Consciousness

[Antlerman]

 

There is no redefining going on by me. What you are demonstrating is a good example of equivocation. You see, words have different usages in different circumstances. The biggest problem is that you have defined the English word used as the translation of the Greek rather than defining the original Greek word. Even in the Greek there are different words translated into English as faith, so it is helpful to go back to the Greek to get the original word and then to read the context to see how that word is used. I will say that the English definition given by Dictionary.com is not the understanding of the word used in the N.T.

 

Let me give you an example and see if you agree with the definition of atheism given by Dictionary.com and see if you agree with them. Simply put, they define atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Would you agree with that definition? I know a lot of atheists here would not; however, that is what they have in the dictionary.

 

So, let's examine the word used in the Greek. Easton's Bible dictionary defines faith as:

 

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Philippians 1:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

 

Faith is the result of teaching (Romans 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.

 

It goes on from there, but that gives you an idea that it is not a blind faith as some would have you believe, nor is it ever portrayed in the Bible that way. So, the fact that you are unfamiliar with this or have never heard anyone define faith in this way tells me that you aren't speaking to people who understand the Bible or Greek as this is pretty commonly understood by those who do.

 

Empirical reasoning can only tell us what we think will happen in the future (thus your use of the word predict); however, it cannot tell us what will happen in the future. One can only have faith that reasoning is a good predictor of the future but we can never know with certainty, which is where faith comes in (or if you prefer, trust or hope) - however, you can never have knowledge of what will happen in the future (those who could would be the rulers of all!)

 

So, sorry to burst your balloon on this one but your pesky misunderstanding of words seems to have gotten the better of you as you didn't do enough homework (i.e., to realize that the Bible was written in Greek and that Greek words require a Greek dictionary and not Dictionary.com). It looks like my apologetics remain on solid ground after all (whew!)

 

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.

Thank you. This is something that bears quoting in entirety again. I'm getting a little wrapped up with work again, but I'm considering starting a separate topic on this that you nailed so well for board discussion. I'll no doubt repost your response in the opening post to get it going. It's such an important issue to understanding when the modern apologist comes in carrying "evidence".

 

There's a lot to be added to this, so I want to take my time in getting a proper topic started on it. Unless you wish to. I see it becoming a permanent pinned topic it's that pivotal. That was a great response.

[LNC]

You don't know my wife.

 

I think she would be much more disturbed if I had a chemical deficiency (e.g. Alzheimer's disease) that left me unable to love her.[\quote]

 

You avoided answering the question. Is love just a neuro-chemical reaction in your brain? If so, would your wife be satisfied knowing that your love for her is just a chemical thing?

 

You can pretend the brain has nothing to do with love, and you can even think that you "love with all your heart", but love doesn't happen without a brain. And that's the bottom line.

 

You know, when you look at the parts of the brain, it does not inspire love, but it is the coordinated functioning the parts that makes us human. That is what gives us choice, and that is what handles other emotions including hate. One part wants to hate, another to love. How that is resolved is also physiological (based on brain functioning), but varies from individual to individual. Individual variations produce personality which develops with time and a result of connections and growth (literal and figurative).

 

Take away some connections and you wind up with antisocial personalities and serial killers.

You need to read my posts more carefully as I never said that the brain has nothing to do with love or any other part of consciousness. In fact, you are changing the subject to avoid answer the question as to whether consciousness, love and other mental phenomena are reducible to the brain or physical. Would you be in favor of forcing violent offenders to have chemical treatments or operations to change their behavior? If not, why not? It seems that if behavior and choices are merely a chemical/physical thing then the best way to treat it would be to change the chemistry or physiology of that person, does it not? I will be interested in your response to these questions.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

You avoided answering the question. Is love just a neuro-chemical reaction in your brain? If so, would your wife be satisfied knowing that your love for her is just a chemical thing?

 

Yes, and yes. That's what I mean when I said you don't know my wife. She knows I'm a strict materialist atheist, and we are deeply in love.

 

 

You need to read my posts more carefully as I never said that the brain has nothing to do with love or any other part of consciousness. In fact, you are changing the subject to avoid answer the question as to whether consciousness, love and other mental phenomena are reducible to the brain or physical. Would you be in favor of forcing violent offenders to have chemical treatments or operations to change their behavior? If not, why not? It seems that if behavior and choices are merely a chemical/physical thing then the best way to treat it would be to change the chemistry or physiology of that person, does it not? I will be interested in your response to these questions.

