₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Does that have any relevance?

You made a claim that there is consciousness outside the brain. Now, 3 atheists and 1 christian are asking for evidence to back up your claim. But what do say in reply? You claim that I wouldnt know the evidence if even it is shown to me....

Yes I made the claim and I have satisfied it by showing that the fact that a subjective you can control your brain is evidence that you are distinct from your brain. If you want further evidence than that, then you'll have to tell me what it is you are looking for. If you have no idea what you are looking for how then can I help you?

The rest of your post isn't worth a response.

wiegraf: This is no way, shape, or form, in any language, a fact. Exactly when did you prove your actions are not determined?

Hope you aren't going to tell me 'because I am capable of thinking', as you do know silly that sounds? If I programmed a machine to believe it had free will, exactly how do you expect it to figure out, using just its thoughts, that it doesn't possess free will? In fact, it would require a high degree of sophistication, as well as whatever tools are needed, to figure out that it is indeed deterministic. This is similar to one assuming the universe was created just for him simply because he happens to be conscious. He would need to do some hard thinking (among other things) to figure out evolution, BB (or something similar), etc etc.. That he was shaped by the universe, and not the other way round

I wonder how exactly you would go about programming a machine to believe. I hope you do realize that you are making a huge jump backed with zero empirical evidence that you can make non-conscious matter develop a subjective reality. That idea only happens in science fiction.

Everything in this universe follows laws. There is cause and effect. Only quantum weirdness defeats this in certain scenarios apparently. And even if (and that's an if) so, it matters not. As you have no control over the cause, which is arbitrary, and the effect must still follow the laws. Actually, even the cause follows laws, just that they're flexible. And note, this is only at the quantum, most minute of levels. It is of virtually no practical relevance. In fact, despite its dependance on probabilities the SM is the most accurate physical theory there ever has been. It might trick one because of the unpredictability, just as chaotic systems do despite their being deterministic, but there are laws binding QM as well.

There is no where, anywhere, in this universe that we've seen (or even conceived of) logic (or just about anything else) manifesting without a physical base. Cause and effect starts with the physical causing an effect. So, until you can show consciousness without a physical base, stop spouting 'facts' such as these which violate known laws. Simply show us say a man without a brain being conscious, and we'll take you seriously. Else we'll assume it's a function of the obvious; the brain.

I agree totally that there is a cause for every effect however I do not subscribe to the notion that the cause and effect is and can only be physical matter causing an effect in physical matter.
Consider this research for example about London taxi cab drivers whose brains increase in physical size as they learn the London road network. That is clear evidence of non-physical knowledge causing a physical effect. So my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong here. non-physical causes do accomplish physical effects.

Secondly, you have asked me to show you a man without a brain being conscious and I will ask you what is this man supposed to look like bearing in mind that consciousness like knowledge is a non-physical thing?
I have already shown you that the fact that you can control the activities of your brain is evidence that you are distinct from your brain. If you want further evidence than that, then you'll have to describe what this evidence you seek is supposed to look like.

And btw, I have software that's capable of shutting down my PC after it completes a task, exactly how does that mean that the software must not be housed on my PC? Or that it is isn't part of the system?

If you cannot see how this obviously means that the software is distinct from your PC, I really can't help you.

mazaje: The you is your brain, CNS and other parts of your body working together. Many aspects of your brain you can not control, rather it is the brain that functions on its own, you do not control the amount of growth hormones your brain secrets or the adrenaline your brain also secrets when you are in a fright or flight mode. . .You can take a drug and begin to hallucinate, and do things your brain wants, it just does what ever it wants and you just have to act according to how it leads, regardless the will to resit you just have to flow with how the brain leads. The brain make you do what it wants when its chemistry has been altered. . .If you control your brain you should be able to tell your brain to stop making you do things you don't want to. . .A ental person whose brain is malfunctioning should be able to tell his/her brain to control his brain and stop acting crazily, but such a person can not, where ever the brain leads the body follows. The you is just the brain, CNS and body working together.

