Evidence for God from Science

So, what do you really think?

About what?

Your mind being but a receptical doesn't apply to me.

What about dogs? And trout? No conscious creature is merely physical.

Kurieuo wrote:About what?

Your mind being but a receptical doesn't apply to me.

What about dogs? And trout? No conscious creature is merely physical.

if you dont think mind-as-receptical makes sense, then trout is moot.

But whats with the assertion in last sentence?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:About what?

Your mind being but a receptical doesn't apply to me.

What about dogs? And trout? No conscious creature is merely physical.

if you dont think mind-as-receptical makes sense, then trout is moot.

But whats with the assertion in last sentence?

Perhaps if you explain your mind-as-receptical?
It doesn't sound right.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:About what?

Your mind being but a receptical doesn't apply to me.

What about dogs? And trout? No conscious creature is merely physical.

if you dont think mind-as-receptical makes sense, then trout is moot.

But whats with the assertion in last sentence?

Perhaps if you explain your mind-as-receptical?
It doesn't sound right.

What was with the assertion previously referenced?

Here is something about consciousness outside the brain. I called it a woo woo site when someone linked to it.
Not that good info might not be found in such places.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... ver-of-it/

I'm not playing games here...

Receptacle is something that contains something else; a vessel of sorts.
You might call our body a receptacle of the soul or something such.
BUT, how is the mind the receptacle? A receptacle for what? I truly don't understand.

It's like a hair dresser asking me how my hair feels. "What, feels?" I ask myself.
Before realising she means "how does it look?" (yes, it takes me a while to process she means the former)
I don't know if there's something similar going on here.

Here is the thing. I do not believe our consciousness requires a brain.
But, if not a brain then a body of sorts whether spiritual or an inherent actualised capacity of our soul that allows us to be conscious to some stimulus.
That said, the brain plays a crucial role with our physical conscious state. Somehow processing input and stimulus in a way that we're able to experience this qualitative phenomena or that. Whatever immaterial parts of us there are, seems very closely interfaced with our physical bodies and vice-versa.

It makes sense to me that the brain is a receptacle of the mind or mental properties.
But, if you're talking of an immaterial consciousness, how is "mind" a receptacle? That's like calling us our brain.
It's just carrying physicalism over to the immaterial world it seems we're now a "mind".
Seems rather Cartesian in thinking. I'm not a Cartesian dualist.

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not playing games here...

Receptacle is something that contains something else; a vessel of sorts.
You might call our body a receptacle of the soul or something such.
BUT, how is the mind the receptacle? A receptacle for what? I truly don't understand.

It's like a hair dresser asking me how my hair feels. "What, feels?" I ask myself.
Before realising she means "how does it look?" (yes, it takes me a while to process she means the former)
I don't know if there's something similar going on here.

Here is the thing. I do not believe our consciousness requires a brain.
But, if not a brain then a body of sorts whether spiritual or an inherent actualised capacity of our soul that allows us to be conscious to some stimulus.
That said, the brain plays a crucial role with our physical conscious state. Somehow processing input and stimulus in a way that we're able to experience this qualitative phenomena or that. Whatever immaterial parts of us there are, seems very closely interfaced with our physical bodies and vice-versa.

It makes sense to me that the brain is a receptacle of the mind or mental properties.
But, if you're talking of an immaterial consciousness, how is "mind" a receptacle? That's like calling us our brain.
It's just carrying physicalism over to the immaterial world it seems we're now a "mind".
Seems rather Cartesian in thinking. I'm not a Cartesian dualist.

I suppose it is possible, but why do you think consciousness is independent of brain?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not playing games here...

Receptacle is something that contains something else; a vessel of sorts.
You might call our body a receptacle of the soul or something such.
BUT, how is the mind the receptacle? A receptacle for what? I truly don't understand.

It's like a hair dresser asking me how my hair feels. "What, feels?" I ask myself.
Before realising she means "how does it look?" (yes, it takes me a while to process she means the former)
I don't know if there's something similar going on here.

Here is the thing. I do not believe our consciousness requires a brain.
But, if not a brain then a body of sorts whether spiritual or an inherent actualised capacity of our soul that allows us to be conscious to some stimulus.
That said, the brain plays a crucial role with our physical conscious state. Somehow processing input and stimulus in a way that we're able to experience this qualitative phenomena or that. Whatever immaterial parts of us there are, seems very closely interfaced with our physical bodies and vice-versa.

