| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Gastrich" |
| Date: |
09 Apr 2005 04:05:08 PM |
| Object: |
The Alt.Atheism List - Mirror It! |
Hey everyone,
In order to have this list all over the internet, so more and more people
can pray for atheists, you may mirror it if you wish. Link:
http://jcsm.org/1on1/AltAtheismAtheistAgnosticList.htm
For those that don't know, this is a list of 2100 atheists and agnostics.
Christians regularly pray for them by name. Here is one of the mirrored
sites: http://www.votic.org/jcsm/AltAtheismAtheistAgnosticList.htm
God bless and keep praying!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 90,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140 . AIM: MrJasonGastrich . YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
18 Apr 2005 01:51:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:55:18 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
What is your point exactly with this "religion", "religious" thing?
I responded to your post because you were insisting that it was
obligatory for religions to register. That is not true. You also said
that a belief in god did not make you religious, but according to the
definition of the word, it does. Just pointing out the factual
innacuracies.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
13 Apr 2005 04:45:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:04:48 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
HypnoSteve wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
You seem to be assuming that every single person on the planet must
have an opinion about the nature of consciousness, regardless of how
much they know abour neuroscience.
What I've observed is that very many atheists seem to assume that theists
have given their idea of God considerable in-depth thought from all possible
angles and delight in every opportunity to point out to them the
shortcomings of the definitions and attributes that are offerred up.
Admittedly, where the Christians are concerned (the Fundamentalists in
particular) if they'd just say the Bible is a kind of 'guidebook' rather
than the infallible word of God they wouldn't get so much stick.
You're exactly right. They only get "stick" when they start shoving
their beliefs down our throat under the guise of "help".
"I'm just trying to help you!" they say, when they actually want to push
their god-conjecture onto us.
You have already made your mind up about it, which is a typical
religious stance.
I'm not part of any religion. I'm just a guy who believes there's something
behind it all - the Universe, our sentience and our reason for living. That
'something' I term "God". I am a member of no theistic groups and follow no
rituals. How then am I religious?
You do not need to follow any specific group nor do you need to follow
any specific ritual. You believe in a sentience that created the
Universe, therefore, you are a theist and, ipso facto, religious.
In fact, you have theist in your group's name: Pan-en-theist.
Pan- meaning "all; every"
en- meaning "cover; put into"
-theist meaning "belief in god/gods"
Do you have a different spelling of the word in the USA? My dictionary
(Websters in Ency Brittanica) has no entry for 'panentheism' but
defines 'pantheism' as:
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the
universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples
indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain
periods of the Roman empire)
pan being 'all every' as you indicate
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
14 Apr 2005 11:22:01 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Do you have a different spelling of the word in the USA? My dictionary
(Websters in Ency Brittanica) has no entry for 'panentheism' but
defines 'pantheism' as:
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the
universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples
indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain
periods of the Roman empire)
There's an interesting story behind how the second defintion of "pantheism"
got into the dictionary:
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/faqs.htm
And some corroboration here:
http://www.harrison.dircon.co.uk/definits.htm
Basically what happened is that in 1837 Sir Francis Palgrave used the term
"pantheism" in a way that seems to have confused it with the word
"pantheon". It's an easy mistake to make but he should have used the term
"polytheism" as the worship of "all the gods" instead. Basically this
second definition got into the Oxford English Dictionary, from which other
dictionaries draw upon considerably and the rest is history.
"Pantheist" was apperently first used by John Toland in 1705, with
"pantheism" following in 1730.
The term "panentheism" has regained a lot of popular usage for two obvious
reasons: "pantheism" is easy to confuse with "pantheon" and "panentheism"
allows for a God that is transcendent to the Universe as well as permating
it.
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
13 Apr 2005 05:18:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:45:58 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> in news message
<n5qp51906jrudcumkktbae6icv6m7guc3t@4ax.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:04:48 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[-----]
In fact, you have theist in your group's name: Pan-en-theist.
Pan- meaning "all; every"
en- meaning "cover; put into"
-theist meaning "belief in god/gods"
Do you have a different spelling of the word in the USA? My dictionary
(Websters in Ency Brittanica) has no entry for 'panentheism' but
defines 'pantheism' as:
There is no entry in dictionary.com for his spelling. Either it is a
newly minted word, undefined as yet, or the OP doesn't know how to
spell what he is proud to be.
I'd vote for the latter, but I'm willing to read the OP's explanation
that this is actually not a misspelling, but a new philosophical
position that he just made up.
Liz #658 BAAWA
You can define anything you want, any way you want. Defining it as such
is not the same as offering real world evidence to support your
assertion. -- Woden
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
14 Apr 2005 11:22:01 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
There is no entry in dictionary.com for his spelling. Either it is a
newly minted word, undefined as yet, or the OP doesn't know how to
spell what he is proud to be.
Hmmm....
I'd vote for the latter, but I'm willing to read the OP's explanation
that this is actually not a misspelling, but a new philosophical
position that he just made up.
Double hmmm....
Panentheism is not a new word. Apparently it was introduced by K.C.F.
Krause in 1828.
http://www.panentheism.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
13 Apr 2005 11:55:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:18:00 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:45:58 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> in news message
<n5qp51906jrudcumkktbae6icv6m7guc3t@4ax.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:04:48 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[-----]
In fact, you have theist in your group's name: Pan-en-theist.
Pan- meaning "all; every"
en- meaning "cover; put into"
-theist meaning "belief in god/gods"
Do you have a different spelling of the word in the USA? My dictionary
(Websters in Ency Brittanica) has no entry for 'panentheism' but
defines 'pantheism' as:
There is no entry in dictionary.com for his spelling. Either it is a
newly minted word, undefined as yet, or the OP doesn't know how to
spell what he is proud to be.
I'd vote for the latter, but I'm willing to read the OP's explanation
that this is actually not a misspelling, but a new philosophical
position that he just made up.
Thanks Liz. I am now left wondering which version of Windows he
believes in? I am a Windows XP man. :-)
Typo I think. I cannot cast so much as a grain of sand there.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
14 Apr 2005 11:51:52 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
There is no entry in dictionary.com for his spelling. Either it is a
newly minted word, undefined as yet, or the OP doesn't know how to
spell what he is proud to be.
I'd vote for the latter, but I'm willing to read the OP's explanation
that this is actually not a misspelling, but a new philosophical
position that he just made up.
Thanks Liz. I am now left wondering which version of Windows he
believes in? I am a Windows XP man. :-)
Typo I think. I cannot cast so much as a grain of sand there.
Haven't you guys and gal heard of Google or Wikipedia?
(Windows XP Pro! But I'd like to get to grips with Linux more.)
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
13 Apr 2005 11:01:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:42:32 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
You seem to be assuming that every single person on the planet must
have an opinion about the nature of consciousness, regardless of how
much they know abour neuroscience.
What I've observed is that very many atheists seem to assume that theists
have given their idea of God considerable in-depth thought from all possible
angles and delight in every opportunity to point out to them the
shortcomings of the definitions and attributes that are offerred up.
As you'll see if you watch the debates with theists in here, the
theists are making statements that are so utterly ridiculous that
taking them apart requires very little in the way of effort. You'll
also note that the theists are the ones who choose to post here, as
you did. I do not start threads to theist groups - most of those are
started by the theists themselves.