I asked you to describe what the evidence you seek is supposed to look like? You ignored that and started preaching long sermon. Are you sure you are interested in having your question answered at all?

Person commanding his or her brain?. . .The brain is the person, without it you can not do anything. Your brain can make you do things you don't want when it malfunctions, you lose total control, you can not make your brain do things it doesn't want, but your brain when malfunction will and can make you do things your don't want, so what are you saying?. . .

I asked you to show your argument from the video you presented by citing the specific times in the footage. Again you ignored that and started reaching again. Are you sure you want a two-way discussion or are you more interested in reading your own words?

Sure, no problem, any time. . .

How does this evening sit with you? Have you got skype?

Logicboy03: See the empty barrel of a sophist?

You were claiming that there is consciousness outside the brain. Now you cant give an example of it. See the silly question you are asking me.

You have become a joke

It is a simple question; how do you expect to recognize the evidence when it is shown to you if you don't know what the evidence is supposed to look like?

Wow.....finding contradictions where there arent? I also noticed how you managed to forget to show how they are.

The funny thing that you claiming contradictions does not in any way help your original point that the brain controlling bodily functions is like a car burning fuel. Very silly analogy.

Lol, some people just don't get it.

You are a joke

What an excellent display of logic

Frank4YAHWEH: I was only using this translation of this verse to point out that FATHER Yahweh was not referring to His SON as "God." I do not completely agree with how the verse was translated as a whole in that it does not distinguish Father Yahweh from His SON in this verse as the following translations do:

English Standard Version
And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;

New American Standard Bible
And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

King James Bible
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

King James 2000 Bible
And, you, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands:

American King James Version
And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands:

American Standard Version
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:

Also compare other translation:
http://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-10.htm

I am not in agreement with the above translations of this passage a whole, since a number of them translate as if FATHER Yahweh is giving reference to His SON as "God." Trinitarians would not have a problem with this translation since they are deceptively indoctrinated with the belief that Yahshua is "God" and that he created when Scripture clearly teaches that it was FATHER Yahweh "ALONE, by Himself" with no one beside Him" Who created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM." and that Yahshua is the SON OF Yahweh ["God"].

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

I now see how you read the bible: You read half of a verse in one translation and the other half in another translation as long as it helps you force the verse to say what you want it to say.

The passage in Hebrews clearly refers to the Son and you know it. It is irrelevant whether you agree with the translation or not. The bible has said exactly what it said. "Yahshua IS Yahweh" and Yes God ALONE created the world and all that is therein. You'll just have to put it in your pipe and smoke it.

plaetton: Did you read my last post and the link?

That particular case is exactly what you are asking for.

In that particular case, brain injury from stroke re-organizes the neural circuitry in the brain and the result is that the sensory inputs are mixed up.
The brain does not engage the will to make the correction, but behaves much like a robot.

So in this case the brain is behaving like a robotic computer, only processing the input that it receives.

It was only through the prior experiences of the person that he was able to realize that something was not right.

I just read the article and it doesn't meet my demand I'm sorry.

Here's the first paragraph of your linked article.

About nine months after suffering a stroke, the patient noticed that words written in a certain shade of blue evoked a strong feeling of disgust. Yellow was only slightly better. Raspberries, which he never used to eat very often, now tasted like blue -- and blue tasted like raspberries.

The parts in bold clearly show that the man maintained an subjective reality. So far I think Uyi's coma comes closest to meeting my demand.

mazaje: What is this failed comparison between the brain and the piano?. . .While the brain can do this on its own the piano can not, so anony's analogy fails completely. . .The brain is the YOU and YOU can not do anything without it. . .Consciousness is a function of the brain without which there will be no consciousnesses in the first place. . . .Anony;s should provide evidence of consciousness existing outside the brain for people to take him seriously else he remains a joker that doesn't know what he is saying. . .

I think I've already gone beyond this point. The fact that You can control your brain is evidence that there is a distinct you controlling a distinct brain. If this is not evidence for you, then you'll have to tell me what the evidence you seek is supposed to look like so I can see if i can help you.

