₦airaland Forum

@Lordreed

Please.go through the link below and find the current position of neuroscientist when it comes to mind and consciousness.

A lot of disclaimer was issued to warn the public not to accept as conclusive some of the claims being spread on the net by a few dissenting neuroscientist.
https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-limits-of-current-neuroscience

LordReed:
This seems like a contradiction in terms. How can something be exerting pressure on the brain and not be measurable? This is one of the fundamental problems with proposing some nebulous "realm" that is claimed to be immeasurable but yet exerts influence physically. If something is exerting pressure then that pressure can be observed and measured. You cannot simultaneously be claiming something is immeasurable and at the same time is exerting pressure.

When you're not aware of what is exerting pressure, how can you measure it? That is what you have not considered. You already concluded such a thing doesn't exist when you dont know the exact nature of what you're dismissing.

Supposing it exist, but mistaken for something else?

The lack of proper description of the exact nature of what dualist hold as true is why scientists dismiss those ideas ,and not that some of these things are not true. I will attempt to give a clear description in my later presentation.

Yes the operation of the brain is surmised to be the basis of mind, no brain no mind.

Not completely true. Majority of neuroscientist are yet to be certain about this. At least I did some readings myself to understand their position better. I will share with you a link which contains a disclaimer, warning the public not to accept as settled the issue of mind or consciousness.
Most of the things I have written here finds support amongst neuroscientist, meaning that, some of my claims are not just my conclusion alone.

It is supported by science, as can be seen here:

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region/

By the time I share those links, you will understand my position better. Some of the links you shared which I have read contains highlights of the limitations of such studies to make one know that you should not take such studies as conclusive, but you seem to ignore those each time to focus on the positive aspects of the research.
The last one you shared contained an important disclaimer which you seem to have missed. The introductory part of the article is misleading as it doesn't match with what was later explained

This would be very easy to test, I dunno why you say it is not open to measurement. If these proficient people can be put under rigorous testing conditions and have their skill fully demonstrated, I don't see how it is a bad thing or unachievable for that matter. Put a giant cardboard sheet with random information that cannot be guessed in a room beside where this proficient person is without them seeing it visibly, then ask them to go look at it with their separated consciousness or mind. Simple, straightforward.

I know what has inspired the above comment. But just know that such demonstration will not move scientist in the main body of science to to investigate anything , since they wouldn't be able to immediately explain it to fit in with the theory of mind they're currently working it.

For instance ,there have been credible scientist who can't afford to soil their reputation, investigating
some reincarnation stories to confirm them as true, with verifiable proofs in support, yet those in the main body of science have refused to consider and investigate further.
If they won't listen to their peers is it a non scientist they are going to listen to?

Wrong. It is founded on the paradigm that the only thing that can be reliably studied is either the universe or that which affects the universe. Any nebulous "realms" or phenomenon cannot be reliably studied since most times you can't even define this nebulous "realm" or phenomenon.

There's nothing nebulous about any realm that exist. It is because science at the moment can't reliably investigate it ,hence they are consider as such.

How are we certain that there are no aspects of our universe that operates differently?

I am not here referring to imaginative heaven or hell created by religion, but aspects of our reality that scientist are yet to come to terms with

This is acting as if any conclusions reached are set in stone. If a scientist makes a faulty observation or conclusion, the practice is robust enough to scrap the faulty bits and have a do over. Which is why Einstein's theories can supercede Newton's.

Not all the time . Most times they are too slow to respond to new evidence, and at other times ,consistently ignore an evidence proving something to be true.

LoLz. Was this an attempt to strawman what I said? If it is you would do well to go over what I actually wrote. No machine will ever develop human consciousness simply because it is not human. It may develop a form of machine consciousness just as much as animals have their own form of consciousness. You admit that animals do have a form of consciousness so why would it be difficult for you to conceive that machines would develop their own form of consciousness?

You still ended up reaffirming the same thing. Animals and machines are two unlike objects
Before you can confidently believe machines can develop some sort of consciousness closer to animals or humans you must be certain of how consciousness as emerged elsewhere.
So far, scientist are not certain about that.

Maybe. However the advances that have been made in understanding consciousness and mind have been quite useful even though the knowledge is far from complete. This is the advantage science provides, reproducible results.

I like this . The problem dualist face in explaining their view point clearly to others, is that most of them are not able to explain the exact nature of what is soul and how it relates with the brain and the other parts of the body.

If there are asked to
give an explanation , the next thing, is to quote religious text that doesn't make any sense.

I belong to a school of thought that believes science is in better position to come up with more rational explanation once it can understand better any phenomena it is investigating . If science one day realizes that such a thing as soul exist , it won't certainly not name it soul ,but give it another name.

The reason I believe those in the main body of science ignore some of this concepts, is they think it has to do with religious nonsense or beliefs. Investigating it, would mean wasting time to confirm God or the spiritual realm exist. But they are mistaken.
Some of these concepts were hijacked by some religious groups and deliberately misconstrued for recruiting new members ,with threats of their soul ending up in hell or reincarnating endlessly if the refuse to join them.