In other words, the theists are the ones who are so desperate to
challenge the atheist viewpoint, and not the other way around.
Admittedly, where the Christians are concerned (the Fundamentalists in
particular) if they'd just say the Bible is a kind of 'guidebook' rather
than the infallible word of God they wouldn't get so much stick.
The reason they get so much stick has less to do with their reliance
on the Book of Contradictions and more to do with their attempts to
control the behaviour of the people who happen to disagree with them.
You have already made your mind up about it, which is a typical
religious stance.
I'm not part of any religion. I'm just a guy who believes there's something
behind it all - the Universe, our sentience and our reason for living. That
'something' I term "God". I am a member of no theistic groups and follow no
rituals. How then am I religious?
You believe in god. That's what religion means - a belief in a god or
gods.
Religion tells you how it is, you believe it, and
even when 90% of the evidence on front of you points to physical cause
you will still not believe it.
My panentheism is nothing more than my own resoning. Nobody has told me
"how it is" and when I'm presented with a physical explanation for a
phenomena I accept it. I even accept (on faith) that there is a physical
explanation for things I don't know the explanation for. For example, I
don't know much about car mechanics but I trust they don't run on ectoplasm.
You don't know much about consciousness (by your own admission in this
thread) but you trust that it runs on a soul. What's the difference?
When it comes to consciousness there isn't even 1% evidence to suggest the
neural activity transfigures into consciousness or that neural activity
itself is consciousness.
Where is this 99% that suggests that it is not? References, links?
And even if there was 90% why should that be
accepted?
Surely it is better to accept a theory that 90% of experiments prove
rather than doing what you have done and jettisoned all of the hard
evidence for the 'it's magic, god did it' option? You have 0% evidence
for the latter.
It's like someone offering you $90 and someone else offering you $0.
You've taken the $0.
I'm thinking here of organised skepticism in relation to psi
here. Say to them "there's a probability of 1 in 10 that experiment
demonstrating psi is a false positive result but, of course, that's enough
evidence to accept the existence of psi from now on" and see the response it
gets. They wouldn't even think of accepting 20:1 (95% or p>0.05) as
evidence for psi.
They don't have to accept a 95% success rate in experiments for psi
because they do not achieve even a tiny fraction of that. Most
so-called scientific experiments into any aspect of paranormal
activity are conducted by people with either a vested interest in the
result, or little or no scientific training. I have yet to see a
single experiment that has been well designed, well conducted and
easily replicated which demonstrates clearly that such a thing as
'psi' exists. The standards used by paranormal researchers would be
laughed out of a serious lab.
You have too much at stake to look
openly and honestly at the evidence.
There is no evidence at all that neural activity transfigures into
consciousness or that neural activity itself is consciousness.
Your own assumptions are that neural activity can not be
consciousness. The evidence is there for all to see.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
11 Apr 2005 04:03:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:31:31 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:l_adnVYiUJD1F8ffRVn-2A@megapath.net...
In our last episode <cqv6e.13741$p71.6620@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
HypnoSteve pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
As I've
demonstrated,
Except you haven't...
Haven't I? Well, I've certainly presented the case that atheists can't
divorce themselves from the faith aspect of atheism and nobody's tried to
prove that wrong yet.
If you 'present a case' the onus is on you to prove it right not for
us to prove it wrong. Since it was based on presuppositions about
what we are supposed to be believing nor have you demonstrated
a necessary faith aspect of atheism you are far from proving your
case.
Why don't you have a go, Mark? Assuming you don't believe in a "soul", show
me how you reduce consciousness to brain cells and/or produce consciousness
from brain cells? Where's the evidence that brain cells produce
consciousness?
Why should he?
The reality is that atheism is about faith in brain cells producing
consciousness. (Thus, the belief that "when you're dead, you're dead").
Is it? Please demonstrate the truth of this strange assertion
If there's two things that anyone with any knowledge about philosophy or
science should know it's that some things are "faith based" while others are
"evidence based". So where is the evidence for neural activity producing
conscious awareness? I won't deny that neurons have a lot to do with
information processing, memory, spacial awareness and self-identification,
but so far I've never encountered anything, not one single shred of
evidence, that even remotely approaches a link between neurons and the
production of consciousness itself. Even Penrose and Hameroff only propose
"theory".
Face it Mark, atheism is just another faith. And it's not just about having
faith in things about consciousness, it's the faith that the universe is
either infinately cyclical, infinately reductionist or somehow sprang into
existence itself.
Not proven or demonstrated in any way shape or form just lots of
presuppositions and irrelevances. How the brain actually works
has nothing to do with our lack of belief in the existence of a god or
gods.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
11 Apr 2005 06:14:07 PM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:.
"HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Well, I've certainly presented the case that atheists can't
divorce themselves from the faith aspect of atheism and nobody's tried to
prove that wrong yet.
If you 'present a case' the onus is on you to prove it right not for
us to prove it wrong. Since it was based on presuppositions about
what we are supposed to be believing nor have you demonstrated
a necessary faith aspect of atheism you are far from proving your
case.
Okay, one more time for good measure:
1) Materialistic atheists specifically (of the "when you're dead, you're
dead" breed) believe in materialisim and empirical regularity as that which
underlies the natural world/universe on account of being 'materialistic
atheists'.
2) Unless consciousness is categorised as metaphysical (souls/spirits) then
materialistic atheists must, by proxy, be claiming that it is caused by
materialistic and empirical regularity - meaning caused by neural activity.
3) If there is no evidence for neural activity causing consciousness
(correlational activity doesn't count) then from the two only choices
available (evidence based and faith based), material atheism is clearly
"faith based" when it comes to the issue of the nature of consciousness.
I, personally, have no faith whatsoever in neural activity causing
consciousness because I have never seen any evidence remotely moving beyond
the correlational in that respect. Can you think of anything other than a
metaphysical or materialistic cause for consciousness, Les? Will you deny
materialistic atheism and state categorically that you have no belief,
faith, conviction or assumed knowledge that consciousness is caused by
neural activity?
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
11 Apr 2005 07:59:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:14:07 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> in news
message <3xD6e.7447$C2.872@newsfe3-win.ntli.net> wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:.
"HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Well, I've certainly presented the case that atheists can't
divorce themselves from the faith aspect of atheism and nobody's tried to
prove that wrong yet.
If you 'present a case' the onus is on you to prove it right not for
us to prove it wrong. Since it was based on presuppositions about
what we are supposed to be believing nor have you demonstrated
a necessary faith aspect of atheism you are far from proving your
case.
Okay, one more time for good measure:
1) Materialistic atheists specifically (of the "when you're dead, you're
dead" breed) believe in materialisim and empirical regularity as that which
underlies the natural world/universe on account of being 'materialistic
atheists'.
If that's the definition, I'm not a materialist.
2) Unless consciousness is categorised as metaphysical (souls/spirits) then
materialistic atheists must, by proxy, be claiming that it is caused by
materialistic and empirical regularity - meaning caused by neural activity.
Or something else not yet known. If there is no evidence for anything
metaphysical, then it may be set on the shelf until evidence is found
to support such a supposition. OTOH, there is evidence for neural
activity, so that remains a candidate for the causation of
consciousness as does anything that actually can be shown to exist.
Souls/spirits are not in this category.
