• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why dualism?

The dominant paradigm is that brain = consciousness, of course being the dominant paradigm alone is not reason enough to believe it.
Also, it is certainly true that there is at least a strong connection between the brain and the human experience. We can poke and prod specific regions of the brain and alter the contents of the mind - and comparatively, I can walk into a different room and see a different bunch of stuff.
So the brain has something to do with preparing the contents of the mind.
Would you agree with the above?


Do you actually believe that the different stuff you see in different rooms is actually present within those rooms? What real evidence of that do you have? We can poke and prod specific regions of rooms and thereby alter their contents, which suggests that perhaps rooms function as focusing lenses for metastuff that's actually great distances away in alternate dimensions. "A bunch of stuff" in rooms being the dominant paradigm used by decorators and furniture movers is not reason enough to believe it.

Here's a trained expert realtor admitting that they have no idea how rooms work or what they really contain:

Any time you're dealing with an older home, there is the possibility of a few surprises behind those walls. Even with a home inspection, between plumbing and electrical, foundation and flooring, you never know what you're going to find!
(emphasis added)

And here's a store—which can be accurately described as a professionally operated room that supposedly contains stuff that can be purchased—making the same admission:

You never know what you're going to find in our discount closeouts department…


See? They think rooms contain stuff but they actually have no idea!
 
This is probably hilarious but I'm not sure what you're getting at.


Really?

I'm questioning your assumption that different stuff is seen in different rooms. Perhaps there is no stuff in any room. Perhaps every room contains everything. Perhaps all rooms have the same stuff. Perhaps there are no different rooms; only one, or none at all.

There is various evidence that different rooms contain different stuff. For example, if a room is completely destroyed, the stuff that previously seemed to be within it can no longer be found anywhere (though perhaps it still exists in some undetectable form or at some undetectable location). We never see stuff appear or disappear from a room without evidence that it is conveyed to or from another room or outside through doors or other apertures (but perhaps stuff appears and disappears surreptitiously when no one is looking). As far as we've been able to tell, knowing what stuff is in one room does not convey reliable knowledge of what stuff is in another room isolated from the first (but perhaps there are subtle connections by which all rooms are tied together via a meta-room or meta-stuff).

If this kind of evidence has convinced you that different rooms contain different stuff, then it is more difficult to explain how comparably strong evidence has failed to convince you that our minds and experiential selves are generated by the biological and computational activity our brains. Have you considered that rooms might be like radios?
 
I see where you are going - there is only one space, and this singular space only appears to be limited and parceled.
As an analogy - there is this empty space, then a Macy's Store was built - nothing happened to the space itself, it is not parceled out - there is no distinct beginning and ending to the space itself; and likewise, when the store is torn down, again the space is not effected.
Likewise, like space, why isn't consciousness unlimited and undivided, and only appears parceled and limited to the brain.
 
That's the spirit! Nothing is real. And nothing to get hungabout.

Strawberry Fields forever.
 
The dominant paradigm is that brain = consciousness, of course being the dominant paradigm alone is not reason enough to believe it.
Also, it is certainly true that there is at least a strong connection between the brain and the human experience. We can poke and prod specific regions of the brain and alter the contents of the mind - and comparatively, I can walk into a different room and see a different bunch of stuff.
So the brain has something to do with preparing the contents of the mind.
Would you agree with the above?


What I "agree with" is what I have already said here, repeatedly. Which is, that according to what Novella said in the video, what Dehaene explained in the quotes & refs that I gave from his book, and what the long Wiki page & it's numerous refs all show, is that (to quote the way Novella put it) - "the physical brain is effectively the mind".

So that what we call "conciousness" is something that occurs within the living/functioning brain.

It's not something that takes place outside of the brain, as if to continue some sort of concious human existence of intelligence & awareness persisting as an invisible force, energy, soul, spirit or "thing" after the person is dead.
 
Can we all stop pretending like the ability to form a sentence in a way that is technically correct on a linguistic level means anything?
Actually this isn't a semantic argument it gets to the heart of the matter. Half the issue with this is that our language which is intrinsically dualist makes it hard to discuss and causes much confusion.
 
Consciousness is not a thing or a behavior. It's a process.

When you blow a candle out you don't have a crisis of faith over where the fire went. When you stop running you don't have a crisis of faith over where the running went.
When you park you car you don't have a crisis of faith over where the driving went.
It's a behaviour, it's what brains do.
 
It's a behaviour, it's what brains do.


Afaik, it's just chemistry!