The concept of soul is not even a Christian idea. It was hijacked from early Greek philosophers by some early church leaders who then introduced it into Christianity.
The earliest Jewish writers never believed in the concept of soul that goes on to live after the death of the physical body. This is the reason you won't find any mention of a soul going to hell after death in the old testament.

It is only in the new testament that one finds a soul that can go to heaven or hell . But of course we all know how the new testament came about ,so it is not surprising to find such ideas placed in it.

Can you give an example of the kind of people you are referring to?

The later part of my presentation will mention that

How did the below image appeared on my post

[quote author=LordReed post=113401818]Hello to you too.



The interesting thing about facts are they are accessible to all so it will be interesting to see what facts you present.

Facts are facts they don't need a qualifiers like scientific or otherwise, as long as we are dealing with facts we should be on an even keel.[quote]I have qualified it because there are logical truths ,not requiring scientific explanation for it to be accepted as such



Sure, let's ruminate on ideas by all means.



[quote]Because it cannot yet be studied directly.[quote]Good We agree on this
[quote]I don't know what you mean by is not answered by science. If you mean scientists have not studied all there is to know about consciousness then yes there is more we don't than we do but it doesn't take away from what we do know. And that which we do know can be confidently stated.

To come up with this presentation, I researched articles written by neuroscientist who never forget that it is not easy to define what mind or consciousness is because inspite of what they have come up with, little is still known about how the human brain works. So if you only know little about how something works, how can be certain of what you have found out. You just might seeing the effect of something whose cause is unknown.

The qualifier you use here of true for the source of consciousness is a leading one. It appears as though you already have a conclusion in mind and because science doesn't point to that "true source" you readily dismiss what it does point to. And it points to consciousness arising from the functions of the brain and body. The interacting systems that make consciousness possible are well known. You have your circulatory system, you have your nervous system, you have your endocrine system, combined these are the systems that support consciousness in the human being. Take away any one of these and the human being looses consciousness.

Yes ,I actually have what I regard as a source of consciousness, but that will be revealed in the next presentation.
From a scientific point of view it is correct to say that once you take away any of the system that support life, then consciousness seize to exist, but I will interpret this as consciousness detaching itself from the body it occupied once those system which ties it to the body stop working.
For instance, if I am on a call with you and the battery of my phone suddenly goes flat, I will lose connection with my phone (my body) and no longer able to communicate with you through the phone. This will not mean that consciousness using the phone has expired. Once I charge my phone battery, I "regain consciousness" and continue the call.
There's a parallel to the above analogy which scientists have witnessed at different times and are unable to explain. Someone is certified clinically dead, meaning that consciousness has expired. Then unexpectedly consciousness is regained the individual returns back to life. If it's true that the deactivation of any of the systems which support life leads to the cessation of consciousness, how can it be explained those who have defied this?
The usual conjecture from neuroscientist is that there might be some brain activities still going on ,even though the brain has been certified dead, that has reviled consciousness.
The exact brain activity is never disclosed. When they try to mention what they think is responsible, they can't actually explain how it has led to consciousness coming back.

What much need result? The so called true source of consciousness?

Yes

No scientist will claim they have a "comprehensive understanding" of the mind. What they will acknowledge is that their observations so far have provided a working knowledge of consciousness and the mind with many more mysteries to solve. This is evident in the application of many techniques employed in treating mental illness and other frailties of the mind.

I never said they will claim, but I expect they should at some point

Your analogy misses the point. A person who has the stats of the match doesn't need to know all the nitty gritty of what happened on the field in other to appreciate the nature of the result. Some even use these stats to predict the outcomes of future matches quite well.

Then why the claim that consciousness has emerged from matter if you can't see "inside" to know exactly how it has happen. It could have emerged from elsewhere.

This is well appreciated in science which is why no scientist can claim comprehensive knowledge of the mind.

Then we should not take with certainty that mind is not separate from brains

Science as practiced today cannot investigate that which cannot measured, it is an inherent limitation. If there is some nebulous "realm" that science cannot reach then it can't provide any answers there.

That is why it is a psychological fact that once an individual is in the dark about something, the normal tendency is to come up with a sorts of irrational explanations which doest fits the fact about he or she is in the dark about.

There isn't such a scanner so how can we arrive at such a conclusion? You seem to have made up a scenario and concluded that the scenario is true without any real world analog?

But the link you shared demonstrates such a scanner exist which can help scientist know an individual's Political affiliation . But however what I wrote was meant to be an hypothetical situation. That is, if it were possible to have such a brain scanner, not mind scanner, you can't know the exact thoughts that has led to the behavior.

I will Post the other parts of my presentation which answers the questions I already raised.

LordReed:
In summary, consciousness is what evolved into mind and animals have not yet achieved that evolution? Is their consciousness independent? And which is the one that is independent in humans, consciousness or mind?

My later presentation would throw further light on the questions you have asked.

But in the main time, I already explained that mind represent our human personalities .

Mind is how consciousness has chosen to express itself through the body it occupies.