3) If there is no evidence for neural activity causing consciousness
(correlational activity doesn't count) then from the two only choices
available (evidence based and faith based), material atheism is clearly
"faith based" when it comes to the issue of the nature of consciousness.
You seem to be limiting yourself to one thing that exists, and one
thing that can not be shown to exist. Are you saying that you *know*
that these are the only two choices that will ever be available? That
seems very presumptuous of you.
Albeit, if I am given only these two choices, I will choose the one
that has evidence for its existence rather than speculation about
something which is undetectable. There is, of course, good
correlation between brain activity and consciousness. A good example
is the Terry Schivo case. Her higher brain activity was minimal and
her consciousness was also minimal. Dead people have no brain
activity. People who are asleep have different brain activity than
those who are awake.
All in all, this verifiable evidence means that neural activity needs
further study to see whether it is the cause of consciousness or
whether consciousness causes neural activity. At this time, we can
definitely say the two are interrelated. About souls and spirits and
consciousness, we can say nothing of any import.
I, personally, have no faith whatsoever in neural activity causing
consciousness because I have never seen any evidence remotely moving beyond
the correlational in that respect.
I have no faith either, however as you admit, there is correlation.
Unfortunately for the "soul/spirit" theory, there is no correlation
mainly because no one can find such a thing.
Can you think of anything other than a
metaphysical or materialistic cause for consciousness, Les? Will you deny
materialistic atheism and state categorically that you have no belief,
faith, conviction or assumed knowledge that consciousness is caused by
neural activity?
I have no assumptions. I await the evidence.
Please produce objective evidence for souls if you think they are a
good alternative to physical causation of consciousness. I have seen
nothing in the news about anyone yet isolating a soul.
You can have faith in metaphysical explanations, but I think that is
just plain silly. For me, such belief is wishful thinking combined
with a dose of the Booga Booga Effect.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
12 Apr 2005 08:40:28 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
"HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> in news:
1) Materialistic atheists specifically (of the "when you're dead, you're
dead" breed) believe in materialisim and empirical regularity as that
which
underlies the natural world/universe on account of being 'materialistic
atheists'.
If that's the definition, I'm not a materialist.
Okay, so let's use the term 'empirical atheist' then so that we can include
electromagentism, gravity, photons and everything else. Or would you rather
define 'materialism' yourself?
2) Unless consciousness is categorised as metaphysical (souls/spirits)
then
materialistic atheists must, by proxy, be claiming that it is caused by
materialistic and empirical regularity - meaning caused by neural
activity.
Or something else not yet known.
Okay. So do you accept that is simply a belief until there is evidence for
it?
If there is no evidence for anything
metaphysical, then it may be set on the shelf until evidence is found
to support such a supposition.
Some of us have seen enough evidence for psi... but okay.
OTOH, there is evidence for neural
activity, so that remains a candidate for the causation of
consciousness as does anything that actually can be shown to exist.
Candidate is "belief".
Souls/spirits are not in this category.
How come?
3) If there is no evidence for neural activity causing consciousness
(correlational activity doesn't count) then from the two only choices
available (evidence based and faith based), material atheism is clearly
"faith based" when it comes to the issue of the nature of consciousness.
You seem to be limiting yourself to one thing that exists, and one
thing that can not be shown to exist. Are you saying that you *know*
that these are the only two choices that will ever be available? That
seems very presumptuous of you.
Maybe neural activity and souls are the only two choices that will ever
exist for the production of consciousness or maybe they aren't. Who could
ever (at this moment in history) reliably say that they "know"? So you see,
I'm happy to admit that my Soul theory is 'faith based'. What about you?
The candidates for the causation of consciousness are neural activity, souls
or something as yet undiscovered or unconsidered. Unless you have evidence
for something producing consciousness then the only other option is that
it's just your personal belief, no?
Albeit, if I am given only these two choices, I will choose the one
that has evidence for its existence rather than speculation about
something which is undetectable.
But will you admit that until you have evidence it's just all belief?
There is, of course, good
correlation between brain activity and consciousness.
Correlation is not causation.
A good example
is the Terry Schivo case. Her higher brain activity was minimal and
her consciousness was also minimal.
The Terry Schiavo case is an extremely complicated one and minimal is not
non-existent. Furthermore a lot of neuroscientists think that the thalamus
and midbrain are just as important if not more important than the neocortex
in relation to consciousness. There's good reason to suppose this since not
all animals have these advanced parts of the brain yet they are quite
conscious.
The focus on the neocortext and gross surface area of the hemispheres is
caused by the fact that it's pretty easy to gain data from it. Anyone can
stick some EEG pads on someone's head in their garage and measure electrical
activity, but to see what's happening in the midbrain regions properly you
need some rather expensive imaging equipment. I'm not saying that the
cerebral hemispheres just process information and nothing more, they may
very well be related to our sense of self-identity but it's only the million
and one non neuroscientists in the world who seem to think they know for
sure.
I'd be interested to know if cognitive processing tests were done with
Schiavo. Some of the ways she was responding to stimuli on the videos on
the main website about her were genuinely quite suggestive of cognitive
processing and sensory awareness. And it's easy enough to figure out. You
could hold up a blue card and ask if it's yellow. Then you might hold up an
orange card and ask if it's green followed by a red card asking if it is
indeed red. Then you hold up a mirror and/or pictures of the patient with
her family members and run some more trial and error questioning.
One would imagine that the website(s) about Schiavo would have shown the
best evidence for cognitive awareness that they had and I'd strongly suspect
that there would be plenty of instances where she showed no accurate or
meaningful responses to stimuli. But my honest thinking here is that
despite the undoubted loss of many of her higher cognitive functions, Terry
Schiavo's brain/mind was indeed capable of processing information and she
was, at times, intentionally (as opposed to autonomically) responding to
stimuli - even so far as making minor vocalisations. We'll never know for
sure now what the result could have been, but I honestly think that
rehabilitation therapy and speech therapy should have been at least provided
and the results guaged so people could have made more informed decisions
about her. I don't think her mind was as far gone as many people imagine.
Dead people have no brain
activity. People who are asleep have different brain activity than
those who are awake.
And if you wake them in REM sleep they'll say they were dreaming and if you
wake them in slow sleep they'll say they were thinking. In sleep it seems
that there is a lot going on with memory formation and for this to happen
the parts of the brain responsible for identity, self-awareness and
self-reference seem somehow to be funtioning differently (presumably because
they rely heavily on long-term memory which is currently tied up doing
something else in sleep). Paradoxically though, despite their obvious
drowsyness many subjects will actually report that they were extremely alert
and deeply focussed on their dreams or thoughts - they just quickly forget
what they were dreaming about or thinking of..
All in all, this verifiable evidence means that neural activity needs
further study to see whether it is the cause of consciousness or
whether consciousness causes neural activity. At this time, we can
definitely say the two are interrelated. About souls and spirits and
consciousness, we can say nothing of any import.
Many a parapsychologist would disagree with you there. However, I'm all for
studying neural activity in relation to it's effects upon cognitive
functioning and I know that they are, very obviously, interrelated. But it
still skirts the issue of the question I've been asking since I joined this
thread: why not just accept that until it's evidence based that neural
activity causes/becomes conscious awareness that it's currently all
faith/belief based?
I, personally, have no faith whatsoever in neural activity causing
consciousness because I have never seen any evidence remotely moving
beyond
the correlational in that respect.
