Consciousness

[NotBlinded]

OB, I have experienced that, but it is pretty rare for me. And with what you are describing, how can we begin to think that whatever consciousness is only entails that small area of concentrated awareness?

[agnosticator]

This happens all the time when I am tired and drifting. It is almost if there are layers of awareness. Dynamic systems of thought in which activity is taking place simultaneously. It seemed as if when I drifted from the waking "conscious" system of input, interpretation and reaction - - the more literal of the forms, there was another layer - one operating on a symbolic level of representation. Maybe these systems even use the same systems in the brain that allow us to form patterns, engage in reasoning and utilize language.

 

My point is that it does seem like there are levels or layers of awareness operating at the same time. OR, at least another layer stands ready to take over the systems of the brain not being used by the "conscious" mind as soon as the conscious mind shuts down for sleep.

 

 

I used to think something was wrong with me when I went through what you refer to. This state between wakefulness and sleep is called Hypnagogia, where you experienced hypnagogic imagery. I've had the weirdest sensations, sounds, and "dreams" in this state too. Hypnagogia experiences include images, sensations, and sound.

 

Sounds

 

Hypnagogic imagery is often auditory or has an auditory component. Like the visuals, hypnagogic sounds vary in intensity from faint impressions to loud noises, such as crashes and bangs (exploding head syndrome). People may imagine their own name called or a doorbell ringing. Snatches of imagined speech are common. While typically nonsensical and fragmented, these speech events can occasionally strike the individual as apt comments on – or summations of – their thoughts at the time. They often contain word play, neologisms and made-up names. Hypnagogic speech may manifest as the subject’s own ‘inner voice’, or as the voices of others: familiar people or strangers. More rarely, poetry or music is heard.[27]

 

Who needs drugs when you can doze off and hallucinate!?

[oddbird1963]

 

I used to think something was wrong with me when I went through what you refer to. This state between wakefulness and sleep is called Hypnagogia, where you experienced hypnagogic imagery. I've had the weirdest sensations, sounds, and "dreams" in this state too. Hypnagogia experiences include images, sensations, and sound.

. . .

 

Who needs drugs when you can doze off and hallucinate!?

 

 

That's very interesting information, agnosticator! It seems the mind is always active. Creating a world around us when wakefulness cannot provide one for us.

 

Thanks!

[LNC]

The mind is an emergent property of a FUNCTIONING brain. We believe the mind is gone because there is no activity in the brain to indicate thought is going on, are you being dense on purpose?

 

I have to cross every T and dot every I for you but you can make a clearly circular argument by misstating your premise and do not have the honesty to own up to it?

 

Reductionism is YOUR word not mine. I subscribe to the view I offer, if you consider my view a reductionist one so be it, I am not going to be pigeonholed in to some definitional category like "reductionist" so you can then ignore everything I say in favor of refuting some straw-man position you have concocted called "reductionist"

 

Part of the problem here is I have no idea what you mean when you ask me to "account for them via physicalism" How do we account for something that is not even completely understood? Does my lack of full understanding on this topic lead you too conclude that this justifies a metaphysical explanation?

 

First, sorry for the delay in responding, it has gotten rather busy lately.

 

Second, we don't know for certain that the brain is merely an emergent property of a functioning brain, that is one theory, but has not been confirmed as being the correct theory. So, no I am not being dense, merely being careful as not to assert an explanation as being THE explanation when it is not necessarily the case. Now, if you think it is THE explanation, then I would expect you to put forth evidence to confirm that assertion.

 

Just so we are clear on the term "reductionism" refers to the idea that complex mental phenomena can be reduced to physical interaction within the body. This would mean that concepts like free will would be merely illusory as they would be the result of determined physical interaction.

 

What I don't understand in your position is that you seem certain that emergentism is correct, yet also claim ignorance as to how mental phenomena can be explained via physicalism. So, if you cannot account for the parts, how is it that you can for the whole?

 

And....you complexly miss the point.