Mind can change if thoughts which makes up mind is deprogrammed or replace with new ones.

However not everyone has created their minds themselves. It is made for them by others. Religious fundamentalist falls under the class of people.

So the normal situation should be individual consciousness expressed through individual or independent mind. But some people have individual consciousness controlled by a group or mass mind which they have no control over.

Do animals have individual minds?

If they have, the evidence doesn't support it as they don't ,except in rare cases, display individual character traits.

budaatum:
You've noticed my red herring definition of science. I'm glad. Note I neither said "trained scientist" nor "expert in the sciences". I red herringed scientist Jesus too.

We humans have no other tools than our senses with which to receive data about the world, and our minds are what we use to make sense of the data that we receive, so I can't think of any other way to learn about the world than to use one's senses to receive data and interpret it with one's mind is my point, and a'scientist' red herringed by me as one who has gone through the rigorous training to use one's senses properly, should be more competent at least in their specific sphere of inquiry at so doing. I mean, see as you disqualified lay person me, lol.

Yes, my "brain can throw illusions at you, and deceive you into making wrong judgements", a fallibility I already admitted to, but the rigour of experimentation learned by a 'scientist' would make one ask and knock and seek so one can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I am not trying to "distract and confuse" you. I'm engaging with your intelligent mind.

Please cut the crap buda . Your not a scientist in any way, whether trained or not.

My first presentation which has led to this, was not to lecture the public on what it means to be a scientist or what the scientific method means

I only tried to highlight the limitations of the scientific method to support my argument that there are things in life science will never make us know or understand.

Anyone who has taken their time to read the other parts of what I wrote, would have understood that by mentioning science and the scientific method, I was talking of how it is understood by expert scientists, and not your subjective understanding of it which you brought in to make me look stupid; that I don't know the meaning of science and the scientific method, and that you, a non scientist, know it more than me ,so you want to lecture me.

This is exactly what you're doing and I believe others following would have noticed it too.

So ,please cut the crap, and state the facts as you know and understand it concerning my main presentation just like Lordreed and others have done

If you have nothing to say no problem. I already mentioned in my introduction that I am not forcing anything on any one. You're free to reject and accept whatever I have posted.

You're also free to announce your subjective definition of science to the world, but to force it on me without highlighting the standard definition to show the difference, means you consider me a stupid person who doesn't know the difference.

@Lordreed, I have seen all your replies. I will respond tomorrow as I am very tired now after today's hectic time in the office.

budaatum:
First, we are discussing complex things, so however clear you attempt to be will likely hit against my own fallibility. Accept my apologies. I am honoured that you try to make yourself clear.


The method of using the senses properly might have been constructed and taught and rigorously trained, triple, but the sense (the eye, for instance, and its ability to be used to see) itself is not a human construct, and it is the use of the senses that they have rigorously trained under this method so they can use it properly. The tautology is intended.

The methodology is a "human construct" that evolved out of the ignorant misuse of the human senses into what it has become today and which we can witness by the numerous human achievements, and destructions I dare add, that are before us.


No one is claiming that the scientific method, which is purely a method of using one's human senses, is perfect. Afterall if my eye itself is dim, no amount of method can make me see clearly. However, that same scientific method is what would make me consider the dimness of my eye and find a way to overcome my deficiency of "don't know everything about the world we live" and continuously test my interpretations. The intention after all is to learn about the world, which I would not be doing if I already knew everything about the world. Perhaps I should first use my senses to realise that I should show some humility because I don't know everything about my own little village, not to talk of my state or my country, and the world is big!


I do not understand what you've said there. Who is arriving at what conclusion, triple, and what content is being "interpreted by our senses", and what other method or tool would you like to be used, and what the heck is it that "we believe it to be so"?

Personally, I can't see how I can come to a conclusion about the road I am about to cross if I do not interpret its content with my own senses, despite my limitations, because of the scientific method with which I have experimented to determine the best and safest way to cross roads. And I do not merely believe it to be so, for experience as perceived by my very own senses have shown me that it is so such that I can safely say I know how to cross roads safely, despite the limitations of my senses and my ability to use them, I dare add.

I am afraid you have brought in a red herring to distract and confuse me.

I just woke from it now .Your subjective definition of science and what means to be a trained scientist is what has brought us here.

Using one's sense of judgement alone (your definition of what it means be a trained scientist) to make sense of the impression coming through your five physical senses ( sense of smell, taste and so on) ,which is actually what I was referring to will not make you an expert in the sciences.

Your brain can throw illusions at you, and deceive you into making wrong judgements.

I understand from a lay man point of view , we all can be scientists, but those in the main body of the sciences see it differently.

So, my buda, you're not a scientists just because you can make use of your sense of judgement to interpret the world around you.

My argument is not focused on what it means to be a scientist

budaatum:
You've assumed far too much, triple, but the above is one I can't help pointing out.

First, science not a human construct. It is simply the use of the senses that you already have, and the scientific method is the precise method of using one's senses.

