of life, especially conscious life and most especially self-conscious life which we observe today.

In truth evolution is for me completely deficient in accounting for many things which are still even physical, much less that which is intangible. Being an old boy on this forum you may well recall a thread I opened years ago about the evolution of the sexes and sexual reproduction. For me, that is one significant problem which the theory of evolution does not resolve.

Just to refresh your memory I laid out 12 posers regarding that question here -
https://www.nairaland.com/1571602/evolution-sexes-sexxual-reproduction#20521482

But I digress. Because the argument I was making with reference to a lack of evolutionary imperatives is simply that while there is an evolutionary imperative to develop for example capacities to hunt and eat, we cannot discern or articulate any evolutionary imperative for the higher faculties of mankind such as those which include a ceaseless philosophical curiosity and higher notions of morality and justice. I pointed out to you (and you seemed to completely ignore) the point that evolution by itself would promote the survival of the fittest, it would lead to the triumph of the moral standpoint that might is right in all things and that being consistent and true with evolutionary imperatives and evolutionary thinking alone, we must wind up justifying eugenics as not just a morally valid science but in fact probably necessary for the continued upward development and improvement of humanity.

You did not seem to tangibly address any of this in your response.

My position is that there is an altogether different faculty within man which is not suitably accounted for by recourse to the theory of evolution alone - and which is responsible for these higher impulses and cognitions of man - because such impulses and cognitions are not to be found in physical nature wheresoever - physical nature being probably the most competitively brutish thing that one could possibly conceive - as is evident throughout the wild.

Another factor I would like to draw your attention to is the great gulf that exists between man and every other creature to be found on the Earth with respect to these higher faculties. Because while there are indeed as you have pointed out, several intelligent species on Earth such as dogs, dolphins and apes, there is not one that we can properly say rests somewhere midway between the rest of the animal kingdom and the higher capacities of man. Not only is this something to ponder on in terms of the notorious gaps in the fossil record (which purportedly supports the theory of evolution with physical evidence), but this is something to also dwell on in terms of meaningfulness in the first place; viz: what causes man to be concerned with such higher thoughts as the meaning of life, the origin of the universe, eternity, infinity, the nature of time and the like - not to speak of the imponderable wonders of the arts and the senses of beauty and wonder.

It is altogether insufficient for anyone to simply propose that with sufficient time and gradual development these faculties would simply evolve. What pushes such evolution? Because the theory of evolution as articulated is premised on given suppositions such as the principle of survival of the fittest and random mutations none of which are sufficient to logically support the evolution of these higher faculties. The precision required for the development of organs such as the human brain and human eye alone require virtually impossible mathematical odds to evolve, so much so that such has often been likened to the probability that an ape playing with a computer keyboard could produce the complete works of Shakespeare if given sufficient billions or trillions of years. You must bear in mind that the human brain still far exceeds the most advanced computers in terms of complexity, and no one would ever be impudent enough to suggest that anything resembling such computers could occur naturally in the universe and without intelligent input - just given sufficient time. And yet such computers do not even have the faculty of self-consciousness, which is something else altogether!

And that brings me to the point that matter simply represents the hardware, while there exists an intangible aspect to our being - not derived from matter or its interactions and activity - which represents the software that we are - the information, which is simply run by and through matter, for the purpose of expression and manifestation.

I have before invited you to present evidence that mind is separate from the physical body, you are yet to present any.

As we go along. However as I said, I will have to touch on the experiential in doing so.

LordReed,

I should start by saying that I am well aware that I hold the short end of the stick in this discussion: because everything your position relies on can be discussed with reference to physical phenomena and science, whereas much of what my position relies on rests in the realm of the intangible and experiential. Nonetheless I am convinced of what I am trying to put across and because I have trust in both your rationality and fair-minded approach to issues, I am up for trying.

LordReed:
@DeepSight, below is my response to your 1st point of discussion: Discussion Point One (DP1): "The Person"

The impression I get is that you are intent on treating my submissions as though I am a strict materialist, this is a strawman you are responding to in effect and means you are missing my points and arguing something else.

Recall that I said man is both the mental and physical aspects of his being so how then do you say things like "identity of a human person is not to be found in his body" as though I said man is only his body?

I am afraid I do not agree that a strawman has been made for the simple reason that I doubt there is any strict materialist who would insist that such things as thoughts, emotions and the sense of self are physical in themselves (or if there are they must be very few and very fringe): rather the position of such materialists is simply that all such things arise from the activity/ interactions of material things - and this is exactly your position as well. This is to be contrasted with my position, for I do not believe that all of these things can be accounted for by the activity and interactions of matter alone, whereas you obviously do. In short, while you say that these intangibles arise from matter, I say that they do not - not entirely at any rate, for while matter plays a role as a tool or vehicle for the expression, experience of and manifestation of these intangibles, matter is a tool only, a vehicle only, for something which both reason and experience should lead us to be sure is not material.