 

I never said consciousness is not real. I said it is impossible to determine if it is real, because any attempt to understand it must start by assuming we have it.

 

Read the part of your quote I boldfaced, if you cannot see that the process you are suggesting is basically circular then I am done speaking with you, assuming that it exists is a necessary step in step in understanding it, thus it is circular. If you do not see that you lack even the most basic understanding of the logical process. Intuition is NOT the same as logic.

 

You keep asking US to answer YOUR question, well now YOU have made a claim

 

If you read my quote again, and I will admit that it was not as clear as it could have been, I said that we use our intuition to arrive at the idea that consciousness exists, it is only then that we assume that it exists. I assume that I exist and arrive at that assumption by using intuition. I don't start with the assumption in either case. Circularity is avoided by this explanation. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

So get to it, if you think this can be done then by all means do it. I will not hold my breath though I will give you points for being full of yourself for claiming you can do what no philosopher or scientist has be able to pull off for 4000 years.

 

Please enlighten us as to how you propose to reason out the existence of the mind without first assuming that reason is a valid tool for understanding the world.

 

See my last answer, that should clear it up for you. Are you now denying that reason is a valid tool? Are you a Humean skeptic?

 

And maybe the reason you think we have answer to unanswerable questions is because you are willing to accept stupid answers. If you want to hurl nothing but insults back and for we can do that but if you want to have a reasonable conversation then you might want to consider NOT using ad hom attacks.

 

Demonstrate facts, "maybe" is a silly word to use in a debate, I can stick anything after it and the statement is true, but ultimately useless.

 

How do you know that the questions are unanswerable? That assumes a level of knowledge that seems self-refuting to me. You claim to "know" that we cannot know. How do you know that what I accept is stupid? How do you know what I accept since I haven't clearly said so far? Where have I hurled any insults? I am not sure why the use of the word "maybe" is silly when, as you keep saying, we are not certain of the answers. It seems that science and philosophy use hypothetical statements regularly, so I'm not sure why you have an aversion to this word.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I'm not arguing for reductionism. I understand there is a "back and forth" relation of the mind with the rest of the body. I'm trying to point out that mental functions are related to physical neural correlates in the brain, as opposed to the dualism LNC seems to be implying. I don't see how an individual's consciousness could be a separate "thing" "ghost", or "soul". To me, this is equivalent to nonexistence.

 

The individual's consciousness and mind are inseparable from the being itself. Yet, everything in the universe is interconnected in some way. I am, in my unenlightened way, arguing for naturalism. I am reading about physicalistic monism right now.

 

I'm curious as to how you would define mental functions. That seems to be the key part of your statement. Are mental functions physical or non-physical? I am also curious as to how everything in the universe is interconnected, could you elaborate as to how you see this?

 

LNC

[LNC]

You clearly do not understand how logic works, it does not matter that you may have "other" reasons to believe something. Those reasons are NOT in any of the premise.

 

You must assume your reader knows nothing except what you put in the argument.

In a deductive syllogism the only thing considered is what is presented. If you have other evidence that makes the argument not circular it should be stated in your syllogism, otherwise your argument IS circular.

 

You require all of my arguments to paramounts of perfect logic. I find it reasonable to ask the same of you.

 

Backpedaling by saying you have reasons means dick to me, if you have the reasons then present them.

 

No, I must know that my argument is not circular. I cannot be responsible for how other people interpret my argument as they may be mistaken and I am not responsible for faulty thinking of others. If I can show that my argument is not circular and my argument carries, then it is not circular. I have shown that my argument is not circular as it does not assume the conclusion to within the premises (the definition of circularity). The fact that you misread my statement does not change that fact.

 

LNC

[Legion]

we use our intuition to arrive at the idea that consciousness exists, it is only then that we assume that it exists. I assume that I exist and arrive at that assumption by using intuition. I don't start with the assumption in either case. Circularity is avoided by this explanation. I hope that clears it up for you.

No, that stikes me as being rather opaque.