As for your video, I'm afraid it didn't give me any new information sufficient to prove that it is the brain that generates the person and not the person commandeering his/her brain. You can always tell me the specific times where this was addressed here.


P/s: By the way, I'm interested in an offline conversation with you about another topic if you are game.

Logicboy03:

You have anonynized your way out of the very question asked-

-Show an example of consciousness working outside the brain.

You are yet to show any example.


However, let us dissect your claims

What is this example supposed to look like?

Even more Anonyism. Do you have a false analogy machine that produces irrelevant analogies when you have been debunked?

a) Who told you that breathing (controlling the respiratory system) as controlled by the brain is a background function?
b) You call breathing every single second of your life a "background function"?
c) Do you will yourself to control your respiratory system? Do you consciously filter out extraneous gases when breathing? Do you organise the routes of your oxygen carrying blood cells?

d) The false analogy. The car does not burn fuel unless you put fuel and start the engine. Your brain will continue to cordinate the digestive system, the respiratory system etc whether you eat/breathe or not.

Take the digestive system, if even you dont eat, your body will start to eat itself. The brain works with or without ones consciousness.

You are a serial liar and sophist, Anony.

It is funny how you cannot see how the bold (b and c) are contradictory. (d) is very interesting because it shows you did no grasp the analogy - which really isn't surprising when one reads your b and c above.

Using ad hominem, doesn't improve your argument in any way.

It is not a second part. It is a second level.

As for the bold, it is not "either or"...........it is both! You have two levels of consciousness

1) Where the brain as an organ controls the person
2) Where the conscious person controls his body+brain (due to the brain producing the mind through neurons and chemical stuff)

Again another absurd contradiction: What you've said here amounts to "A controls B that controls A that controls B"

Uyi Iredia: It isn't which is precisely my point. The brain produces imaginations without YOUR conscious effort.

Exactly what i am saying. The fact that you can differentiate between when you are controlling your brain and when your brain is not under your control is proof that your brain is not generating you.

It does take away from your posit that consciousness is not fully contingent on the brain. If damage to the brain affects consciousness, regardless of whether the person CONSCIOUSLY wants or not want it, then mind is contingent on brain. I've worked with my Dad for 4 years now and he suffers partial stroke so I relate with the bolded but you have to see that this shows that human minds are affected by the physical world on which they are contingent. In particular Google Recticular activating system and frontal lobe: it is a well-documented that damages to these parts remove consciousness especially in RAS. That is the YOU that observes itself in stroke, amnesia, schizophrenia etc. As to your condition of brains functioning without memories, that's precisely what occurs, they are incidents you forget and your brain functions well without such memories. You really won't know you have a memory. For example: when my Dad's stroke started he had problems with his short-term memory without his knowing, It was glaring to us but he didn't know eg he sent my brother to get him water he brought it then minutes after he is asking my brother where his water is. To be fair, he did know of some where he had problems recalling what he wanted to say and simply couldn't recall it, his brain continued to function as you say.

I think I wasn't really clear here. Memory might not be a very adequate illustration of what I mean. I'll explain what I mean better below.

Coma takes away the conscious will and I've told you the brain structure that mediates coma. In fact, coma is the robot state because you can percieve that brain activity is going on in the cortexes eg if you open a coma patient's eyes his brain recieves the visual input, there is no irritation or emotion from the body and so the body passively responds like non-living things to the physical world, self-awareness is gone. What you want is a conscious person unaware of his consciousness which like the square circle is an absurdity. How would a person know, feel and want without knowing it is happening to self?

Hmm, I think you've missed my point. The part in bold is simply not true. Let me see if i can clarify by explaining what I mean by consciousness or mind.