Second, science does not have this assumed "paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration". Science has been applied to the unobservable too, or it would not be considering the mind it can not see, nor would the use of science have been able to be used to discover many things that are unobservable like relativity and evolution which are not so easily observed, or big bangs or black holes or neutrons and electrons and minds and consciousness, which science has the most to say about than any other investigative method which would also have to include the scientific method to be credible.

Science has been determined by the results produced in its exercise to be the best way to use one's senses, and as a method of discovery of the unknown has far exceeded any other method (belief, making up crap in one's head) that has ever been invented. But yes, we are not perfect human beings, and may not perfectly use our senses, hence must we constantly be perfecting ourselves by scientific learning to better use our senses.

As for the product of our minds, by thy fruits shall one know them, for a bad tree does not produce good fruit, and fruits one can clearly see unless one is blind.

I've added the words of a Scientist below so you may not so easily see my fruits (as in, understand what I mean) unless you apply science (your senses, and most especially, your mind). As a clue, the eye and it's ability to be used to see was the first sense humans were aware of, and the quote is from a book that teaches it's use.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

The scientific method of inquiry,not just using one's senses alone to know things, is what I called a human construct. It was developed by humans. Those who practice science as a discipline are giving rigorous training under this method so they can use it to properly make observation and conduct experiments to confirm what is observed.

The scientific method can't be perfect because as humans we dont know everything about the world we live in to be able to come up with a perfect method to interpret it.

How do we arrive at the conclusion that our world( also the extended universe) and it's contents is only interpreted by our senses which are limited, and the scientific method which trained scientist admit are not also perfect, if not that we believe it to be so ?

LordReed:
Question: do you think animals have minds independent of their bodies?

The other parts of my presentation not posted yet, already answered your question.

But since that has not come, I will answer you for now.



The terms, consciousness and mind are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, but they do not actually refer to the same thing.

Consciousness is the entity that inhabits the body at birth to enliven it. It is our true selves which exist as a force field of energy .It is often refer to as soul in religion and in other groups.

while mind is formed from the combination of thoughts this entity, consciousness, generates from the impression received through the brain, and also from the thoughts of others it has received.

Mind once formed, determines or shapens our human personality, the ego self, that we think we are.

Our personalities can change if we generate new thoughts to form a new mind, while the consciousness, our true selves, that forms mind remains what it is. We can become whatever we think different from what our current mind dictates for our brains.


Animals, just like humans also have consciousness. However, the animal consciousness has not evolved to a point where it can generate independent thoughts to form minds ,hence they are ruled mainly by instincts imbedded in their bodies which exert influence on their brains to control behavior. The inability to generate independent thoughts is why animals don't behave individually. They act almost the same, except they are conditioned to behave differently.

So do animals have minds independent of their bodies? I believe my explanation has provided the answer.

continuation

In the final part of my presentation, I would explain clearly what actually happenedd to Phineas Gage after he had that unfortunate incident . The case has been wrongly misconstrued to support the claim that mind is not separate from brain.






Now, to the most important questions.

1, If our consciousness or mind has not emerged from matter or biological processes from where has it emerged from. And what is the exact nature of consciousness or who we are.

2, If we are not the same as the bodies we occupy, and are somehow separate from it, why are we not conscious of this fact.

. 3. if science that is in batter position to know, is unable to answer the question of mind or consciousness ,how did some of us get to know what we know and be certain about it?

Answers in the nextt part.

Continuation,
The inability to observe and test thoughts which exist as thoughtforms; energized thoughts , not directly associated with any particle of matter , is why scientists are blind to the true cause of the placebo effect , as they can't at this time observe firsthand how thoughtforms exert pressure on brains to trigger the placebo response


Brain scanners do not show thoughts which form mind, the best they do is to show blood flow in a region of neurons when we , the owner of brains, are thinking. This, together with other brain activities observed ( neural correlates ) is then interpreted as evidence that matter is the source of mind or consciousness.

The claim that mind or consciousness, is an emergent property of matter or biological processes, is not supported by science The claim is only made on the assumption that electrical charges in our brains, and other factors not yet known, has made it possible for mind to emerge "magically" There's no rational explanation for how this has happened.

We can't see our we are separate from our bodies because most of us have never had any conscious experience of their consciousness operating any where else apart from the bodies they have occupied. But it's possible to separate one's consciousness from the body., while at the same time, still retaining a full awareness of our body

It can be done. In fact, we all do so unconsciously every night when we go to sleep in an experience we have come to describe as dreaming. Some persons who are. proficient at it, can have their consciousness present anywhere outside their bodies whenever they choose to.


There are certain phenomena science won't be able to explain. I am not anti science .I rely a lot on the sciences to understand my outer body and the world around me.

The world we live is not exactly what we think it is or may not be what we think it is., and we are also not what we think we are The methodology of science, which is a human construct , and not perfect, is founded on a paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration.

The problem with this, is that, if there's a phenomenon whose cause is unknown, or can't be fully observed, we only proceed to work with what is in front of us, which may be effect , that we have mistaken for cause, thereby drawing a wrong
conclusion from what we are only able to observe.