I have no faith either, however as you admit, there is correlation.
Unfortunately for the "soul/spirit" theory, there is no correlation
mainly because no one can find such a thing.
Again, many a parapsychologist would disagree. However, all I'm interested
to know is why, between the only two choices allowed in hard science,
skeptics/atheists won't just accept that any view about the cause of
consciousness is basically faith based rather than evidence based. Face
facts Liz, this is the exact thing that you guys nag theists about
constantly - if there's no evidence for God, Souls, the tooth fairy,
leprecuans then it must by definition be faith. I'm just pointing out that
the same holds true for any view you might have about the origin and cause
of consciousness.
Can you think of anything other than a
metaphysical or materialistic cause for consciousness, Les? Will you deny
materialistic atheism and state categorically that you have no belief,
faith, conviction or assumed knowledge that consciousness is caused by
neural activity?
I have no assumptions. I await the evidence.
Good answer.
Please produce objective evidence for souls if you think they are a
good alternative to physical causation of consciousness.
Why should I or anyone produce objective evidence for souls just because I
or anyone else thinks they are a good alternative to physical causation of
consciousness? Evidence should only be required when you explicitly want to
convince someone of something and not solely because one is convinced of
something themselves. Maybe you should go on a ghost hunt or something.
They're a good laugh even if nothing particularly interesting happens.
You can have faith in metaphysical explanations, but I think that is
just plain silly. For me, such belief is wishful thinking combined
with a dose of the Booga Booga Effect.
Ah, yes, the well known booga booga effect.
The bottom line here is that ideas about emergence (which is actually the
model you're adhering to even if you're not fully read up on it) are every
bit as faith based as the Christians' ideas about "miracles". All that's
happening is that they're using an old (value laden) term while you're using
a new (equally value laden) term. I don't think anyone will ever
conclusively show how matter/energy becomes thought and/or consciousness. I
think correlation is as far as anyone will ever get. I think it requires a
leap of faith to assume that neurochemical, electrical, neuroelectrical or
electromagnetic activity in the brain (or any combination thereof) becomes
consciousness or is itself consciousness.
Call it objective naturalism, materialism, empiricalism or whatever you like
at the end of the day it is currently, and seems set to remain, in this
instance a faith based philosophy. It's not a faith based religion but it's
still faith based. And there are some implications to that no matter how
well science serves us.
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
12 Apr 2005 05:18:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:14:07 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:.
"HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Well, I've certainly presented the case that atheists can't
divorce themselves from the faith aspect of atheism and nobody's tried to
prove that wrong yet.
If you 'present a case' the onus is on you to prove it right not for
us to prove it wrong. Since it was based on presuppositions about
what we are supposed to be believing nor have you demonstrated
a necessary faith aspect of atheism you are far from proving your
case.
Okay, one more time for good measure:
Once more turn round the circle :-)
1) Materialistic atheists specifically (of the "when you're dead, you're
dead" breed) believe in materialisim and empirical regularity as that which
underlies the natural world/universe on account of being 'materialistic
atheists'.
If you say so. This is just assertion of course
2) Unless consciousness is categorised as metaphysical (souls/spirits) then
materialistic atheists must, by proxy, be claiming that it is caused by
materialistic and empirical regularity - meaning caused by neural activity.
The latter does seem the more likely explanation and it fits with
known evidence of the workings of the brain. The brain clearly exists
for some reason and we do not yet fully understand what it is.
Consciousness does seem as good a tentative answer as any does it not?
To deny it would be stupid.
3) If there is no evidence for neural activity causing consciousness
(correlational activity doesn't count) then from the two only choices
available (evidence based and faith based), material atheism is clearly
"faith based" when it comes to the issue of the nature of consciousness.
A big if based on ignorance. Why do you people have to fill in gaps
in our knowledge with crazy beliefs about souls and gods?
I, personally, have no faith whatsoever in neural activity causing
consciousness because I have never seen any evidence remotely moving beyond
the correlational in that respect.
Absence of evidence or ignorance is not evidence of absence nor
grounds for jumping to conclusions. We know their is neural activity
because that is the name we have given to observed activity in the
brain. We know the brain has synapses and such like. 'Neural' is
after all nothing more than the name we give to what we observe.
Neural 1 : of, relating to, or affecting a nerve or the nervous
system.
2 : situated in the region of or on the same side of the body as the
brain and spinal cord : dorsal (Websters)
See what I mean? That's what we observe, that's what we call it!
How long has that word existed? The dictionary indicates it was
coined in circa 1847.
Can you think of anything other than a
metaphysical or materialistic cause for consciousness, Les? Will you deny
materialistic atheism and state categorically that you have no belief,
faith, conviction or assumed knowledge that consciousness is caused by
neural activity?
Let's find out exactly how the brain works first before jumping to
conclusions based on ignorance first shall we! Otherwise you are
asking me to make a decision based on ignorance which in my view would
be stupid.
Tentatively it seems to me that consciousness is entirely mechanical
and ceases when we die. I will either die never knowing or discover
that what you believe - since we are talking about your faith not mine
- is correct. Whilst considerable advances have been made about how
the brain works have been made in my lifetime sadly time is starting
to run out for me.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
12 Apr 2005 07:24:01 PM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
"HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Unless consciousness is categorised as metaphysical (souls/spirits) then
materialistic atheists must, by proxy, be claiming that it is caused by
materialistic and empirical regularity - meaning caused by neural
activity.
The latter does seem the more likely explanation and it fits with
known evidence of the workings of the brain. The brain clearly exists
for some reason and we do not yet fully understand what it is.
Neuroscientist know exactly why encephalisation occurred in evolution (why
brains exist). Brains control muscles - or more accurately they orchestrate
motion. Without them an organism would only be capable of reflex action of
individual muscles at best. Since moving around is more adaptive organisms
with ever greater degrees of encephalisation evolved. Brain size is
proportional to body size. Humans are among a small group of animals that
have a large brain size in relation to body size. It has also been noted
that social animals have larger brains in relation to body size.
Consciousness does seem as good a tentative answer as any does it not?
"Mind" is likely to take up very little of the brain compared to moving
about and regulating internal body functions.
To deny it would be stupid.
Why? We could all get about, regulate our internal organs, communicate and
socialise via stimulus-response and neural network rules and switches quite
easily. Consciousness is redundant. Why do we need it? Why do we have it
if it is only an observer of information processing and decision making as
it occurs in the brain via naturalistic mechanisms? What adaptive advantage
could it provide us with if it's entirely physiological anyway? And what is
consciousness? An illusionary reflection of neural activity to an
illusionary whom exactly?
Why do you people have to fill in gaps
in our knowledge with crazy beliefs about souls and gods?
What about all the ghost stories then? All illusions? I don't think so.
But that's a matter of opinion isn't it.
Absence of evidence or ignorance is not evidence of absence nor
grounds for jumping to conclusions.
Absense of evidence for the soul or ignorance about the soul is not evidence
of absence of the soul nor grounds for jumping to conclusions either.
Will you deny
materialistic atheism and state categorically that you have no belief,
faith, conviction or assumed knowledge that consciousness is caused by
neural activity?
Let's find out exactly how the brain works first before jumping to
conclusions based on ignorance first shall we! Otherwise you are
asking me to make a decision based on ignorance which in my view would
be stupid.