It's what happens as chemical interactions between all the various different molecules, radicals, ions etc. in the cellular structure that we call the "brain".

And that's all being driven by sensory input from things like vision, smell, touch, hearing etc.
 
It's a behaviour, it's what brains do.

So, when you look and analyse your own day to day experience, a simple introspection of a life's worth of pleasantries and unpleasantries and etc., and you find that consistent awareness that knows your experience . . . does it feel like a process?, does it feel like a behavior?
 
So, when you look and analyse your own day to day experience, a simple introspection of a life's worth of pleasantries and unpleasantries and etc., and you find that consistent awareness that knows your experience . . . does it feel like a process?, does it feel like a behavior?

It absolutely feels like a process. Every day we change, we learn, we forget, we grow... We are never static, we are always changing. Yea, it feels a lot like a process.
 
Afaik, it's just chemistry!

It's what happens as chemical interactions between all the various different molecules, radicals, ions etc. in the cellular structure that we call the "brain".

And that's all being driven by sensory input from things like vision, smell, touch, hearing etc.
Yep we only learn to label it "counciousness" or "mind" from observing the behaviour of other parts of our environment mainly other people.


So, when you look and analyse your own day to day experience, a simple introspection of a life's worth of pleasantries and unpleasantries and etc., and you find that consistent awareness that knows your experience . . . does it feel like a process?, does it feel like a behavior?
I've learnt to label such feelings as "mind" just as you and everyone else has.
 
(1) So, when you look and analyse your own day to day experience, a simple introspection of a life's worth of pleasantries and unpleasantries and etc., and you find that consistent awareness that knows your experience . . .
(2) does it feel like a process?, does it feel like a behavior?


When you ask a question like that (the first highlight), you are immediately bringing in an almost infinite number of variables, subjective ideas and beliefs, indeterminate conditions and factors ... and then you ask (2nd highlight) for the most simplistic Yes or No, Black or White, answer, that is not really a very productive or accurate way to understand anything.
 
So, when you look and analyse your own day to day experience, a simple introspection of a life's worth of pleasantries and unpleasantries and etc., and you find that consistent awareness that knows your experience . . . does it feel like a process?, does it feel like a behavior?

Why does it matter what if "feels" like? It doesn't change what it is.
 
So, when you look and analyse your own day to day experience, a simple introspection of a life's worth of pleasantries and unpleasantries and etc., and you find that consistent awareness that knows your experience . . . does it feel like a process?, does it feel like a behavior?


Also, just picking up on what Joe said above - a lot of things in our everyday lives, seem to be, or "feel", as if they are of a particular nature, but in fact it turns out they are not really what they "feel" like, or seem like, to our immediate superficial perception.

As everyone now knows, objects that look and feel to us to be completely solid, e.g. tables, buildings, rocks, aeroplanes, are actually mostly "empty" space (although as we've now also found out, space is never actually "empty").

But to take another example that directly involves the mind (brain) and our sensory perception - when the human eye detects visual signals (photons), we perceive the scenes as whole and complete. But apparently, the human eye is not physically capable of recording input from the whole of the scene, and in fact what is happening is that our mind is "filling in" all the missing parts so that each image seems to us to be complete and continuous (contiguous).

I expect you could find thousands of examples like that which are so commonplace in our everyday lives, that we never even bother to think about the fact that our brain and our sensory system may be "fooling" us in that way (eg, psychology books are full of all sorts of visual illusions, that appear to change as you either concentrate on them or fail to concentrate on them).
 
Last edited:
I see where you are going - there is only one space, and this singular space only appears to be limited and parceled.
As an analogy - there is this empty space, then a Macy's Store was built - nothing happened to the space itself, it is not parceled out - there is no distinct beginning and ending to the space itself; and likewise, when the store is torn down, again the space is not effected.


And yet, if you remove items from that Macy's store without paying for them, you have committed a crime despite space being singular and perpetual rather than parceled out.

(But no matter. If you get put in prison for your impossible crime, you won't be inconvenienced at all, because your prison cell is not really parceled out either; so you still occupy singular and perpetual space… I'm sure that's a great consolation to prisoners everywhere.)

Likewise, like space, why isn't consciousness unlimited and undivided, and only appears parceled and limited to the brain.


For the same reason electrocution isn't unlimited and undivided, but instead only happens when and where there is a lethal amount of electrical current in proximity to a person or other animal.
 
Likewise, like space, why isn't consciousness unlimited and undivided, and only appears parceled and limited to the brain.


Why should conciousness be like space?

Why isn't the blood in your veins like space?