Most people who rely completely on the sciences to interpret the world around them are not even aware of its limitations. The ones who pretend that they do, usually betray themselves with comments like , " oh one day science will be able to manufacture a machine that will eventually develop human consciousness with the capacity to think and experience live exactly like humans" .

The only time the mystery of consciousness would be resolved, would be when science is able to come up with a device to make it possible to observe clearly all that happens subjectively within the human being and also outside of it.

Before I end this part, I would like to respond to the index case of a certain Phineas Gage brought in by someone here to argue against the idea that mind is separate from brains.


My response will be a question to answer back.


If mind is not separate from brains, how can it be explained, the cases of people with distorted personalities, but whose brains are not damaged or defective in any way. Also ,how can it be explained cases of people with brain defects that should normally result in behavior impairment that did not turn out as expected; their personalities remained intact. Neuroscientist in their studies to understand mind, have been observing those kind of cases in different people.

. It is obvious the person who brought in the Gage case to support is argument has not done enough research.

Hello, everyone, deepsight, Lordreed, budaatum, TenQ and others

My apologies for not responding the next day as promised. I have been engaged in a lot of activities which made it practically impossible to really settle and pen down anything.

I don't pretend to know it all . Of course no one knows it all. I will be stating the "facts" as I know and understand it.

And because it will be a long read, I have decided to divide it into two or three parts. The first is background information and random responses to comments made by others here, while the final part, will contain definitions and explanations for the concept of the "true self" I subscribe to , with evidence not scientific evidence, to identify this self , its emergence, and its relationship with the body it occupies.

However, before I proceed, I would like to issue an important disclaimer; that whatever opinions or statements of "facts" that I am going to make is at the discretion of the reader to accept or reject. It would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on others that may result in mental confusion or a distortion of one's personal reality.


In any case, I do believe that my thoughts on the subject matter in this thread would be enough to stimulate further thinking .


Why is consciousness or mind still a mystery?

Contrary to what has been confidently asserted here and believed by some persons elsewhere, consciousness or what is mind is still not answered by science.They may be far from answering it at the moment.

Neuroscientists have not arrived at any definite conclusion as to the true source of the human consciousness. It's still a mystery to them. They are loath to answer directly the question of what is Consciousness or mind because at the moment, its difficult to localised our subjective experiences to any part of the brain .

All attempts to do so, using observable brain activities or results from modern brain scanners has not produced the much needed result ,other than an impproved undestanding of how the visible brain works in relation to the other parts of the human body. This is very good and helpful for us at this time.

However, insisting that an investigation of the observable activities of the human brain, which are believed to correspond with inner states of consciousness, is enough for a comprehensive understanding of mind or who we truly are, is almost the same as someone who would insist that viewing from their device the life stats of an ongoing football match, without watching the game directly, is enough to know what is actually happening inside the football pitch.

Live football stats for instance, without watching the game directly ,will show a goal has been scored, but will not let you see the exact ball movements made by the players that has led to the goal.

There's much more going on within our inner world, subjectively, that we ourselves are unaware of, ,not to talk of an outsider who doesn't have any means to directly access it.

Whatever we say and do proceeds from thoughts that we, the owners of brain( the being within) generate from immpression. received through it. However, thoughts which forms mind is not directly observable nor testable by any known scientific instrumentation, except by alternative methods which are not too "popular" and available to those in the main body of the sciences. except individually

So it's difficult , for, instance, to really determine if someone is acting out genuine thoughts or simply faking it. We are all guilty of this at certain times, but some persons have mastered the art of deception so well that even if it were possible to attach a mini brain scanner to their brains to monitor its activity it can't be seen they're living a double live, as the results from the scanner will read the same as that of someone behaving sincerely.

killyaselfie:
There that they go with the condescension. “Calm down”. Just present your so called soul or whatever you call it and save the sermonizing.

No. It is not condescending. You need to calm down since I already promised tomorrow. Jam the "road" typing this.

I want to respond to everything here that I have not had the opportunity to respond to. That is it. Cheers

killyaselfie:
Science isn’t in search of “the essence of our being”. There is success already in the field of neurology and the role of the brain in personhood has already been established.

You have nothing to say that can move the needle of this discussion other than proving the existence of whatever you call soul.

If you think Deepsight’s postulations are brilliant, there is nothing that you can come up it that will be convincing.

Just calm down. Your response shows you don't have a single clue about what I want to say later.

It is not what you think. The word soul doesn't fully describe it. The use of that word is what is triggering your response. So I understand..

And anyway I am not responding just because of you alone and so whatever you think at this point can't stop me.

In order to have a balanced judgement on anything one needs to listen to both sides of the "story" even when the other side is nonsense to you..

killyaselfie:
What is a soul?
The anecdote is to show the mind is generated by “chemicals and neurons” despite the protestations of the religious. This isn’t about if Gage saw himself as a “soul” but how damage to his brain caused damage to his mind. It shows that the functions that they claim the thing they call soul performs are really performed by the brain and it doesn’t need a soul to explain the functioning.