 

I believe we do not arrive at the conclusion that consciousness exist. We start there. Cogito ergo sum. We don't even assume it. We know it directly.

 

LNC this whole thread is a farce in my opinion. The fact is we don't understand consciousness very well at the moment. And this is ironic because it is the closest thing to us, closer than our eyes, closer than the air we breathe.

 

But you offer no understanding of it. You don't even offer a path to acquire this understanding. You just say, "Ha, ha, you don't understand consciousness, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah nyah."

[LNC]

Really.....

faith: Heb 11:1

 

Faith is the substance of hope

 

"Substance": Lit. Greek: "a standing under"

 

Faith "stands under" our hope, is the foundation of our hope: Rom 8:24.25

 

Faith is the conviction of things not seen: Heb 11:3

 

Faith accepts even that which appears unreasonable: Rom 4:17

 

Heb 11:1,6 Assurance of things hoped for conviction of things not seen

 

2 Cor 4:18 We look at not at things seen, but at things not seen

 

2 Cor 5:7 we walk by faith not sight

 

Jn 20:27-29 how blessed are they who have not seen but believe

 

πίστις (pistis)is Greek the word for faith. Definition: assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

 

From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

 

From Wikipedia: Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.

 

The bottom line is that faith is a persuasion of the mind based upon the veracity and trustworthiness of the source of the idea, information, person or thing being trusted.

[Legion]

From Wikipedia: Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.

And skepticism resides at the foundation of science. So we seem to have an epistemological gap.

[chefranden]

Now, see...dang it! I don't see consciousness as being that small little center of awareness only. It includes what you are calling "unconscious", IMO. How the heck else can you continue to drive safely to work without awareness? Just because I'm not aware of what my liver is doing doesn't mean that there isn't something in my consciousness that isn't aware.

 

I suppose you can redefine anything to fit your criteria.

 

But let's go ahead and include your liver. I'm fine with the Lakoff and Johnson's body/mind. But it seems that you want to be something special from the universe's point of view. You are not. The universe has no warm fuzzies for you or me. Specialness comes from my or your point of view. That feeling of specialness needs a certain pattern of matter to exist. The vast majority of the matter of the universe is not configured in that way. There are just a few specks here and there or maybe just here that can care about being special.

 

It's the illusion of self transferred to the universe. Consider the following:

 

 

If you have seen this illusion before, you know that the tables are the same size. But no matter how you screw up your eyes you can't see them as the same size, even if you are intellectually convinced that they are the same size. The illusion of self is of greater power. Even if you intellectually understand that certain process and arraignments of matter are doing this "I" you can't directly grok it. You are compelled to rebel against your intellect and continue to postulate something more profound than just stuff, but that is part of the illusion. And it is a useful part, because it is a compulsion towards survival for both self and one's group.

[Legion]

continue to postulate something more profound than just stuff

I think there are things to be seen other than matter, and organization is one of those things.

[chefranden]

continue to postulate something more profound than just stuff

I think there are things to be seen other than matter, and organization is one of those things.

 

 

I'm using short hand here my use of matter includes it's properties and what it does as described by laws of physics, chemistry, and biology focusing on but not limited to matter's self organization. Self organization of matter is a natural process, and in no way a supernatural process. Except as a matter of human feeling nothing additional is needed. The very human feeling of needing some special place in and of the universe is itself a natural process involving certain bits of matter in certain configurations. Nothing extra is required.

 

My bits know something of this, yet they collectively think Bach is as beautiful as ever. My bits are not disappointed to find out they are "just" stuff.

 

This reminds me that back when I was an actual chef, I used to end the before meal meeting with, "All right people, let's make some good shit." And in the end what we made was shit, but for a moment it was good.

[Shyone]

From Wikipedia: Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.

And skepticism resides at the foundation of science. So we seem to have an epistemological gap.

No shit, but his last statement, "The bottom line is that faith is a persuasion of the mind based upon the veracity and trustworthiness of the source of the idea, information, person or thing being trusted" suggests that his faith is based on objective truth - "veracity".

 

Trustworthiness is another matter and would fall under Argument from (unspecified) Authority.

 

The whole debate seems to skip over the fact that there are two kinds of faith - one based on experience, the other a belief without support or reason.

 

As for a means of obtaining knowledge, I would put faith right behind peyote mushrooms as a means of gaining either insight or knowledge.

[Ouroboros]

So we've moved from consciousness to faith?

 

Why am I not surprised?

[Legion]

The whole debate seems to skip over the fact that there are two kinds of faith - one based on experience, the other a belief without support or reason.

 

As for a means of obtaining knowledge, I would put faith right behind peyote mushrooms as a means of gaining either insight or knowledge.

I generally agree with this. I think that's often the problem with these types of discussions. Everyone (including me sometimes) wants to skip to the end. And in doing so we neglect to agree on some points of philosophy. And I can hear people groan when they read the word. Not philosophy! Yes, philosophy.

 

In my assessment most of our disagreements here are epistemological in nature.

 

I disagree with Shyone and Chef because of how they seem to be mapping phenomena into abstractions (i.e. how they see or measure natural systems). If so then this is an epistemic disagreement.

 

I seem to disagree with Antlerman and NotBlinded because I think science is the study of natural systems. A disagreement here is likely epistemic.

 

And all of us disagree with LNC because he seems to adhere to some form of natural theology. Yes, it's another epistemic disagreement.

[agnosticator]

I'm curious as to how you would define mental functions. That seems to be the key part of your statement. Are mental functions physical or non-physical?

 

Mental functions are what the brain/body do: reasoning, memory, perception, imagination, emotion, etc. I agree with Legion that the mind is the organization of matter (to put it very simplistically). It's also activity. Mental functions are active processes. To say they have to be physical or non-physical is missing the point.

 

 

 

I am also curious as to how everything in the universe is interconnected, could you elaborate as to how you see this?

 

I'm referring to the obvious: All life is born from the universe, and made up of the same material (or whatever you want to call the matter/energy building blocks). All life on earth is related, and can affect each others' existence, as can the environment and the forces of nature.

[agnosticator]

πίστις (pistis)is Greek the word for faith. Definition: assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

 

From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

 

From Wikipedia: Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.

 

The bottom line is that faith is a persuasion of the mind based upon the veracity and trustworthiness of the source of the idea, information, person or thing being trusted.

 

And Wiki says on the same page:

 

As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4

 

Faith is often used in a religious context, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and/or this being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.

 

The word faith and faithfulness is mentioned twenty-six (26) times just in the book of Hebrews of the Christian faith. Hebrews 11:6 of the King James Version Bible reads, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Accounts of faith duly noted in the book of Hebrews Chapter 11 of the King James Version Bible.

 

Faith has no definition except that listed in Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is given by God Himself to the person that he/she will now "believe" in God through the person of Jesus Christ for salvation. Faith is a gift from God to the Christian and faith can be increased by the growth of the "believer" through God's Holy Word and through various actions detailed in God's Word. Faith is not to be confused with belief or believe as these are two separate and distinct words and meanings. Men can and do believe in many things, and in the Bible it is stated that Satan "believes" in fact or actuality Satan "knows" whom God is, but does not have the faith for salvation. Belief has action but without "substance" until faith has been applied by the giver who is God.

 

 

You can't switch definitions, making Christian "faith" the same as everyday "faith". That's heresy! Unless you are using everyday "faith" as you defined, apart from your Christian faith. Then I would understand.

[chefranden]

1.Chef, consciousness is meaningless without matter much the same way that soundwaves are meaningless without an eardrum. It takes both.

 

2.I'm not sure that anyone is postulating consciousness existing without matter (well, aside from LNC anyway).

 

1. I don't mean to be mean, but this seems to lack meaning. Are you saying that matter detects consciousness? If so then consciousness must be something other than matter, something extra.

 

2. Well actually LNC has a point in accusing we materialist/naturalists of not sticking to the matter so to speak. I freely admit that I am a reductionist, but I refuse to see that label as a pejorative in the sense we are "just" matter.

 

We are just matter, but so what? What's the matter with that? The sun is just fusing hydrogen and not the countenance of God but it still works.

[LNC]

Quote mining makes you look dishonest.

 

 

So basically your argument is that all the scholars who translated the bible used the wrong word.

 

Look I define faith in that way not just because of the dictionary anyway, I see Christians use faith as a cover to ignore sound reasoning all the time. I am sorry, but people who run around shouting that the earth is 6000 years old ARE most emphatically believing things despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. I think the dictionary definition fits modern believers to a T, despite the anachronistic use in the bible.

 

Id say more on this but I gotta go to work.

 

Quote mining??? I told you that it was a definition from Dictionary.com, how is that quote mining? Maybe you need to explain what you mean by quote mining?

 

I'm sure that you do find Christians who use faith as a cover for unsound reasoning and I find atheists and skeptics who use faith in the same way, it is just that they put their faith in scientism rather than in the Bible or Christianity. I would agree that people who hold to a young earth do so contrary to the best evidence, but I also find atheists who hold to the idea that the universe is past eternal, which is also contrary to the best evidence. So it cuts both ways. If you believe that this is a good definition of faith, then I will begin to apply it when skeptics make assertions that go against the best data. I will also use if of people who claim that God does not exist as that is clearly a faith statement that cannot be empirically proved.

 

LNC

[LNC]

LNC,

 

You are quote mining and using a quote from a bible dictionary that uses the word evidence somewhere in it's lengthy definition. But the core of what your source was saying was that "Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith." Assent does not have to be based on evidence. Or, rather, the "evidence" to which Paul referred was not some empirically verifiable set of data or truth claims. It was the reception of the spoken or preached doctrine of the Christian religion (Romans 10:17). The only requirement the New Testament makes is that you believe what people tell you.

 

That's not 'evidence' based faith. It's not faith based on reason. Basically what was good enough for Paul was that you believe what he preached and live under his authority or the authority of those of whom he approved. Whatever got you to that point was good enough.

 

Plainly, the kind of faith spoken of in the New Testament is not the kind of faith you adhere to. Yours is a modern, apologist's strain of faith, cooked up so as not to be laughed at by those who adhere to reason but get all the kudos from those factions of the church that want to see true "hero of the faith" material in their teachers and preachers. The kind of faith you are championing is the "have it both ways" kind of faith, which is not faith at all.

 

The use of the word "evidence" by your source was an anomaly that does not fit the context of the scriptures the article quoted. At the end of the day, by what this dictionary really says, what you have is blind faith in mere dogma with no real search for evidential truth.

 

Here is the problem, many of you are taking an English translation of a Greek word and then going to an 21st century English dictionary to find the definition of that English word. That is a mistake as it doesn't give you an indication of what the author meant to convey. If you really want to be honest about this discussion, you would do a study of the Greek word used for faith in the particular passage and then study it in the context of that passage rather than quote mining the Bible as many of you seem to be doing.

 

The idea of faith in the Bible does not mean a mere blind assent to an idea or person. It means that one is persuaded by the argument or the authority (justified) of the person giving the argument. It is no different than what many of you claim on this site for the scientific data that you cite. None of us has done the research ourselves to prove the data to be accurate, we trust the authority of the source to be accurate. In other cases, when using logical arguments, we are persuaded by the logic following to its conclusion. We then test the premises to determine whether they are true. It is mere ad hominem to claim that all Christians believe what they do because of a mere blind assent or leap of faith.

 

If you are claiming that this is true for Christians then I will assume that it is true of you as well. If it is good enough for Richard Dawkins...or Daniel Dennett...or whomever you may cite. Unless you do the primary research yourself and prove that the evidence is correct, then you are really doing no better than to assent to an authority figure.

 

In short, I'm not buying your arguments and assertions. I'm also not buying your faulty exegesis and etymology.

 

LNC

[NotBlinded]

 

Chef, I'm not saying I'm anything special in some 'eyes' of 'something'. I am saying that I am that something. How can I feel special when this idea of "I" is not what I think I am. If "I" am controlling my liver and other functions, I have no memory of it. Memory would take too long because thought is linear. Therefore, it's not me, but yet it is me. Does consciousness need to remember? No...I don't think so. Feeling special requires my idea of me. What I believe doesn't do one a damn bit of good in preserving the ego.

 

What is stuff? Does stuff actually exist at all or is it just processes that gives the appearance of stuff?

 

No, I'm not special, but I am all that.

 

 

ps...and a bag of chips.

[NotBlinded]

I'm using short hand here my use of matter includes it's properties and what it does as described by laws of physics, chemistry, and biology focusing on but not limited to matter's self organization. Self organization of matter is a natural process, and in no way a supernatural process. Except as a matter of human feeling nothing additional is needed. The very human feeling of needing some special place in and of the universe is itself a natural process involving certain bits of matter in certain configurations. Nothing extra is required.

 

My bits know something of this, yet they collectively think Bach is as beautiful as ever. My bits are not disappointed to find out they are "just" stuff.

 

This reminds me that back when I was an actual chef, I used to end the before meal meeting with, "All right people, let's make some good shit." And in the end what we made was shit, but for a moment it was good.

No, nothing additional is needed because matter is Self-organized. Where is the supernatural when matter can "Self" organize? Matter itself is intelligence.

[NotBlinded]

1. I don't mean to be mean, but this seems to lack meaning. Are you saying that matter detects consciousness? If so then consciousness must be something other than matter, something extra.

 

Chef, you're not mean. We all have a right to our understandings.

 

I don't believe there is any "stuff"...only processes. It's all consciousness dancing around being you and being me and being trees and being bees, etc...

 

When I said that one can't happen without the other one, I was hinting at this unity. Much the same way that a magnet has different poles but is still one magnet. It's all one process that appears to be separate. This "illusion" makes some people postulate a separate entity. I'm not one of those people.

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe there is any "stuff"...only processes.

My view as well.

 

Forces and energy making it seem like being "things."

[agnosticator]

The idea of faith in the Bible does not mean a mere blind assent to an idea or person. It means that one is persuaded by the argument or the authority (justified) of the person giving the argument. It is no different than what many of you claim on this site for the scientific data that you cite.

 

Ok, let's consider this definition from Irene Alexandrou, who lives in Boca Raton, Florida where she serves as president of the Hellenic Society Paideia of South Florida. She also teaches Modern Greek at Florida Atlantic University, and directs and teaches at the afternoon Greek School of her parish, St. Mark:

 

The Greek word, which is translated as faith, is pistis (noun) and believe, is translated from pistevo (verb). The word believe (Greek verb "pistevo"), according to Strong's Greek Dictionary, means: to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust, (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ.) believe, commit, (to trust), put in trust with. "Pistevo" comes from the Greek noun "pistis" which means: persuasion, i.e., credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself; assurance, belief, believe, faith.

 

Upon what basis can we have Christian faith? Is it provisional like science is? Is Jesus here to speak with us like I converse with my friends? If we don't have access to a N.T., how can we have faith in Jesus?

 

We can have faith by accepting what the N.T. says at face value, but we cannot test its' veracity (accuracy) since God's existence cannot be proven or disproved. The same goes for Jesus being alive in the present. How can you trust His authority? Faith requires one to believe by trusting the authority of the N.T. There is no proof that Jesus is alive as God/man and that the Father puts his stamp of approval upon the N.T. In this way, faith is blind as Hebrews and other places in the N.T. states.

 

I can trust that scientists' articles are verifiable and their ideas are testable. I can (and already did) email Victor Stenger to question him about his ideas. I can verify he exists, and the texts in his books are his words.