As for the seat of consciousness, there is no such thing since mind is an emergent property. It is like someone trying to isolate the wetness of water, that is an incoherent task that can never be achieved. Wetness is an emergent property of water that arises due to its physical nature. Mind is similar, there is no particular thing called mind so there is no seat for it. Mind arises by physical things functioning yet itself is not physical.

This is where we disagree and the bold specifically sums that disagreement up.

Identity is another non-physical aspect. It is a mental construct we use as placeholders for things. Take the ship of Theseus, it is changed part by part yet it is still the ship of Theseus because the identity is separate from the physical aspects of the ship and that identity is held in a non-physical "realm" so that even when all the parts have changed it is still the ship of Theseus. Let's relate that to a human being. If all your limbs and organs (except your brain cos that will be problematic) get replaced successively such that you eventually have a new body your identity will remain somewhat intact because you will still refer to yourself as you. I say somewhat because you will most likely acknowledge the change and use qualifiers like "new" or "improved" so new you or improved you. This is because your identity is non-physical and that part has not been touched. This is can be seen in trans people. They may change their bodies but their identity construct remain intact. In fact most of them make the changes because their identity construct and their biological bodies are in conflict and they resolve it by making the change.

It is true that the body and mind are so intricately interlinked that the perception of the body perforce plays a part in the perception of identity, nevertheless it is my position that core identity ( "the being" ) is in itself something inward and by no means to be derived from, of or by the body.

I am aware that I have in this post merely stated my position as distinct from yours, and not offered up any deductive reasoning in that regard. I shall however attempt to do so as we go along. Nonetheless perhaps it is an apt time for me to warn that since the short end of the stick which I hold is mostly intangible and experiential as I said above, I shall be forced, at some point, to dwell a little on the subjective and experiential, which, while offering nothing in terms of scientific or objective argumentative value, I expect should to some extent still resonate with you as a fellow "experiencer."

Jakumo:
. . . with a detached, dispassionate, and academic mindset.

This never ceases to knock me off laughing my heading off!

Foolishmasses:
To start with, I'm a Yoruba Nigerian. Therefore, any shots fired towards me by my perceived ethnic men is welcome if I don't align with their sense of reasoning in voting Tinubu. One of the most fraudulent thing ever to grace the face of the earth is democracy, and it's popular and welcome because numbers determine its outcome. The 2015 general elections was determined by numbers too and that shows how majority of people can be so foolish in decision making compare to handful of people who are brilliant and intelligent. Buhari won the 2015 general elections evidently as a result of numbers. His performance till date shows how myopic those who canvassed, supported , campaigned and voted for him are. I knew he wouldn't be a great president from day one. The affliction is about to rise the second time , numbers are about to decide the election again and same as it was the last, so it's about to be next year. It would be counterproductive to your well-being both mentally , financially and physically to vote Tinubu and complain if his presidency is as bad as this or terrible more than what we are experiencing as a nation now. It's glaring for us to see, but we take pleasure in shying away from the truth. Ironically, those who suffer most in this present dispensation of presidency are those commoners who sang Buhari praise pre-election, while the nature has its way of compensating those who voted for others but out-numbered by numbers.
Tinubu is out again and the name is flaring up like a wild fire, same as Buhari name was then..God will provide and meet the needs of those who maybe outnumber by decisions of nitwits once again.
I congratulate myself for making headway in the past seven years even though Buhari presidency wished otherwise.

Ogo ni fun ó ólórun (Glory be to God)

May you live long and well.
Sense is rare, and a people get the leadership they deserve.

PastorAIO:
We can talk around and around this issue but there can be no denying the blatant and obvious biblical truth which is that YHWH was/is genocidal and filicidal. He accepts and is appeased by human sacrifice. This so obviously and blatantly the case in Judaism but more so in Christianity, the entire edifice of which is based on the human sacrifice of Jesus for the cleansing of sins.

Apparently there is no other way for YHWH to forgive you. Even the sheep and goats that were substituted for humans would not do the trick so in the end Jesus had to die.

Yhwh directly asks for and admits to asking for Humans to be sacrificed and the Bible demonstrates this by being full of human sacrifices.

Long time Pastor. Great to read from you again. How you dey?

wirinet:
After Trump's election loss denial, no Republican would concede an election loss ever again. Even if a Republican looses by 99.9%, they would still challenge the election.

That that man could become president, be tolerated as president and even defended passionately by people who call themselves Christians, says a great deal about the sort of world we live in.

@ cornelboy. If you were to be shown a vision of this world as you now perceive it before you were born, would you consider it hellish?