You claim religious conception of soul is bladderdash. You are not going to provide anything but subjective and unfounded statements so what makes you think your conception of soul isn’t claptrap?

I mean, the fact that’s there is no universal definition of this undetectable soul that isn’t needed for anything except to terrorize the gullible, indicates that it is a ruse.

The only time a soul is useful is when the leaders of religion are trying to terrify their sheep with supernatural punishment.

I will respond tomorrow. Don't conclude yet .

Whether you agree or not, science is also, even though indirectly, still in search of the true essence of our being. And once it succeeds in that regard, you don't expect it would be labeled soul.It certainly would be called something else.

Don't jump the gun yet.

DeepSight:
Its not a very useful point to quibble about as no serious discussant would ever deny the fact that the brain plays a significant role in the deployment of the being. That damage to the brain could significantly alter the experience and interaction of a being is a given, so much so that it is almost pedantic to raise it.



Sorry oh, I have no evidence to offer - certainly not of the E = MC² variety and I made that clear from the get go.

Oh. You should have allowed him to answer himself.

You answering for him ,I am afraid may have defeated the purpose of raising those points.

Don't forget he has held on to a different position other than yours and the copied piece was meant to solidify his position. So why answer for him?

killyaselfie:
*copied from a website.
The second problem for dualists is the problem of deep personality changes following brain injury. If the mind and brain are separate, the mind is the seat of consciousness (and presumably personality) and the mind communicates with the brain only to pull the puppet’s strings, why would a brain injury alter who a person is? The classic case is that of Phineas Gage. In 1848, Gage was blasting rock to build a rail line when a charge prematurely exploded, sending the tamping rod he was using through his frontal lobe. Amazingly, he was conscious following the accident, but some time later, physician Dr. John Martyn Harlow wrote

The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was ‘no longer Gage.’

I have been following the conversation but not been able to comment due to some pressing engagements that has left me with not enough time to respond the way I would want to.

Still much busy . But I would hurriedly respond to the above.

Before anyone starts running away with the inferences drawn from what happened to Gage, the following should be considered;

Was Gage ,before that unfortunate incident , aware of himself as soul occupying a physical body?

If he was ,is there any evidence that he has been functioning from the position where he sees himself as a soul occupying a physical body or a mind having a brain that helps him to process thoughts?


The answers to the above would help determine accurately what may have led to the personality changes observed.

While I await the answers, I would like to mention that the concept of soul propagated by certain religious groups, Christianity especially, is not what I subscribe to .

That one is based on a literary interpretation of the genesis account. It is misleading.

No God breathed into man to make him a living soul. That never happened.

Soul is not created nor can it be destroyed in hell after judgement if it fails to surrender it's life to someone.

Those statements are religious bladderdash.

By tomorrow or after then, I would share my full thoughts on the discussion.

I thought we would have moved past this point as I expected deepsight to have by now provided something as evidence to back all his brilliant postulations.

I also remember Lordreed asking for something like a demonstration and the benefits that can come from this knowledge of knowing oneself as soul. Nothing has been given since that time till now.

LordReed:
Can you state where I changed something because it didn't favour me?

Then be definite about your usage of the word,effect, because you create a critical misunderstanding by using it in isolation.

A subjective reaction to something is also effect. But would you accept it is real effect caused by something?

You have been using that word for or so long on this thread that I think it is about time you mentioned exactly what you mean by effects and stick to it so as to remove all suspicion.

Sorry if I have accused you wrongly but I have explained why
.

DeepSight:
I see: clearly, we have been very careless thus far. We are not using the word "thing" in the same way (and we probably are not using the words "material", immaterial" and "mind" in the same way either. If we must proceed, we absolutely must each define each of these words as they apply this conversation.

The word "thing" has very broad applicability but my understanding of the word as it applied to this conversation was in relation to the discussion at hand - matter and mind - and thus I have been using the word as it would apply to either a definite material object or, in reference to the immaterial, it would have to be some identifiable element, force or quantity, however described. For this reason I would not have used the word "thing" to refer to an action, a deed, an event or even an effect - even though of course in the very broad usage of the word "thing" you could find such usages. In summary, for the material, it would have to be a definite object - that it is, have mass and occupy space. And for the immaterial, it would have to be real-in-itself, that is to say, existent, identifiable and capable of existing in a causative chain as a cause of an effect, that is to say it must be capable of exerting force in whatever existent realm or dimension it has its presence in. So in this manner, mind, for example, could be considered an immaterial thing, whereas a shadow would not qualify because it is not real-in-itself in the first place: its is not "existent" - it is only the description of absence of a thing (light) on a surface. At all events for me, no description of a "thing" would admit of an "absence" being a "thing." Because if this were the case, we could well call "emptiness" a "thing" as well, we could be drawn into describing an empty pot as being full of the absence of everything that is not in the pot, and in this way we would lead ourselves surely into a pedantic and foolish mess which will not be worth the time of the cheapest clown in town.

Thus, with the above, I hope I have clarified my stance on what a "thing" is - and no, for the purposes of this discussion I would not have included actions, events or effects. However I grant that you obviously do/ did and thence lies the source of our misunderstanding. With this clarification, hopefully we can move forward.

<sub>Post-Script: I set out below an extract from the dictionary of the many applications of the word "thing" - just to show how misguided we were to to assume what particular application either of us had in mind (and this is not even an exhaustive list).

thing
noun: thing; plural noun: things; noun: the thing; noun: one's thing; plural noun: one's things

1 - an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
"look at that metal rail thing over there"
2 - an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
"I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"
3 - an action, event, thought, or utterance.
"she said the first thing that came into her head"
4 - informal
what is needed or required.
"you need a tonic—and here's just the thing"
5 - what is socially acceptable or fashionable.
"it wouldn't be quite the thing to go to a royal garden party in wellies"
6 - informal
one's special interest or inclination.
"reading isn't my thing"
7 - informal
used to introduce or emphasize an important point.
"the thing is, I am going to sell this house"</sub>

Good

Certain terms were not properly defined from the beginning and it has resulted in misunderstanding

budaatum:
I was surprised, I confess, but felt I better just accept your accusation since one could say the same about me too.

We are discussing complex words here, and we do not always mean the same things by their use. Please forgive us all. You included.

Yes, me included. Thank you.
I just modified my previous post and ask him to modify his usage of that word

budaatum:
I am deliberately using all the words I write, Triple. That's what philosophy and reasoning is about.

Things, are not effects. That I think is what my Lord is teaching me. Though he seems to muddle some things with effects.

Light, for instance, is an effect. Shadow is an effect, and Myers newly introduced, darkness is an effect too. All are caused by different degrees of illuminations.

I will claim they are 'things' too. My light just went out and I can see the darkness. The Sun, the source of illumination, sets early where I live.

Oh. I mistakenly quoted you instead of Lordreed.

It was meant for him not you..

But then, I know things are not necessary effects but he , Lordreed, seems to use that word to "carry" so many things along to make
it easy to change his position when it doesn't favor him.

Or he should qualify the word, effect, so we know exactly what he is talking about

budaatum:
Love the qualification with "interactions".

Your interaction produced the internal non-material effect that caused me to materially smile.

I think you're deliberately using the word , effect, so you can escape from being pinned down on anything.
effects can range from the intangible to tangible.

I rather you used the word, things, instead of effect.

I want to see how exactly the material can produce the immaterial that would be devoid of material substance

LordReed:
Come now, what you wrote hasn't been erased:



The shadow has nothing to do with the wall since even if the wall wasn't there the shadow will still be cast. Even if the is no surface to intercept the shadow it is still cast, you just can't see it.

LoL where have you seen anything been created that is not a rearrangement of existing things? So how does a fictional character being the rearranging of already existing things mean it is not created? Unless you mean creation can only be done from nothing in which case nothing currently existing was indeed created.

You want to force me to say what you want me to say?

I said what you, I mean , YOU, refer or think is shadow is a phenomenon caused by the absence of light. It is not really a thing on the wall even though it is seen as such. Reread again. The statement is a natural follow up from our previous discussion. It is how you yourself see it I am talking about and not me.



You still don't get .

OK. Let me ask you. Is an echo a real sound?

Yes or no.

Now, look at this. supposing you inadvertently spill bleach on your cloth and images now appear from the bleached parts of the cloth, would you now describe those images as a separate thing and not the cloth that has had some parts of it beached, that is ,would you call the images things and not a part of the cloth that is now bleached?

I think you're stubbornly clinging on to how you have been taught to describe certain things and not willing to see things exactly the way they are.

The true meaning of what it i means to create is to bring into existence something that has never existed before.

I think the conversation should end now. It is your choice and right to view the world from whatever position you want to view it from.

But when one insist on viewing reality from a singular stand point, it may become difficult to understand the certain things.

I am seeing things from your position but you're not willing to see from my side.

LordReed:
How can it be part of the wall of it is not a thing? You are inadvertently saying it is both a thing and nothing at the same time which is obviously impossible.

It seems for you the only acts of creation involves material things so I ask you how do fictional characters come about if they are not created?

I never said it is part of the wall. I only said it is the wall you're seeing devoid of light or reduced light. Please go back and reread what I explained.

I said the phenomenon is what we refer to as shadow.The shadow is not part of the wall ,even if it appears so, but a shape that appears when that part of the wall is blocked from light.


It is all about how you were taught to describe some of these things that might be the problem.

If you doubt this try to convince someone who thinks black is a colour and come back to share your experience. Technically, black is not a colour but most people describe it as colour and you can't convince them otherwise.

Finally, your last statement doesn't apply to me . What comes from the material is still part of the material even though it is described as immaterial.

Fictional characters are created from the already existing if not it won't make any sense to anyone. One is merely rearranging what already exist .using the imagination.

LordReed:
In a manner of speaking yes. Do you agree that immaterial things exist?

The "manner of speaking" is the way you were taught these things.

In reality what you were taught may not be exactly so.