Why is your blood not distributed throughout the universe? Or maybe you'd like to say that because blood is a vital part of our life, maybe that should have a separate existence outside the body ... and maybe like "conciousness", the exterior blood also becomes a thinking invisible force throughout the universe?

Or how about your sight after you are dead? Where did all your sightings go? All distributed through space as an invisible endless thinking force?

You appear to getting very close to the "master woo" final conclusion of saying that because everything in the universe seems to be interconnected in the sense of everything at the most fundamental level being described by interacting fields that comprise all of "space", such that when the proverbial butterfly flaps it's wing in Paris, some "particles" are "moved" on Pluto, so hence, hey presto, it must mean that whatever conciousness is, it too will exist throughout the universe!
 
I wonder if anyone here has researched how man developed into a creature that believes in an afterlife, that feels it has a "soul" apart from its body. I suggest dualism came about because of a need to believe in an afterlife, which reveals a fear of the end of one's own existence. Animals have survival instincts; they pine; they grieve. But do they actually fear death? Is it an accident that humans developed rituals and taboos around the subject, or did* it serve some adaptive purpose? Did shamanistic con men use it to increase their own power and importance?

It seems to be almost a defining factor in the development of modern man. This isn't even just about religion - many us intuitively separate body and mind. Language reinforces the idea of separation, with concepts such as "willpower" and "mind over matter."

Why did humans develop this way?

Ghosts often enforce the morality in many societies. One doesn't murder because one is afraid the ghost of the murdered will take revenge. Alternatively, people often take revenge for the death of a relative because they believe that the ghost of the departed won't let them rest until justice is done. Some people the ghost will suffer until his death is avenged.

Wars start in primitive societies supposedly to satisfy the ghosts of their relatives who died of violence. Groups fight each other to appease the ghosts of their groups.

Here, ghosts are a surrogate for kin selection. The one who murders your relative may kill you in the future. So suppose there is allele that predisposes a person to believe in ghosts. Suppose there is a meme in that community that predisposes people to believe that a relatives ghost will take revenge on the relative for ignoring him. So people in this subculture have less of a chance of being killed then a person who believes in 'forgiveness'.

Ancestral spirits often help their relatives work together. Ghosts tell them to work together, and behave themselves. Children are told not to dishonor their fathers and mothers, who will punish them if they don't behave.

Leaders often convince followers by claiming divination from dead leaders. Leaders are often buried in big tombs. Heroes are buried in tombs. Leaders often divine the future from dreams where they meet their dead ancestors or heroes. The tombs of heroes are often meeting places for people meet looking for signs.

Societies that don't have specific gods often have ghosts. Jesus is technically a ghost, in fact. Jesus may be an avatar from the one true God, but in 'fact' he came back from the dead. All the Saints are ghosts. They are the spirits of dead heroes of the Christian faith. The Saints still tell people what to do. You don't want to annoy your patron saint!

Herodotus the classical Greek historian could not tell if Hercules was a god (always a spirit) or a hero (once a physical human). He found that half the temples to Hercules used rituals directed at gods. The other half used rituals meant to appease ghosts. He concluded there were two Hercules, one a god and one a hero named after the god. Men went to war, protecting their relatives, inspired by the ghost of Hercules.

Religious people often are moral because they think that they will be punished in the afterlife if they are not. People try to convert others in the belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. People use these beliefs to train their children.

People pay other people, from ministers to mediums, to contact their dead relatives. The ministers and mediums often tell people to act more moral. So what Christians call the occult often turns out to serve the same organizational purposes as Christianity. And repeat. Jesus is technically a ghost!


So ghosts may have enforced morality even before the pagan gods enforced morality. The alleles that predispose people for believing in ghosts may be the same alleles that predispose people for believing in gods. I suspect the belief in ghosts came before the belief in gods.
 
Last edited:
Why should conciousness be like space?

Why isn't the blood in your veins like space?

Comparing the unlimited nature of space to awareness (and only appearing to be parceled) is used as an analogy.
To somehow extend to blood or cheese sorta blows.
I am simply asking if awareness could (like space) could be unlimited and only appears to be parceled?
(To me) it is not a far-fetched question because while the contents of my mind are limited and bound; the awareness that knows my experiences is contiguous and continuous, it's the same today at age 62 as when I was 5 or 45, the same when I'm experiencing pleasantries or unpleasantries, awake or dreaming, drunk or lucid, etc. Awareness also has no boundary or edge - only the contents of awareness are changing, bound and limited.
 

Back
Top Bottom