When I say a thing has a mind, I am saying that the thing has at the very least an individual subjective reality what I have been referring to as the "you". i.e. one is not merely processing information but the information has a subjective meaning to the individual.
This is the difference between a mind and a computer For instance when a computer sees the color red it can only react to red in a way that it has been programmed to do and nothing more. It has no subjective opinions of red. The computer cannot even tell that it is a computer and that a chair is not part of it except it has been programmed to see the chair in a particular way under particular conditions. The brain is more like a very advanced computer however, the person has a subjective reality and so is able to have opinions and make non-programmed decisions. He may use his brain as some processor and memory storage and can will it to make certain actions as he chooses. He might choose to call up a memory or consciously choose to suppress or forget a memory. basically you manipulate you brain like a tool. To argue that your brain generates you is simply absurd. As absurd as the claim that non-conscious matter arranged in a certain way can generate a conscious mind capable of manipulating and reconfiguring the non-conscious matter that generates it in order to meet certain conscious ends.

Imagine this thought experiment: you lost use of your 5 senses, you couldn't hear, see, feel, taste, or smell. Would you still know at the very list that you were yourself? or would you lose any sense of your existence?

Now while I appreciate that a person in a coma is still receiving stimuli however the brain is not processing the stimuli and that was not the brain condition I was demanding to be shown. Show me a mental condition where a brain receives stimuli processes it and responds to it in a robotic and totally deterministic way like a computer or robot performing functions without engaging the will and having absolutely no subjective reality.

manmustwac: Can't you come in disguise? Or. Wear camouflage?
It seems as if no matter what date anony chooses somebody willalways be busy ircant make it for whatever reason

lol, I wonder o. By the way, does the day work for you?

Na wa o! Why is everyone suddenly developing cold feet now? I suspect paranoia (and I hope I'm wrong). Are you guys scared of meeting each other offline?

Frank4YAHWEH: Yes, you most certainly are being lead by the blind. No, I have never proclaimed such foolishness. You just have a knack for twisting ones words just as you twist FATHER Yahweh's inspired prophetic word.

Please stop lying, this is getting embarrassing

This is what you said when quoting Hebrews 1:8-10

Frank4YAHWEH: Still quoting:
"Then there are these words: You, Lord [meaning Yahweh, Psalm 102:25], laid the foundations of the earth when it first took its rise, and the heavens are the work of thy hands" (Hebrews 1:8-10; cf. Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Isaiah 43:10, 44:24, 45:12-18).

Here is Hebrews 1:8-10 (according to what you believe to be the proper translation)

he says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy
comrades and Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the work of thy hands they will perish, but thou remainest. Hebrews 1:8-10 (Moffatt)

Notice that It is still the same Son that is being spoken to in one continuous passage. Why are you trying so hard to deceive yourself?

Frank4YAHWEH: Nowhere in ANY Scripture translation does it ever say or teach "Jesus Christ is Yahweh."

See: "Jesus IS God!"
http://yahweh.yolasite.com

...And the blind remain blind. No use beating a dead horse. You have already admitted that Jesus is Yahweh when you said that Hebrew 1:8-10 refers to Christ and refers to Yahweh from Psalm 102:25. You have no case.

Boomark: Good. So those Gods are not false Gods. Ben take note.

Wrong, you've just played the classic bait and switch. We both know that David was referring to the "gods" figuratively in a song and didn't mean that they were actual gods.

whichever sense you want to use, did God ever make Moses a God to Pharaoh or not?

That's rubbish, so when fathers call their oldest sons "daddy of the house" and put them in charge of their younger ones, the children have really become daddies in the true sense of the word? Please stop being dubious

I never knew you know about this. When you guys dubiously inserted 3 persons in One God(where did you get this from?) against "One God, the Father" which was clearly written in 1Cor 8:5-6, where you not thinking about Goodluck then.

May be you should ask Ben to explain why other Gods/lords are all false Gods/lords cos that was why he was stuck by my questions.

I think my point was clear, however I don't get how your reply answers my question. Are you suggesting that Christ is not really God but He only is figuratively God? Is that your point?

Uyi Iredia: I didn't say you said everything is under human control. I said you IMPLIED it. Your talk of brain as a tool cements the need for brains to be conscious in humans. I go so far to surmise this occurs in heaven as popularly illustrated. Since people clearly see morphological structures in those locations one assumes the heads of such people are not empty. The bolded is why I brought up the issue of dreams and hallucinations. Granted there is a conscious YOU unaccounted for (but mediated) by neural activities: BUT the brain 'plays music' (via dreams and hallucinations) with the pianist just watching (one could remember what occurred or not).