Okay, so you're not a faith driven materialistic/naturalist atheist.
Whilst considerable advances have been made about how
the brain works have been made in my lifetime sadly time is starting
to run out for me.
I know the feeling - where have the years gone?
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
11 Apr 2005 01:46:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:31:31 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Where's the evidence that brain cells produce
consciousness?
When someone has a conscious thought, you can see a change in the
electrical activity in their brain. This electrical activity is caused
by an electrical charge travelling across individual brain cells,
causing cells connected to them to fire off. This digital system is
responsible for every thought you have. You are aware of it via your
working (or short term) memory, although you are only aware of a
fraction of the thoughts that you have.
If you ask them to think about a certain thing, you can follow the
differences in that brain activity. You can even stick an electrode
into someone's brain and stimulate specific thoughts, emotions and
memories. All of these build up the perception usually described as
consciousness.
There's your proof. The problem is that you're so bound up in your
faith-based system that you, along with most other Christians, will
selectively reject any evidence which does not happen to fit in with
your existing belief system.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
11 Apr 2005 03:52:40 PM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:33hl51l74e4djsfbc00quavcfh3m6kmqba@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:31:31 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Where's the evidence that brain cells produce
consciousness?
When someone has a conscious thought, you can see a change in the
electrical activity in their brain.
Yup.
This electrical activity is caused
by an electrical charge travelling across individual brain cells,
The sodium potassium pump within neurons builds up an electrical charge...
causing cells connected to them to fire off.
Triggering an action potential...
This digital system is
responsible for every thought you have.
Is my television responsible for everything I watch on it too? Look at how
you constructed that sentence and note how it's every bit as "faith based"
as theist ideas about a "soul". It *might* very well be the case that
neurons produce conscousness but in order for that to be "evidence based"
you have to demonstrate the direct connection whereby consciousness can be
reduced to neurons and/or neurons can be demonstrated to produce
consciousness. What you're studying is electrochemical *correlations*
between the brain and sensations/effects within consciousness. Again, that
*might* eventually lead you to a *causation* but you're nowhere near there
yet, 'Memphisto'.
How can we even begin to link material nerve cells to immaterial thoughts
and the conscious awareness within which those thoughts occur?
You are aware of it via your
working (or short term) memory,
So you're identifying consciousness with short term memory (electrical
activity on the surface of the cerebrum or perhaps even the temporal lobes)?
That's not very reliable (it's thought to be the reason why we easily forget
dreams). But, okay, so let's say consciousness is really discontinuous and
it's just an illusion that it's continuous. Who's experiencing the illusion
of continuity or is that all just the result of long term memories in the
hippocampus interacting (electrochemically?) with the potentiated neurons on
the surface of the brain? Either way, if consciousness is just the flow of
electrons accross the surface of the cerebrum then are electrons the elusive
quanta of consciousness? An idea with big implications if ever there was
one. (And, no, before anyone wonders, I don't believe as a panentheist that
electrons are the quanta of consciousness. I'd speculate that consciousness
comes from a depth more fundamental than even superstrings causing
everything.)
although you are only aware of a
fraction of the thoughts that you have.
How freudian of you... but, okay, it's an idea that even has a role in
connectionism/schema theory.
If you ask them to think about a certain thing, you can follow the
differences in that brain activity.
Again, that's correlation and not causation. If I press the button on my
remote control the TV will change channel but the remote control didn't
program the TV with the program I want to watch.
You can even stick an electrode
into someone's brain and stimulate specific thoughts, emotions and
memories.
Yup. And Penfield's early experiments in this regard gave us the
"homunculus" as a result.
All of these build up the perception usually described as
consciousness.
You seem to be going with the self-perpetuating illusion model of
consciousness but it's fallecious for a number of reasons. Who or what is
having "the perception usually described as consciousness"? Even if we
assume there is no "who" or "what" experiencing thoughts (that it's all a
trick of long-term and short-term memory interaction) we still havn't came
close to understanding how electrochemical neural activity becomes
non-physical thoughts? (And what an utterly, utterly depressing view of
life atheism is...)
There's your proof.
Don't get too cocky now. Your brief explanation of neurophysiology and it's
relationship to cognitive experience isn't too bad at all if you don't have
any formal education in neurobiology or psychology but it's not quite merit
grade either. (Now, If you'd covered something like language processing in
Broca's and Wernicke's areas or schizophrenia....) Either way, I'm not
exactly uniformed about the things you've mentioned. They do nothing to
demonstrate the brain causes consciousness. They correlate with thoughts in
consciousness yes, but that's all.
The problem is that you're so bound up in your
faith-based system that you, along with most other Christians, will
selectively reject any evidence which does not happen to fit in with
your existing belief system.
First, I'm a panentheist and not part of any religion. Second, if you
genuinely believe that anything you wrote demonstrated neurons actually
causing consciousness you need to sit back and say 1,000 Hail Carl Sagan's
as penance, get a copy of his "Demon Haunted World" and work on the critical
thinking a bit. Third, we're still back to square one. I'm happy to accept
"panentheism" is my "faith", but if your "atheism" isn't "faith based" then
(after hailiing His Carlness and exorcising your rationality neurons) get
back to me with some "evidence based" proof that neurons cause consiousness
(and not just that they produce the effect of thoughts within
counsiousness).
If (when) you find you can't do that then just face the simple fact that
even if atheism isn't a "faith based" religion it's still a "faith based"
philosophy.
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
12 Apr 2005 06:02:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:52:40 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:33hl51l74e4djsfbc00quavcfh3m6kmqba@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:31:31 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
Where's the evidence that brain cells produce
consciousness?
When someone has a conscious thought, you can see a change in the
electrical activity in their brain.
Yup.
This electrical activity is caused
by an electrical charge travelling across individual brain cells,
The sodium potassium pump within neurons builds up an electrical charge...
Same thing...
causing cells connected to them to fire off.
Triggering an action potential...
Again, same thing... are you trying to make a point here?
This digital system is
responsible for every thought you have.
Is my television responsible for everything I watch on it too?
That is a completely irrelevant analogy.
The digital signal is responsible for everything that appears on your
television screen. Think of the screen as being analogous to your
working memory (or consciousness if you prefer). The digital system
results in what appears in the working memory or screen.
Look at how
you constructed that sentence and note how it's every bit as "faith based"
as theist ideas about a "soul".
No it isn't. It is based on observable reality. We know that sending
an electrical charge along an axon/dendrite (via an electrode) causes
a thought to occur in the conscious mind. That is a clear
demonstration of cause and effect. Apply electricity, thought happens.
Do not apply electricity, thought does not happen. Conclusion:
electrical charges in the brain are responsible for thought.
It *might* very well be the case that
neurons produce conscousness but in order for that to be "evidence based"
you have to demonstrate the direct connection whereby consciousness can be
reduced to neurons and/or neurons can be demonstrated to produce
consciousness.
I already have. See above. I suspect you are adding a level of
complexity to consciousness that does not actually exist.
What you're studying is electrochemical *correlations*
between the brain and sensations/effects within consciousness. Again, that
*might* eventually lead you to a *causation* but you're nowhere near there
yet, 'Memphisto'.
I have demonstrated cause and effect.
How can we even begin to link material nerve cells to immaterial thoughts
and the conscious awareness within which those thoughts occur?