It makes sense to me that the brain is a receptacle of the mind or mental properties.
But, if you're talking of an immaterial consciousness, how is "mind" a receptacle? That's like calling us our brain.
It's just carrying physicalism over to the immaterial world it seems we're now a "mind".
Seems rather Cartesian in thinking. I'm not a Cartesian dualist.

I suppose it is possible, but why do you think consciousness is independent of brain?

I don't mean to turn this into an argument, although it will appear I am doing so by just responding to your question.
What is my reasoning for thinking consciousness in independent of brain?

Strictly speaking, I think our brain could possess within itself consciousness.
That is, if and only if you don't reduce our brains to only what is physical.

The end conclusion of any form of physical reductionism leads to Eliminative Materialism.
This seems counter-intuitive to me, like quite literally disbelieving that a car is coming because I distrust seeing one with my own eyes.

Physicalism gives you Epiphenominalism.
Mental states can be reduced to physical states. But, then if this is so, any conscious sense that we're actually controlling our bodies is an illusion.
Rather physicalism demands that our consciousness be dependent upon how the particles in the world bounce and interact. Chance, randomness in amongst any necessity determined by physical laws.
Consciousness and the feeling you are "you" and I am "me" is just merely a side-effect of physical interactions and nothing more.
And so eliminative materialism is a natural repercussion of mind-body physical reductionism.
That's one big red pill for me to swallow.

Quantum mechanics is actually used as a quite powerful argument for Idealism (like in that woo woo article you linked).
That is, the position where the physical world doesn't determine us (our minds), but rather we (our minds) determine the physical world.
So messy. There's likely truth in both, but I don't like either extremes.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not playing games here...

Receptacle is something that contains something else; a vessel of sorts.
You might call our body a receptacle of the soul or something such.
BUT, how is the mind the receptacle? A receptacle for what? I truly don't understand.

It's like a hair dresser asking me how my hair feels. "What, feels?" I ask myself.
Before realising she means "how does it look?" (yes, it takes me a while to process she means the former)
I don't know if there's something similar going on here.

Here is the thing. I do not believe our consciousness requires a brain.
But, if not a brain then a body of sorts whether spiritual or an inherent actualised capacity of our soul that allows us to be conscious to some stimulus.
That said, the brain plays a crucial role with our physical conscious state. Somehow processing input and stimulus in a way that we're able to experience this qualitative phenomena or that. Whatever immaterial parts of us there are, seems very closely interfaced with our physical bodies and vice-versa.

It makes sense to me that the brain is a receptacle of the mind or mental properties.
But, if you're talking of an immaterial consciousness, how is "mind" a receptacle? That's like calling us our brain.
It's just carrying physicalism over to the immaterial world it seems we're now a "mind".
Seems rather Cartesian in thinking. I'm not a Cartesian dualist.

I suppose it is possible, but why do you think consciousness is independent of brain?

I don't mean to turn this into an argument, although it will appear I am doing so by just responding to your question.
What is my reasoning for thinking consciousness in independent of brain?

Strictly speaking, I think our brain could possess within itself consciousness.
That is, if and only if you don't reduce our brains to only what is physical.

The end conclusion of any form of physical reductionism leads to Eliminative Materialism.
This seems counter-intuitive to me, like quite literally disbelieving that a car is coming because I distrust seeing one with my own eyes.

Physicalism gives you Epiphenominalism.
Mental states can be reduced to physical states. But, then if this is so, any conscious sense that we're actually controlling our bodies is an illusion.
Rather physicalism demands that our consciousness be dependent upon how the particles in the world bounce and interact. Chance, randomness in amongst any necessity determined by physical laws.
Consciousness and the feeling you are "you" and I am "me" is just merely a side-effect of physical interactions and nothing more.
And so eliminative materialism is a natural repercussion of mind-body physical reductionism.
That's one big red pill for me to swallow.

Quantum mechanics is actually used as a quite powerful argument for Idealism (like in that woo woo article you linked).
That is, the position where the physical world doesn't determine us (our minds), but rather we (our minds) determine the physical world.
So messy. There's likely truth in both, but I don't like either extremes.

Thanks for your thoughts. I didnt follow all of it..its a good topic tho, what the mind is.