 

LNC

 

Excellent! We already do that (change the chemistry of the brain of violent offenders)! You didn't know that?

 

Here's something from Washington (state):

 

RCW 10.77.092

Involuntary medication — Serious offenses.

 

(1) For purposes of determining whether a court may authorize involuntary medication for the purpose of competency restoration pursuant to RCW 10.77.084, a pending charge involving any one or more of the following crimes is a serious offense per se in the context of competency restoration:

 

(a.) Any violent offense, sex offense, serious traffic offense, and most serious offense, as those terms are defined in RCW 9.94A.030;

 

(B.) Any offense, except nonfelony counterfeiting offenses, included in crimes against persons in RCW 9.94A.411;

 

(c.) Any offense contained in chapter 9.41 RCW (firearms and dangerous weapons);

 

(d.) Any offense listed as domestic violence in RCW 10.99.020;

 

(e.) Any offense listed as a harassment offense in chapter 9A.46 RCW;

 

(f.) Any violation of chapter 69.50 RCW that is a class B felony; or

 

(g.) Any city or county ordinance or statute that is equivalent to an offense referenced in this subsection.

 

Look, insanity is not possession by the devil. It's a chemical imbalance. Many crimes are committed because of insanity, and many insane people commit crimes. You are driving me insane.

 

It isn't some nefarious attempt to make automatons of people and take away their free will. It is about correcting a chemical imbalance - it's called treatment.

[florduh]

I watch this thread with a mild interest, but y'all must be masochists! It reminds me of the Monty Python routine about the

.

[Shyone]

I watch this thread with a mild interest, but y'all must be masochists! It reminds me of the Monty Python routine about the

.

I frequently ask myself why I'm doing this. I keep thinking to myself, "Where is ScienceMike? He knows all this stuff. ScienceMike, if you are willing, take this cup from me."

 

But my prayers remain unanswered.

[NotBlinded]

Yes, I'm a little burned out on it too, along with the Cosmological thread. It's just a constant back and forth and things are starting to get repeated.

 

With this thread, there is no answer other than metaphysical and those can't be proven, so yeah, I'm bored with it too.

 

Besides, what's the point? Let's say that LNC is correct and naturalism can't explain consciousness. What next? What leap of faith causes one to arrive at any given religion?

[Legion]

Besides, what's the point? Let's say that LNC is correct and naturalism can't explain consciousness. What next? What leap of faith causes one to arrive at any given religion?

Great questions all NotBlinded.

[NotBlinded]

Besides, what's the point? Let's say that LNC is correct and naturalism can't explain consciousness. What next? What leap of faith causes one to arrive at any given religion?

Great questions all NotBlinded.

[agnosticator]

Wouldn't understanding where and when consciousness first exhibits itself provide the beginning of a naturalistic explanation? It would also confine consciousness to the being itself. I can say I know where my mind came from. It was a causal result of my conception. Of all the potential humans (sperm/ovum)in competition for being, one sperm penetrated one ovum, combining to produce me. My mind has an entirely naturalistic origin and development.

 

How can the dualist explain where the mind came from, and why it has to develop simultaneously with the brain's development? For consciousness to exist, it has to develop along with the physical being which it came from, IMHO. It is never the exact same "thing" along the course of human life. Since the brain must develop, and the mind/consciousness must also develop, clearly the consciousness is entirely naturalistic in origin and location in space-time (i.e., within a human being).

 

A fetus' brain is different than a newborn's, which is different than an adult's, and so is the mind. From The Emergence O Human Consciousness:

 

A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world. The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli. However, these reactions are probably preprogrammed and have a subcortical nonconscious origin. Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. Conversely, the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings. Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic consciousness and they still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness. The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli. However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level of consciousness.

 

 

 

A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings. Moreover, objective signs for the mobilization of the GNW [Global Neuronal Workspace]circuits are being detected in awake infants at the level of the prefrontal cortex in sensory processing, in responses to novelty and to speech and in social interaction. Yet, its capacities for internal manipulations in working memory are reduced, it is unreflective, present oriented and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic or minimal consciousness (7,9,70). They still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness (70).

[Legion]

Excellent post in my opinion Agnosticator.

[Shyone]

Excellent post in my opinion Agnosticator.

No doubt. I hadn't even considered that the mind develops concurrently with the brain throughout infancy and childhood - and even into adulthood.

 

One more nail in the coffin for dualism.