There is no such thing as an 'immaterial thought'. A thought is
nothing more than the result of a combination of neurons firing
together. You have decided that thoughts are immaterial, again
demonstrating that you are the one relying on faith here. I regard a
thought as being an entirely physical process.
You are aware of it via your
working (or short term) memory,
So you're identifying consciousness with short term memory
It is one aspect of consciousness.
(electrical
activity on the surface of the cerebrum or perhaps even the temporal lobes)?
That's not very reliable (it's thought to be the reason why we easily forget
dreams).
What, precisely, is not very reliable? And what is the reason we
forget dreams?
The working memory is where we process immediate input which the brain
draws to our attention, or which is input via the senses. If something
is important enough to be remembered (e.g. it has strong emotions
attached to it or is repeated), then there's a biochemical shift and
the neuronal paths associated with that memory are reinforced - it
becomes part of medium or long-term memory. There is nothing
particularly unreliable about the system. It works where it is
supposed to. Our forgetting dreams does not make it unreliable - we
are not supposed to remember them, and that probably has something to
do with the biochemical shift between neurotransmitters. I don't
really see what that has to do with consciousness though.
But, okay, so let's say consciousness is really discontinuous and
it's just an illusion that it's continuous.
Who said it's discontinuous? I certainly didn't. If you're going to
make assumptions and drop terms like that in, you could at least
explain your assumption in a bit more detail.
Who's experiencing the illusion
of continuity or is that all just the result of long term memories in the
hippocampus interacting (electrochemically?) with the potentiated neurons on
the surface of the brain?
That sentence makes no sense. What 'illusion of continuity' are you
talking about?
Either way, if consciousness is just the flow of
electrons accross the surface of the cerebrum then are electrons the elusive
quanta of consciousness? An idea with big implications if ever there was
one. (And, no, before anyone wonders, I don't believe as a panentheist that
electrons are the quanta of consciousness. I'd speculate that consciousness
comes from a depth more fundamental than even superstrings causing
everything.)
Why does there have to be a 'quanta of consciousness'? Consciousness
is just the result of brain activity.
Do you believe in free will? Do you believe that humans are the only
animal to show signs of consciousness? I think your faith goes further
than just refusing to believe in physical cause for physical
phenomena.
although you are only aware of a
fraction of the thoughts that you have.
How freudian of you... but, okay, it's an idea that even has a role in
connectionism/schema theory.
LOL - do you think that Freud is the only one to accept that
subconscious thought occurs? It's accepted by every professional
psychotherapist, cognitive psychologist and neuroscientist.
If you ask them to think about a certain thing, you can follow the
differences in that brain activity.
Again, that's correlation and not causation. If I press the button on my
remote control the TV will change channel but the remote control didn't
program the TV with the program I want to watch.
It is another piece of evidence that neurons are responsible for
thought. Again you are rejecting pieces of evidence because they do
not happen to fit in with your world view.
Do you believe that the electrical activity is a coincidence or
something?
You can even stick an electrode
into someone's brain and stimulate specific thoughts, emotions and
memories.
Yup. And Penfield's early experiments in this regard gave us the
"homunculus" as a result.
It is a demonstration of cause and effect. That's what you asked for.
What are your reasons for rejecting it?
All of these build up the perception usually described as
consciousness.
You seem to be going with the self-perpetuating illusion model of
consciousness but it's fallecious for a number of reasons. Who or what is
having "the perception usually described as consciousness"?
Why does there have to be a 'who or what' who is having the
experience? Why are you adding that additional level of complexity?
The perception is the consciousness and that is part of what we are.
If you have already decided that there is another level, this 'who or
what', then of course you have to decide that there may be a soul. I
do not believe in adding levels of complexity which do not need to
exist. It's contrary to the laws of evolution for a start.
Even if we
assume there is no "who" or "what" experiencing thoughts (that it's all a
trick of long-term and short-term memory interaction) we still havn't came
close to understanding how electrochemical neural activity becomes
non-physical thoughts? (And what an utterly, utterly depressing view of
life atheism is...)
It is not depressing at all. I find it wonderful and enlightening and
life-affirming. The fact that you find it depressing just goes to show
that you simply do not understand it.
There's your proof.
Don't get too cocky now. Your brief explanation of neurophysiology and it's
relationship to cognitive experience isn't too bad at all if you don't have
any formal education in neurobiology or psychology but it's not quite merit
grade either.
LOL! And you think I'm cocky? And what happened to maintaining a
professional level of debate, something you've had a go at others in
this thread for? That patronizing attitude is far from professional.
(Now, If you'd covered something like language processing in
Broca's and Wernicke's areas or schizophrenia....)
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was a discussion on the nature of
consciousness, not a competition to see who could use the biggest
words or name the most regions of the brain. If that's what you want
just say, and I'll happily let you get on with it.
Either way, I'm not
exactly uniformed about the things you've mentioned. They do nothing to
demonstrate the brain causes consciousness. They correlate with thoughts in
consciousness yes, but that's all.
Then you need to define what you regard as being 'consciousness'.
You've already made it clear that you are adding on levels to justify
your own definition - the logical equivalent of making up evidence for
miracles and then using that fabricated evidence to prove the
existence of god.
The problem is that you're so bound up in your
faith-based system that you, along with most other Christians, will
selectively reject any evidence which does not happen to fit in with
your existing belief system.
First, I'm a panentheist and not part of any religion.
Panentheism is just as much a religion as any form of christianity.
Second, if you
genuinely believe that anything you wrote demonstrated neurons actually
causing consciousness you need to sit back and say 1,000 Hail Carl Sagan's
as penance, get a copy of his "Demon Haunted World" and work on the critical
thinking a bit.
Again, I refer you back to your critical comments regarding 'a
professional level of debate'. What I have demonstrated fits into my
view of what consciousness is. It's arrogant and misplaced to assume
that it's wrong because it has not convinced you, particularly when
you do not believe in scientific method anyway, and have manufactured
your own superstitious exlanations.
Third, we're still back to square one. I'm happy to accept
"panentheism" is my "faith", but if your "atheism" isn't "faith based" then
(after hailiing His Carlness and exorcising your rationality neurons) get
back to me with some "evidence based" proof that neurons cause consiousness
(and not just that they produce the effect of thoughts within
counsiousness).
If (when) you find you can't do that then just face the simple fact that
even if atheism isn't a "faith based" religion it's still a "faith based"
philosophy.
You've not defined what you believe consciousness is. How can I
provide proof for something that you will not define? I have given you
evidence that thought in the human brain is caused by electrical
activity. If you believe that there is more to consciousness than
thought, then you need to define it in order to examine the precise
functions of consciousness that you believe are not explained by
electrical (or biochemical) activity.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "HypnoSteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
12 Apr 2005 11:09:03 AM |
|
|
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
We know that sending
an electrical charge along an axon/dendrite (via an electrode) causes
a thought to occur in the conscious mind. That is a clear
demonstration of cause and effect. Apply electricity, thought happens.
Do not apply electricity, thought does not happen. Conclusion:
electrical charges in the brain are responsible for thought.
It's as obvious to me as it is to anyone that the brain stores and processes
information. What of it? How does neural activity become thought? And
what of the conscious awareness within which thoughts appear? Nerve
activity, chemical activity and electrical activity are required for your
heart to beat as well. Does that mean small pieces of "heart consciousness"
occur as it does so?