An aeroplane flying on autopilot is not really engaging in a conscious exercise wouldn't you agree?

To the extent physical things affect our minds eg accidents making people have amnesia, damage to the RAS causing loss of the YOU and leading to coma, damage to the fusaform gyrus making you forget faces, heavy concussion leading to dizziness or death if the frontal lobe is severely damaged, damage to Broca's area leading to langauge expression impairment etc your mind is FULLY CONTINGENT on the brain.

All the examples you have given, none of them takes away anything from the point I'm making. A faulty piano will sound bad but this wouldn't mean that the pianist is faulty rather it is the tool that is faulty. Recently I've had the opportunity to work with people suffering from dementia and you only have to spend time with them to see that they are consciously struggling to hold their minds together some even shedding tears in frustration.
When your will is trying to force yourself to remember and the memory is just not there or you are trying really hard to string a coherent sentence together but babble keeps coming out, this should be evidence for you that this is someone struggling with an unresponsive tool and not a consciousness that speaks in babble.
If your brain merely generated your consciousness, you wouldn't even know that a memory was lost you'll just function without it because your brain simply won't have the memory.

Of all the mental illnesses I know of, I don't know of any one that takes away a conscious will while leaving everything else intact such that the person now functions like a robot. This strongly suggests that the mind IS NOT contingent on the brain rather the immaterial mind uses the brain as a tool/machine.

wiegraf: This is a bit like a cripple asking me to call him up whenever I want to take a jog. What have I done to make you think I would want to do that?

As for the arguments you've been tossing about, other than what has already been pointed out, you've been presupposing the existence of free will. Exactly when was that proven to exist?

And that statement about empirical proof, suit yourself. But don't you dare bring that anywhere near a science class.

Yawn...My question still awaits your answer

rezzy: Im really enjoying this.

In what language was the bible originally written in?

It depends on the book

Uyi Iredia: My point was a counter to your piano analogy which implies that everything is under one's conscious control. I wasn't arguing that the brain in itself creates consciousness. The crucial part is IN ITSELF. There are 3 postulates I have which form the basis of my stance on consciousness.

1. God is non-contingent, immaterial and infinite consciousness which effects the universe.

'I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.' - Max Planck

2. Human consciousness is fully contingent on the brain.

'No brains, no consciousness' - logicboy

3. Matter in itself has no consciousness whatsoever.

We can agree on 1 & 3. You seem to have a problem with 2.

First of all I didn't say that everything is under conscious control. Even with our everyday machines, not every process is under direct control, some are automated.
The point of the piano analogy was to demonstrate that the brain is a tool to process/comprehend/interpret consciousness and not a generator of the conscious person himself. I made it clear that the tool in the analogy can as well be a car or computer or any other machine you care to think of.

My problem with 2 is that "No brains, no consciousness" à la logicboy is as problematic as saying the "piano plays very good music" when in reality it is the pianist that does the playing, the piano just reacts to his actions. So no, human consciousness is NOT fully contingent on the brain.

Do you get the point now?

Let us examine your questions

Boomark: 1 Was David praising God because he is the God of false gods?

No.

2 why did God make Moses a god to pharoah instead of Himself?

God did not make Moses a god to Pharaoh in the same sense that God is to Moses. In fact, when you actually read Exodus 7, you won't come off with such an idea.

3 since we have one Lord, does it mean other lords(princely angels) who are in heaven are false lords?

Again you are comparing two things that are not in the same sense. For instance compare this:

"We have one president in Nigeria: Goodluck Jonathan does it mean that the president of the Performing Musicians Association of Nigeria (Charlie Boy) is a false president?"

You see how dubious your question actually is?

benalvino: Let me tell you..
The sun is god to somepeople but in real sense is the sun god? No... It is only god in the minds of those who call it their god... Same with Satan which the bible says calls him self god but he is not god.

The bible says Moses will be like god to pharoah but is moses? The word be like god to pharoad n his people explains it for you.