 

Perhaps the final nail.

[NotBlinded]

Excellent post in my opinion Agnosticator.

No doubt. I hadn't even considered that the mind develops concurrently with the brain throughout infancy and childhood - and even into adulthood.

 

One more nail in the coffin for dualism.

 

Perhaps the final nail.

Yes, It was a good post, but I don't think the final nail has been hammered.

 

You did notice that the first of the quote starts off as this, "A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world."

 

There isn't any problems defining and seeing where consciousness comes from within the "simple definition" of it.

 

I'm not saying I'm against a naturalistic explanation, but I believe there is more to the naturalistic explanation than just materialism in a strict sense.

[Shyone]

Excellent post in my opinion Agnosticator.

No doubt. I hadn't even considered that the mind develops concurrently with the brain throughout infancy and childhood - and even into adulthood.

 

One more nail in the coffin for dualism.

 

Perhaps the final nail.

Yes, It was a good post, but I don't think the final nail has been hammered.

 

You did notice that the first of the quote starts off as this, "A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world."

 

There isn't any problems defining and seeing where consciousness comes from within the "simple definition" of it.

 

I'm not saying I'm against a naturalistic explanation, but I believe there is more to the naturalistic explanation than just materialism in a strict sense.

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

[NotBlinded]

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

Okie dokie.

 

Is awareness of things consciousness or is consciousness the field of awareness in which things occur?

[Shyone]

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

Okie dokie.

 

Is awareness of things consciousness or is consciousness the field of awareness in which things occur?

Yes.

[NotBlinded]

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

Okie dokie.

 

Is awareness of things consciousness or is consciousness the field of awareness in which things occur?

Yes.

It wasn't the same question, or it wasn't supposed to be.

 

Maybe if I change the last part of the question to this: Or is consciousness the field in which awareness of things occur? On a greater scale, consciousness is a state in which everything happens. Consciousness doesn't arrise with the senses, it is there before any awareness occurs. It's a blank slate that allows the words to be written.

 

The easy part of consciousness is what could be called concentrated consciousness or attention. This is only a small part of it. We are able to take in much more than we are aware of. I think this is why hypnosis works.

[NotBlinded]

Excellent post in my opinion Agnosticator.

No doubt. I hadn't even considered that the mind develops concurrently with the brain throughout infancy and childhood - and even into adulthood.

 

One more nail in the coffin for dualism.

 

Perhaps the final nail.

Yes, It was a good post, but I don't think the final nail has been hammered.

 

You did notice that the first of the quote starts off as this, "A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world."

 

There isn't any problems defining and seeing where consciousness comes from within the "simple definition" of it.

 

I'm not saying I'm against a naturalistic explanation, but I believe there is more to the naturalistic explanation than just materialism in a strict sense.

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

Oh, and I didn't answer your question here.

 

I noticed something in the quote agnosticator posted that has parallels to many spiritual understandings. I'm going to grab it:

 

"Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself." Lack of ego or the oceanic state which has been seen as regression by psychiatrists when it happens to adults, but is the goal of some religions. The ego is what is being called consciousness here and as long as that is what is understood, I think that is the wrong question.

 

"To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one must become as a child." Of course it doesn't mean to actually regress to a child's state, it is to move beyond the ego to reach an adult understanding of it.

[Shyone]

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

Okie dokie.

 

Is awareness of things consciousness or is consciousness the field of awareness in which things occur?

Yes.

It wasn't the same question, or it wasn't supposed to be.

 

Maybe if I change the last part of the question to this: Or is consciousness the field in which awareness of things occur? On a greater scale, consciousness is a state in which everything happens. Consciousness doesn't arrise with the senses, it is there before any awareness occurs. It's a blank slate that allows the words to be written.

 

The easy part of consciousness is what could be called concentrated consciousness or attention. This is only a small part of it. We are able to take in much more than we are aware of. I think this is why hypnosis works.

The funny thing is that as soon as it become clear that consciousness is dependent upon (and therefore derived from) the physical apparatus of the brain, the definition of consciousness seems to change.

 

Field? Grassy fields, electron fields, fields of dreams, football field, research field...

 

Let me "define" consciousness. The state of awareness that enables acquisition of new information. I like that one. It basically means awake and smart enough to learn.

 

Being self aware, aware of others, aware of concepts and language, ideas, cooperation etc. are all stages of development that start with being ready and able to learn.

 

Does that help? IOW, no matter how you define it - step one, step two, step three - the steps are not possible with a brain that has not reached the necessary stage of maturity.