Anti-depressant drugs that increase seratonin production or inhibit
seratonin reuptake are responsible for a reduction in depressing thoughts
and an increase in more uplifting thoughts. Is seratonin then the root
cause of consciousness? If so, is the enteric nervous system in the stomach
conscious? If not, why not?
It *might* very well be the case that
neurons produce conscousness but in order for that to be "evidence based"
you have to demonstrate the direct connection whereby consciousness can be
reduced to neurons and/or neurons can be demonstrated to produce
consciousness.
I already have. See above. I suspect you are adding a level of
complexity to consciousness that does not actually exist.
The above statement is as faith based as anything the most fundamentalist of
the religiously minded could dream up. If I play a video cassette (memory)
I can watch it on television quite easily. I can pause it, fast forward it
and rewind it. I can, with electrical activity in the VCR (and TV)
stimulate images on the screen. But there's a entire system inbetween this
that translates the information on the film into audio-visual information on
the screen. (And note that TV's and VCR's are different devices.)
By saying that the electrical activity in the brain is indistinguishable
from thought you're metaphorically saying that the video tape itself is
indistinguishable from the images on the screen. You've essentially
abandoned critical thinking for an easy answer that doesn't explain
anything. Again, this is the "emergence" model. No different from
"miracles". Both are lables to describe phenomena we don't understand. The
question is how does electrical activity become "thought"? What causes the
consciousness within which thoughts appear? Correlation after correlation
won't do anything to answer that question.
What you're studying is electrochemical *correlations*
between the brain and sensations/effects within consciousness. Again,
that
*might* eventually lead you to a *causation* but you're nowhere near there
yet, 'Memphisto'.
I have demonstrated cause and effect.
You've offered up some basic neuropsychology. (Do you honestly think I
haven't considered it?)
All you've actually offered is evidence that when you cause information
processing (the reliving of memories in the Penfield example) in certain
areas of the brain there is an effect (thought) in consciousness. But
they're not identical things and you haven't shown how one *becomes* the
other - only that one is definately closely correlated with the other. We
basically do the same thing every time we make a phone call. As we speak
into the receiver there is a (near) instant effect on the recipients phone
from the earpiece enabling the recipient to hear our voice. But the sounds
we produce with our vocal cords aren't the exact same sounds that come out
of the earpiece on the other phone.
What process does neural activity in the brain go through to become words,
images, thoughts and feelings in consciousness and what process does neural
activity in the brain go through to become the conscious awareness in which
these words, images, thoughts and feelings occur?
How can we even begin to link material nerve cells to immaterial thoughts
and the conscious awareness within which those thoughts occur?
There is no such thing as an 'immaterial thought'. A thought is
nothing more than the result of a combination of neurons firing
together. You have decided that thoughts are immaterial, again
demonstrating that you are the one relying on faith here. I regard a
thought as being an entirely physical process.
I don't hide the fact that faith exists in my life. But ignoring the gap
(wide chasm) in your own reasoning doesn't make it go away. If information
processing is thought then do computers think? Do televisions and vcr's
think? You seem to be saying there is no emergence, instead neural activity
basically *is* thought. But since all neural activity is basically just
atomic, molecular, electrical and electromagnetic and electrical
interactions that means that every bit of matter/energy everywhere is (a
rudimentary form of) consciousness even if not self-aware. (You'll end up a
panentheist if you're not careful - and a mystical panentheist if you are.)
Here's something to boggle your mind
(http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/techjournal/emfadvanced.htm):
(Read from "The human brain is a symphony of electromagnetic signals, but
science has had trouble finding the conductor of the symphony." to "The
brain's electromagnetic field does the binding that is characteristic of
consciousness.")
What, precisely, is not very reliable? And what is the reason we
forget dreams?
Consider a computer with working memory and long term memory. If I pulled
the plug right now these last two sentences would almost certainly be lost
forever. (They're stored electrically). But another email I wrote earlier
has been saved (to the hard disk) and that email along with every other file
I have on my computer (one hopes!) will continue to remain on my computer
even if I ever had the urge to pull the plug out without shutting the
computer down properly.
Dreams, unless you write them down and think about them, don't usually enter
into long term memory. They exist as electrical activity on the cortex.
The brain has a lot more surface area than it appears because of the way
it's folded up (to allow for greater processing capacity). As soon as you
waken up your identity, spacial awareness and long term memory, etc., all
kick in and the cortex starts processing that information. The dreams that
were just electrical activity on the surface of the brain are now gone.
The working memory is where we process immediate input which the brain
draws to our attention, or which is input via the senses.
Yes, but the areas of the midbrain in particular are more involved in
conscious awareness than most realise.
If something
is important enough to be remembered (e.g. it has strong emotions
attached to it or is repeated), then there's a biochemical shift and
the neuronal paths associated with that memory are reinforced - it
becomes part of medium or long-term memory. There is nothing
particularly unreliable about the system. It works where it is
supposed to.
Fine.
Our forgetting dreams does not make it unreliable
I never suggested it did.
- we
are not supposed to remember them,
There is no "supposed to" about it. Sometimes we have fleeting
recollections sometimes we don't. Sometimes we have quite good
recollection. The reasons for this are more for the psychoanalysists to
divine (if they even can). I suppose if something important or difficult is
being processed dreams that are recalled could be the brains way of ensuring
we think about something even when we're awake.
and that probably has something to
do with the biochemical shift between neurotransmitters.
See above.
I don't
really see what that has to do with consciousness though.
Neither do I. But you're the one who's going on about short-term memory
being related to consciousness. I'm just pointing out that this, along with
dreaming, exists as fleeting electrical activity on the surface of the
brain.
Do you believe in free will?
Yup.
Do you believe that humans are the only
animal to show signs of consciousness?
Nope.
I think your faith goes further
than just refusing to believe in physical cause for physical
phenomena.
Of course. I'm a panentheist. I believe in a "God-esq" something (not sure
I'll ever decide what exactly that is though) that is the source of Souls
and of the Universe. I believe this "God" to be immanent throughout all
matter/energy and to be all matter/energy. I believe that the Universe is
in God and that God is also in the Universe along with God being
transcendental to the Universe. I also believe in psi. And I believe all
of this not because of some born again spiritual awaking, but instead
because I have no faith in trillions of little sodium potassium pumps
actually producing consciousness or that the Universe is eternally cyclical,
infinately reductionist, self-causing or entirely causeless and without any
purpose.
So you see there is both faith and doubt involved in my reasoning. All I'm
pointing out is that the same is true for empiricalist/materialist atheists.
You have faith in things about the Universe and consciousness about things
you can't possibly observe or verify and lack faith in things that you
haven't seen demonstrated or verified. That's all I'm trying to get you to
accept. That you follow a faith based philosophy just the same as everyone
else. I'm saying essentially that it's unnavoidable because disbelief in
metaphysics inherently means faith in physics - two sides of the same coin.
Do you believe that the electrical activity is a coincidence or
something?
Nope.
It is a demonstration of cause and effect. That's what you asked for.
What are your reasons for rejecting it?
I don't reject Penfields work or anything (solid) from neuroscience.