The bible says only one God exist.. Yes am not here to play either am only telling you that these gods are no god like the bible says.

God is not a title but nature... The bible describe God and man as 2 different natures.

Wood and carved stuffs are all FALSE gods... Including the roman emperor who elevate their selves as god just like Satan did...

Am not the one who say he will destroy all I repeat all the gods that have not created the heavens and earth... Not some but all...

Am not the one who says there are no other gods and am not the one who says he is the only TRUE God which means the other gods are not TRUE but FALSE. Am not the one who says all other gods are idols.

one of the reason human sin was because they want to be like God... The lie Satan told eve... If we are gods like some say why does she want to be like God?

And if Moses was god as some say humans are gods why will God make him like god to pharoah.

I think you answer here is apt. I really can't see the point Boomark is trying to make

frosbel: unfortunately due to other commitments , will not make it.

Ouch, that's sad

GeneralShepherd: Why do you bother trying to refute the JWs? Their mind is made up already...

Lol...this one no be JW, na akpuruka fanatic

Frank4YAHWEH: No, this deception will not work with me either!

What you fail to realize is that this is a quote from Psalm 45 and is prophetic of FATHER Yahweh's SON Yahshua and that this is not FATHER Yahweh directly speaking to Yahshua, but is Dawid speaking propetically concerning the future coming promised Messiah who had not yet come into existence at this point in time:

But when the set time had fully come, Yahweh sent His son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship (Galatians 4:4-5).

I wonder how this unrelated post proves that the person being referred to in Hebrew 1:8-12 is anyone other than Jesus Christ - and those verses make it clear that Jesus Christ is Yahweh

Uyi Iredia: It is evidence that the brain acts against a person's will. There are many functions the brain does irrespective of one's volition. Thisnis secondary-school biology. Google autonomic nervous system. Mr Anony I can assure you you can be made unconscious in an instant if an anesthetic is administered to you or critical parts of your frontal lobe or brain stem are damaged. You cannot will your consciousness to remain if their activities are infringed upon. Your consciousness is fully contingent on your brain in fact for the most part it is your brain when working.

I'm sorry but you are still missing the point, none of these prove that your brain is generating your consciousness/will. But there is more than enough evidence to prove that you control your brain

In a similar manner, your car performs many functions outside your sphere of control. Google fuel combustion. I can assure you that your car can be made to stop if water is poured into your fuel tank. Now the question: Is it your car that generates the movement or is your car the tool by which you move?

plaetton: No. The brain stops working when the electrical activiTy in the brain has ceased.
The brain biochemistry that produces the electrical activity has stopped.
No invisible man involved. Lol

And the piano goes off when tactile process that causes conversion of electrical current to sound has ceased. What's your point?

Logicboy03: See this sophist? What nonsense!


This guy is now claiming that the person knows that his brain is "out of control/malfunctioning" when he is asleep or in a coma etc....


I give up.....this guy is a self parody

very pathetic attempt at mockery there. How else can you tell that you were dreaming or hallucinating and that it is different from real life if you can't tell that your brain is giving you inauthentic information?

By the way, I noticed your little strawman.

You really should learn to think first before opening your mouth.

Logicboy03: Lol.....Did I not say it? Did I not say that Anony wont answer the question? MTCHEW....

Have you no shame Anony? Do you just do merry-go-round sophistry just to troll? Gaddem!



Just to even address your sophistry- there are different levels of consciousness-
-Level 1- the brain as an organ
-Level 2- the brain as the mind (your conscious self)

The brain wills itself. Are you controlling your breathing and movements when you are asleep? As an organ (level 1) the brain controls you. Do you think that it you (level 2) that wills your body to shoot andrenaline when ready to fight?

Level 2 is your mind (the result of the brain working with the CNS and the body). You will your brain to do maths calculations and construct poetry.


Mad people are conscious but have lost level 2 or the level 2 is faulty.




In short, your piano/pianist analogy fails because unlike the piano, the brain can will you. It is the very reason you despise atheists. You have been conditioned to believe that only christians can live a truely moral life. Your level 2 cant override the deep conditioning your level one has been given

This is where you are wrong I'm afraid.