I remember, as a kid wondering how one could study the brain, in there behind my eyes.

Kurieuo wrote:Rather physicalism demands that our consciousness be dependent upon how the particles in the world bounce and interact. Chance, randomness in amongst any necessity determined by physical laws.
Consciousness and the feeling you are "you" and I am "me" is just merely a side-effect of physical interactions and nothing more.
And so eliminative materialism is a natural repercussion of mind-body physical reductionism.
That's one big red pill for me to swallow.

Brain functionality in species from worms to humans forms a progression. Why give human brains special non-physical status?

Worms have a brain so simple that we have their complete neuronal map -- yet worms can learn. Crows, dolphins, elephants, and chimps have problem solving and meta-reasoning capabilities exceeding most of the Kardashians.

Yes, the mind of Gauss deserves admiration, but that worm inspires awe.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Rather physicalism demands that our consciousness be dependent upon how the particles in the world bounce and interact. Chance, randomness in amongst any necessity determined by physical laws.
Consciousness and the feeling you are "you" and I am "me" is just merely a side-effect of physical interactions and nothing more.
And so eliminative materialism is a natural repercussion of mind-body physical reductionism.
That's one big red pill for me to swallow.

Brain functionality in species from worms to humans forms a progression. Why give human brains special non-physical status?

Worms have a brain so simple that we have their complete neuronal map -- yet worms can learn. Crows, dolphins, elephants, and chimps have problem solving and meta-reasoning capabilities exceeding most of the Kardashians.

Yes, the mind of Gauss deserves admiration, but that worm inspires awe.

Godless societies do indeed treat people like worms... so what is your point?

I have never meet a worm who wrote music or a novel or sent anyone to the moon...

Comparing worms to humans is seriously stupid but from those inside the atheist and deny God camp, it is not surprising.

One day, we will all die - are you ready for this event Morny and Audie?

If you were to die tonight are you so sure you'd be nothing and if nothing then - then right now your are nothing too and what your write here and elsewhere and do has absolutely no value whatsoever. In fact, feeding the poor has no value, as they take food from those who work. Why work - it has no value. What the heck, why go to school and better oneself - for mere survivalablity??? Survive - what for - NOTHING is all there is.

In a world of relativism that NOTHING is absolute isn't it? In seriousness Morny and Audie nothing your write has any value nor anything you do has any either. What I cannot understand is why you guys so proud about this Nothing?

In Chicago and Baltimore this past weekend many people were killed and wounded by violence, why care? Were all just equal to worms...
-
-
-

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Rather physicalism demands that our consciousness be dependent upon how the particles in the world bounce and interact. Chance, randomness in amongst any necessity determined by physical laws.
Consciousness and the feeling you are "you" and I am "me" is just merely a side-effect of physical interactions and nothing more.
And so eliminative materialism is a natural repercussion of mind-body physical reductionism.
That's one big red pill for me to swallow.

Brain functionality in species from worms to humans forms a progression. Why give human brains special non-physical status?

Worms have a brain so simple that we have their complete neuronal map -- yet worms can learn. Crows, dolphins, elephants, and chimps have problem solving and meta-reasoning capabilities exceeding most of the Kardashians.

Yes, the mind of Gauss deserves admiration, but that worm inspires awe.

The question I think was, if consciousness exists outside the brain, which is actually a receiver for it, how about other animals?

Some have big complex brains, structurally much like ours. Bone, muscle, nerves, internal organs, physiology etc, people are not in those regards a stand-alone, but a relatively typical mammal.

Should we assume that only human brains act as receivers? If so why so, if not why not?

Maybe functions up to the level of what a chimp can do are built into the physical brain, but higher functions come from outside?

Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

Philip wrote:Talking about what animals might experience is irrelevant to the core subject and point of this discussion. And that is, do the NDEs of human beings show that there is something of a person that exists beyond the mere physical and it's associated wiring. Morphing off into talks about animals is a pointless rabbit trail.

Of course; it might show a flaw in this whole program.

Audie: Of course; it might show a flaw in this whole program.

And also a universe MIGHT create and THEN organize itself with stupendous design and functionality - or NOT! Those in fanatasyland can continue to nurture their what "MIGHT" be possible in a science fiction writer's universe - but not so successfully in the one WE live in.