(Psychiatry and psychoanalysis are a bit like playing darts in the dark
though.) I'm just not prepared to jump from A to Z the way you are. The
sound waves I create speaking into a phone are not the same sound waves that
are produced from the earpiece on the recipients phone even though there is
obvious correlation and, indeed, causality.
Neural activity is not indistinguishable from thoughts any more than
anti-depressants are happy thoughts in a bottle just waiting to be thunk!
Why does there have to be a 'who or what' who is having the
experience?
Is that a retorical question? Conscious awareness "exists". The question
is how?
Why are you adding that additional level of complexity?
Don't blame me because people know themselves to be conscious, living
beings.
The perception is the consciousness and that is part of what we are.
If the perception is the consciousness then what or who is the perceiver of
the perception?fs
LOL! And you think I'm cocky? And what happened to maintaining a
professional level of debate, something you've had a go at others in
this thread for? That patronizing attitude is far from professional.
Neither is being evasive and jumping from A to Z. You understand perfectly
what I'm saying about the problems involved in demonstrating that neurons
produce consciousness and the reasons why the view that they do is
inherently faith based. I think we both know that there would be "social"
implications were it universally accepted that
atheism/skepticims/materialism are all faith based as it certainly be seized
upon by certain agend driven groups. As a strong believer in evolution, for
example, the words "opening the gates of hell spring to my mind as well".
Here is the real issue as I see it: everything *inbetween* the origin/nature
of the Universe and origin/nature of Consciousness is open to objective
and/empirical analysis with the potential to become good solid evidence
based science of the type that we're all familiar with and quite proud of.
But we can't ever conclusively observe the origin/nature of the Universe nor
can we ever conclusively demonstrate how neural activity actually becomes
the thinking of thoughts. Over enthusiasm and over confidence that we can
or that the evidence we have is "just as good" as observing it these things
occur won't ever compensate for the fact that we can't or that we ultimately
don't know.
Thanks largely to the internet, more and more people are becoming aware that
everything in science, no matter how good and reliable science is, is
essentially bracketed between two 'faith based' models of the nature/origin
of Consciousnes and the nature/origin of the Universe. The result of the
increasing awareness of these facts (in US society particularly) has been a
backlash against humanism and science. Most of it is overkill (particularly
from the Christian right), but then by demonstrating such utter and complete
inflexibility themselves to the things I've been outlining I think that
secular scientific humanism has brought a lot of this upon itself.
If science will just budge a few inches and be a bit more reasonable about
certain things certain other social forces won't end up taking a mile. In
regards to origin of the multitude of life forms on the planet really one of
design or choice only? Does psychology, free will and choice somehow vanish
from mate selection in the animal kingdom? Reading some biology textbooks
you'd think it was all down to the structure of an animal being suited or
unsuited to its environment only.
I don't have kids, but if I ever do I'll want them to learn that evolution
is real and dependent upon genetic variation. I would rather they didn't
end up subscribing to creationism or intelligent design but I wouldn't want
them to think it's all just random chance either. The faith that there is
something in consciousness that drives us on to better things (that might
very well make us choose mates that compensate for things we lack) is as
valid as the faith that it's all just down to random genetic mutations that
occur during fertilisation (and I'm not just talking about genotype and
phenotype here).
If conscious selection is a factor in natural selection (and it certainly
seems to be in the wild, in the lab, in domesticated animals and in humans)
and if we can't ever scientifically explain the origin/nature of
consciousness then insisting that evolution be taught in classrooms as
entirely down to random chance is innevitably going to result in a
backlash - with creationism and intelligent design obviously ending up doing
more harm than good.
That's just one example (coming from a firm believer in evolution). I could
think of several others, but this post is already getting way too long. It
all comes down to the same thing anyway: that secular scientific humanists
(or whatever term is appropriate) are relying on faith much more than they
either realise or are willing to admit (even to themselves) and large
sections of society can see this.
First, I'm a panentheist and not part of any religion.
Panentheism is just as much a religion as any form of christianity.
Well, I'm not very well organised about it... Nor do I have any rituals.
Don't you think it's possible to be spiritual without being religious?
What I have demonstrated fits into my
view of what consciousness is. It's arrogant and misplaced to assume
that it's wrong because it has not convinced you, particularly when
you do not believe in scientific method anyway, and have manufactured
your own superstitious exlanations.
I can assure you that I very, very much believe in the scientific method(s)
(verificationism, falsificationism, replicability, experimentation,
peer-review, etc.,). As for my belief in souls, it's ultimately just as
faith based as a belief in the emergence of consciousness from neural
activity or that neural activity is consciousness.
You've not defined what you believe consciousness is.
I don't know exactly what consciousness is. So I use the term soul - backed
up with faith - because I lack belief in neural activity producing
consciousness.
_
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Proud to be panentheist! |
13 Apr 2005 10:55:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:09:03 GMT, "HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
We know that sending
an electrical charge along an axon/dendrite (via an electrode) causes
a thought to occur in the conscious mind. That is a clear
demonstration of cause and effect. Apply electricity, thought happens.
Do not apply electricity, thought does not happen. Conclusion:
electrical charges in the brain are responsible for thought.
It's as obvious to me as it is to anyone that the brain stores and processes
information. What of it? How does neural activity become thought?
Neural activity does not become thought. Neural activity is thought.
Either way, you are dodging the fact that applying an electrical
charge to neurons results in a thought. You are still trying to
maintain that there is no cause and effect, but it's very obviously
there.
And
what of the conscious awareness within which thoughts appear?
I keep pointing this out and you keep avoiding it: you are asking me
to explain a term which you will not define - i.e. 'consciousness'. It
is very obvious that your definition is not the same as mine.
The thoughts do not have to have some additional level of complexity
to appear in. That is your construction.
Nerve
activity, chemical activity and electrical activity are required for your
heart to beat as well. Does that mean small pieces of "heart consciousness"
occur as it does so?
Why would it mean that? That's a truly bizarre leap of logic.
Anti-depressant drugs that increase seratonin production or inhibit
seratonin reuptake are responsible for a reduction in depressing thoughts
How do you know that they're not responsible for reducing the number
of depressing thoughts that we are conscious of; or simply reducing te
number of thoughts? Faith again? If you speak to a few people who've
taken antidepressants like Prozac, chances are they'll tell you that
all of their thought processes were impaired.
and an increase in more uplifting thoughts. Is seratonin then the root
cause of consciousness? If so, is the enteric nervous system in the stomach
conscious? If not, why not?
The word 'consciousness' refers to the result of a collection of brain
processes so of course it does not apply to systems outside the brain.
It *might* very well be the case that
neurons produce conscousness but in order for that to be "evidence based"
you have to demonstrate the direct connection whereby consciousness can be
reduced to neurons and/or neurons can be demonstrated to produce
consciousness.
I already have. See above. I suspect you are adding a level of
complexity to consciousness that does not actually exist.
The above statement is as faith based as anything the most fundamentalist of
the religiously minded could dream up. If I play a video cassette (memory)
I can watch it on television quite easily. I can pause it, fast forward it
and rewind it. I can, with electrical activity in the VCR (and TV)
stimulate images on the screen. But there's a entire system inbetween this
that translates the information on the film into audio-visual information on
the screen. (And note that TV's and VCR's are different devices.)
By saying that the electrical activity in the brain is indistinguishable
from thought you're metaphorically saying that the video tape itself is
indistinguishable from the images o | | | | | |