1. The fact that the brain runs certain background functions(such as controlling the respiratory system for instance) is not proof that the brain is doing them by will anymore than your car for instance burning fuel in the background while you turn the steering is not proof that your car is willing itself to burn fuel. You should be careful not to use the term "will" too loosely.

2. The second part is exactly what we are discussing i.e whether it is the brain that generates the conscious self or the conscious self controls the brains activities. You have conceded here that the conscious self wills the brain to act in this instance.

Uyi Iredia: Mr anony, there are well-substatiated instances as dreams, hallucinations and involuntary actions (eg spontenous muscle movements, fatigue etc) where the brain acts independent of the person. It would be better to focus on the inadequacy of dynamic compounds in themselves to account for consciousness.

And you don't think that the fact that a person is able to know that his/her brain is out of control is actually evidence that the brain does not generate the will? If you are conscious of your brain malfunctioning, isn't that proof that your consciousness is not sourced from the brain but rather the brain is the tool and therefore you can be conscious of when it misbehaves by not responding to the control of your will?

GeneralShepherd: Do you will your brain to perform..say thermiostatic functions? Do you will your eyes to blink? The brain is just too complex for an analogy to anything man-made.

If it was that simple I would have been a brain surgeon...lol.

I believe I mentioned suicide @whim..ie willing your brain to death.

Lol, I agree that the brain is a very impressive and complex machine but a machine it still is. Regardless of how complex a machine is, it cannot generate consciousness. Your computer for instance also runs background functions that you don't have direct control over but this doesn't mean that it is consciously doing it.

By the way, as for "willing yourself to death" you are only working under the assumption that that the same process must apply for every chosen function, this doesn't follow.

P/s: chukky, I am not "getting defensive" I am only arguing what I know to be true. I do not see and have never seen anything that would lead me to the logical conclusion that matter generates mind.

GeneralShepherd: Anony I have a lot respect for you,so please don't get defensive...

Why would not consider the fact that the pianist my wish to play but the piano is damaged?

My point is this the argument here is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Asides from our faith in God,it is emprically impossible to prove that consciousness exists without the brain.

N:B I have been following you for a long time but since seun decided not to change my moniker chukkynwob

I got a new one

But that's still my point, the piano is not the one generating the music, an active will is. If the piano is damaged, this does not therefore mean that the pianist does not exist. the piano still remains the tool while the pianist remains the will.

Also by strictly applying empiricism to the question of wills, it is also empirically impossible to prove that wills exist. You cannot tell by independent observation that anyone else other than you is acting according to their wills and not random motions.

I do not hold that empirical knowledge is the only way to know.

GeneralShepherd: Also the piano and the pianist analogy fails because

Good points. Let us examine them

A) the piano cannot make any sound (no function) at all without the pianist, the brain controls all the involuntary neccesarry actions required for the body to 'be alive' even with the 'pianist'

the piano analogy can stand for any machine used to perform a function. It could be a computer or a car or anything. The point is that the machine is not generating the function, an active will is. When you use your computer or your car for instance, certain functions run in the background which are not necessarily under direct control by you. These functions do not make your machine conscious and if you wanted to stop them you could.

B) the pianist can stop the activities of the piano at will, in the case of the human mind it is virtually impossible to wish one's self to death,at the stroke of the whim.

And how exactly does one go about killing himself if not to start by willing it and then proceed to carrying out the necessary actions that will result in his death? In the same way if I wanted to turn off my car engine I first will it and then proceed to actually turn the ignition key to "off"

GeneralShepherd: But in your analogy you just safely assumed the piano stopped producing music because the pianist stopped playing, what if he is still playing and the cables that connect the keys to the pluckers(or whatever they are called) all cut? Even though his hands still tap the keys will the music still play?

And like I said before you are over simplifying things here,albeit the brain.

I believe that I pointed out clearly that the piano remained the same thereby making it clear that the only change is the absence of the player.
A dead brain (before it begins to decay) looks very much like a living brain only there's no activity. The person willing things to happen is gone.