Creating thoughts is not really creating thoughts. The mind actually process thoughts that has entered it but we describe this process as the mind creating thoughts.

So, I still insist that the shape that appeared on the wall just appeared due to the absence of light. This phenomenon of seeing a shape in the absence of light is called shadow. It is not created but scientific jargon tells us so.

What you refer to as shadow is part of the wall devoid of light. It is not actually a thing.

The immaterial as I know it as against what science teaches, means something that is completely devoid of matter and is not, from what I currently know, a product of any material substance

Myer:
It is believed that we are created in the image of God.
That God is a tripartite being popularly called Trinity- the Father, the Son and the Holyspirit. (Though this concept isn't shared by all).
Hence man is also a tripartite being.consisiting of the Body, the Mind and the Spirit.

The Body is responsible for housing the Spirit and Mind. It is the physical part of the human responsible for sustaining our life on earth. It allows us touch, taste, see,, hear, feed etc. It is also referred to as the Flesh responsible for making man commit sin.. Hence the flesh yearnings should be disciplined.lol

The Mind is the seat of intellect responsible for thought. It is the intermediary between the Body and the Spirit. It is where all human experience is stored.
And responsible for what forms our habit.

The Spirit is supposedly the true entity of our being. Since God is Spirit hence when he created man in his image, he actually created a spirit. Hence it is the part of man that God or the devil can commune with.

As I type this, my mind being my seat of intellect and experience is responsible for informing the thought process I'm sharing.
My body is responsible for the physical act of seeing the keypad and typing my though process.
My spirit is meant to communicate something ethereal that my mind has not experienced before depending on how.spiritual I am, either from God or from the devil.

I hope this hasn't further convoluted this discourse though.lol

If man is spirit and God is also spirit as you say, then it means humans are the same with God.

LordReed:
Yes the something is the effect. When we talk about immaterial somethings we know they have no substance but we refer to them as things because they exist. Case in point the shadow. It is a something yet it is not made of substance, it is merely the effect of actual materials interacting.

So something can be made without "something" (non substance)?

Myer:
Hasn't he established this already with the light and shadow illustration?

Light is material, darkness is immaterial.
Darkness is simply the absence of light.
Shadow is created when a substance blocks light. A shadow is not matter.

If light is material and darkness immaterial, then shadows are not created but just appear in the absence of light.
If you insist they are created, then what materials are they created from if darkness is immaterial

LordReed:
Some material interactions give rise to effects that are non-material. Most of these effects are unseen, some like a shadow can be seen.

Most immaterial effects are unseen while some are seen?

What's your definition of immaterial?

However, I thought buda asked you what " thing" , immaterial object, can be produced from the material . He is not asking of the "effects" that arises from the material.

"Effects "can be my reaction to watching a comedy show from a material object ,a tele in this case .Others may not react.

So is "something" which you say can arise from the material, the same as the effects from it?

I have gone through all that has transpired between Lordreed and deepaight before this thread was opened and now know enough to understand why the arguments have continued till this point.

It is the fault of deepsight that the discussion has dragged so far. The onus lies one the person that makes a claim to provide evidence for their claims.

I have scanned over and over again all the post made by deepsight concerning a soul that inhabits a human body and not for once did he provide any evidence to back up his claims.

Even though I share the same position with him, I don't think the explanations he has provided is sufficient enough to convince Lordreed or any else following that something called a soul is in control of the human body.

Explanations can't take the position of evidence if the person you're arguing with is not exposed to what you know.

Lordreed rejections of the arguments provided is in order and he has demonstrated honesty because he has stucked to what he knows and what he has experienced. Material
science which he relies on deals with what can be observed by the human eyes or scientific instruments.. Science is yet to observe any soul.

Well, it appears deepsight knows and have experienced what others have not. Now is the time to spill it out. Explanations are not enough because the opposing party will always come up with a counter argument and the circle continues.

DeepSight:
The way that you have addressed the analogy does not go to the root of the example made and only dwells on superficial comparison. As such I agree with LordReed;s response to you on this. You should address the analogy from the very root of its applicability as an example.

I thought I jumped into this. I think I would have to read from how it all began between you two

LordReed:
It's an analogy not a perfect correlation of function. It's almost as though you'd say it's a bad analogy because cars don't have blood. The purpose of the analogy is not to show that driverless cars are like humans but rather to illustrate the point that humans, like driverless cars, are an integrated whole, there is no "driver" or ghost in the machine instead there are systems working together to produce autonomy.

Then you should have pointed this out. Because you committed a fallacy, when you insisted that your analogy was apt when it was not.

And I never concluded your car analogy was bad because of what powers the car , "blood" but by comparing the functions of what both car models are capable of .That's the difference

I actually did a triple take trying to understand your final summission. If you point is not to show that driverless cars are not like human being why use it in the first place. But you still ended up making the comparison after

A driverless car is not really driverless in the true sense of it. A human programmer who from time to time updates the mapping
software which controls the car is by proxy the one still in control.

Cars cannot drive themselves if they are not made to do so by humans. That is it