 

Hence, consciousness, no matter how defined, is a function of the maturing brain. I don't deny that it is complicated. We hear, even when not listening. We see, even when we are talking or listening. We feel even when we are not aware of feeling. It's like your computer screen (and you) may or may not be aware of background processes, but background processes are a big part of mentation - thinking - acquiring information (like updating a virus program or hearing a siren alarm).

[Shyone]

Ok, so let's make this complicated.

 

At what age is a person aware of their awareness of their awareness of their body, the self and the world?

Oh, and I didn't answer your question here.

 

I noticed something in the quote agnosticator posted that has parallels to many spiritual understandings. I'm going to grab it:

 

"Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself." Lack of ego or the oceanic state which has been seen as regression by psychiatrists when it happens to adults, but is the goal of some religions. The ego is what is being called consciousness here and as long as that is what is understood, I think that is the wrong question.

 

"To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one must become as a child." Of course it doesn't mean to actually regress to a child's state, it is to move beyond the ego to reach an adult understanding of it.

I had a mental picture of an adult male with a diaper, bonnet and giant rattler from your last line.

 

I still don't think you answered the question. Age.

 

Agnosticator's point was that if maturity is required to reach consciousness, then the process is physical.

 

I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with ego or attitude. Our desire to fit into groups has great survival value generally (except maybe gangs), and part of belonging to any group is submitting to the group's wants, desires, and attitudes - "ego".

[NotBlinded]

The funny thing is that as soon as it become clear that consciousness is dependent upon (and therefore derived from) the physical apparatus of the brain, the definition of consciousness seems to change.

 

Field? Grassy fields, electron fields, fields of dreams, football field, research field...

 

Let me "define" consciousness. The state of awareness that enables acquisition of new information. I like that one. It basically means awake and smart enough to learn.

 

Being self aware, aware of others, aware of concepts and language, ideas, cooperation etc. are all stages of development that start with being ready and able to learn.

 

Does that help? IOW, no matter how you define it - step one, step two, step three - the steps are not possible with a brain that has not reached the necessary stage of maturity.

 

Hence, consciousness, no matter how defined, is a function of the maturing brain. I don't deny that it is complicated. We hear, even when not listening. We see, even when we are talking or listening. We feel even when we are not aware of feeling. It's like your computer screen (and you) may or may not be aware of background processes, but background processes are a big part of mentation - thinking - acquiring information (like updating a virus program or hearing a siren alarm).

Sounds good to me. I think I mixed my concepts up, but I'll work on it.

[NotBlinded]

I had a mental picture of an adult male with a diaper, bonnet and giant rattler from your last line.

You would! It's probably because of the Burger King commercial.

 

I still don't think you answered the question. Age.

 

Agnosticator's point was that if maturity is required to reach consciousness, then the process is physical.

 

I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with ego or attitude. Our desire to fit into groups has great survival value generally (except maybe gangs), and part of belonging to any group is submitting to the group's wants, desires, and attitudes - "ego".

Yeah well, I'm not too sure either. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is something else going on also. A plant leans towards the light when it grows. Is it aware? Yes, I think I mixed up awareness and consciousness before.

 

This, "yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself" is what I was talking about with regards to the ego. The ego is this sense of separate self, but I'm getting away from the point of the thread here and I feel pretty stupid right now, so I'm shutting up.

 

No...I think awareness is focused attention and this happens in the field of consciousness. Oh hell.

[NotBlinded]

Shyone, I have it in my head, but I can't explain what I want to say. Damn words.

[Ouroboros]

Shyone, I have it in my head, but I can't explain what I want to say. Damn words.

Isn't that awful?

 

I feel it's becoming a larger problem every day now. For every new thing I learn, the harder it is to explain the image I have in my head. Things make sense, but I can't explain why.

[NotBlinded]

Shyone, I have it in my head, but I can't explain what I want to say. Damn words.

Isn't that awful?

 

I feel it's becoming a larger problem every day now. For every new thing I learn, the harder it is to explain the image I have in my head. Things make sense, but I can't explain why.

Yes, it does suck especially when people like Shy won't let us expound on the meanings of words in order to say it. (I hope he knows I'm picking on him because he's not alone in that regard for sure.)

[agnosticator]

Thanks Legion and Shyone, for the kudos. I only understand a tiny bit of what the two of you know about this subject, and I appreciate reading your ideas and observations.