• 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.

Any proof of the existence of a self?

Paulhoff said:
Energy is used for the chemical reactions in the cells of the brain, but the energy used is not self.

"We are energy" is a woo idea.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you quite understand my meaning. Without the presence of this energy, there is no self, obviously... and it is by the chemical reactions that we are able to function at all. So why must the self be material, rather than an energetic process that occurs within that material? I guess that's my question. Can it be definitavely shown that the self is material?

I don't think it's woo at all. I'm not really suggesting the presence of a spirit. I am more suggesting the presence of a process.

(added) a process which is necessary for consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I'm not sure you quite understand my meaning. Without the presence of this energy, there is no self, obviously... and it is by the chemical reactions that we are able to function at all. So why must the self be material, rather than an energetic process that occurs within that material? I guess that's my question. Can it be definitavely shown that the self is material?

I don't think it's woo at all. I'm not really suggesting the presence of a spirit. I am more suggesting the presence of a process.

(added) a process which is necessary for consciousness.
Click to expand...
You don't know how many times I talk to people who try to work energy into self so they can go on after death, just another form of soul for them.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
You don't know how many times I talk to people who try to work energy into self so they can go on after death, just another form of soul for them.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen it too.. but it wasn't quite what I was saying. I have even heard of a medical doctor with a physics degree suggesting an experiment as to where this energy goes... his idea being that it somehow retained something of the origional self...

But I wouldn't go that far astray. I wouldn't however necessarily disagree with the premise that the self could be designated as the process, not the material.
 
Manopolus said:
Yeah, I've seen it too.. but it wasn't quite what I was saying. I have even heard of a medical doctor with a physics degree suggesting an experiment as to where this energy goes... his idea being that it somehow retained something of the origional self...

But I wouldn't go that far astray. I wouldn't however necessarily disagree with the premise that the self could be designated as the process, not the material.
Click to expand...
It is a process, but that process is still within the brain and energy drives it and it is still material.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
It is a process, but that process is still within the brain and energy drives it and it is still material.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough, perhaps I shouldn't try to separate the process from the mechanism. Admittedly, that could suggest that the process could be independant of the mechanism.
 
Manopolus said:
Fair enough, perhaps I shouldn't try to separate the process from the mechanism. Admittedly, that could suggest that the process could be independant of the mechanism.
Click to expand...
Let me have a go if I may:

It's like an engine. An engine uses mechanisms and components to convert the potential energy stored in fuel (the fuel mixed with air, etc being other components added to the system) into something we find useful. You could call an operating engine the effect of the system.

So the engine = brain / system
effect = consciousness, self, free-will, understanding, illusion, delusion, concept, truth, critical thinking ability, processing, planning, etc
mechanisms = synaptic transfers, electrical system, etc
fuel = glucose delivered by the bloodstream, etc

I think when most people think of "energy of the brain" they are thinking about the electrical aspect, and they think, "omg, my consciousness is in that electricity." But that electricity is possible only because it is part of the potential residing in the system and needs FUEL in order to function. That electricity is part of the effect of the system being "turned on" as well. Take away the fuel, and the brain is a goner. It doesn't continue to "create energy" or anything. It needs it to convert in order to function, and this includes the electrical impulses as well (in the myocardium, this is generally regulated by a sodium-potassium pump effect where the ions of each are exchanged during polarization and depolarization. I'm not sure if those same electrolytes are responsible for the brains impulses or not however, neuroscience isn't my thing :)). And it needs a constant supply of glucose because neurons do not store glucose.

If you really wanted to say that the "self was energy", then looking inward is the wrong place. You should look outward, because that is where the energy comes from. And that energy is stored in the foods we eat, the oxygen we breathe, and the liquids we drink, etc and so forth.

So you could just as easily say that your "self" is on a plate of cookies. Because it is the energy in that plate of cookies your brain uses as a fuel and converts in order to produce the multiple effects your brain actually does when it's up and running.
 
The self is a construct of thinking and so is the "process in the brain".
 
trentwray said:
Let me have a go if I may:

It's like an engine. An engine uses mechanisms and components to convert the potential energy stored in fuel (the fuel mixed with air, etc being other components added to the system) into something we find useful. You could call an operating engine the effect of the system.
Click to expand...
The electrical part is within the nerve cells, the talking done between the nerve cells is chemical or (mechanical) in a way. The two use the Electromagnetic Force and everything else we deal with in day to day life uses that Force too, so it is nothing unusual.

This is a good video to watch, explains the problem with explaining.


Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
The electrical part is within the nerve cells, the talking done between the nerve cells is chemical or (mechanical) in a way. The two use the Electromagnetic Force and everything else we deal with in day to day life uses that Force too, so it is nothing unusual.

This is a good video to watch, explains the problem with explaining.


Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Yes this is what I was trying to get across as well, more or less, is that the electrical activity in the brain is nothing unusual. It is similar to the electrical activity all throughout the body (i.e. myocardium, various types of muscle contractions, etc). My point was that in order for the neurons to be able to operate, they still need the ion transfers from various electrolytes which we intake through consumption, from which our bodies metabolize into usable forms of "fuel" for the brain and other electrical systems to work. And yes, of course, they utilize the EMF.

In other words, if I remove a brain and toss it on a table, it isn't sitting there with "consciousness" in it. It isn't sitting there thinking. It cannot be, because it isn't functioning. It still needs to be animate and fully functioning. Just because it is still composed of neurons, doesn't mean there are all these little sparks happening in it. To be functioning and generate those "sparks", it needs to be fed it's "fuel." So this is why I was saying that if someone actually wanted to think that consciousness existed in "energy" (i.e. a woo idea), they could just as easily say it exists in a donut. Because it is from that donut that we get our energy, specifically the glucose that our brain relies on heavily as it's "gasoline".

In other words, I was agreeing with you :)

As a side note, not all of our bodies electrical systems need the rest of the body in order to operate for a time detached from the body. The heart is an example of a system that, if I were to remove it and toss it on a table, will continue to pump when removed completely from the body for sometime. It is obviously not moving any blood anywhere, but it's electrical system will continue to function, causing it's contraction, without being "told what to do" by the brain. But this doesn't mean that our "self" is stored in that heart's "energy".
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
Input to the brain, yes, which can make one feel bigger than the brain, but self is still only in the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Well, certainly not the whole brain. Conscious processing is restricted to a tiny part of the brain and the mental self smaller still. You're just a few thoughts and a few areas of representations stored here and there. You're getting smaller by the moment!

Nick
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
A school of fish can act as one, an emergent phenomena but it is still fish and still restricted to the fish.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Look, you might as well say that monism holds and we're all one anyway, om shanti. The whole point is that new qualities and perspectives emerge from behaviour in base layers. Self and consciousness are two such phenomena.

For me, if you want to insist that you are the brain then you're going to have to be very careful to never use the phrase "my brain," or you're invalidating your own perspective. I have to say that I can't see the point. I think it's patently obvious to anyone who's considered these things that the mental self is a virtual owner or experiencer created by the brain and body. Do you read Dennett or Hofstadter? Or perhaps their co-project "The Mind's I"? I have a copy I can flog you if you want.

Nick
 
trentwray said:
I visited your page as well ... So can I ask if you really believe that the soul has three parts? Isn't that part of Kabbalah traditional thought?
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a soul. IMO it's a popular spiritual meme usually taken on by people who are trying not to deal with the reality that one day they will be dead.

Is this a serious question? :)
Click to expand...

For sure. Can you answer it? At what point along the path of communication between, say, the big toe and the brain does input stop and processing begin?

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom