Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

DOC said:
So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?
Click to expand...

So you believe that intelligence comes from nothing?

So, if you don't understand it, it isn't. Do you understand how a computer works and everything else you use every day?


Paul

:) :) :)
 
If you are interested in the somatic marker hypothesis and body loops, here is wiki article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_markers_hypothesis

intro:
When we make decisions, we must assess the incentive value of the choices available to us, using cognitive and emotional processes. When we face complex and conflicting choices, we may be unable to decide using only cognitive processes, which may become overloaded and unable to help us decide.

In these cases (and others), somatic markers can help us decide. Somatic markers are associations between reinforcing stimuli that induce an associated physiological affective state. Within the brain, somatic markers are thought to be processed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC; a subsection of the orbitomedial PFC).[3]

These somatic-marker associations can reoccur during decision-making and bias our cognitive processing. When we have to make complex and uncertain decisions, the somatic markers created by the relevant stimuli are summed to produce a net somatic state. This overall state directs (or biases) our decision of how to act.[4]
 
lemurien said:
It is silly to say "I am my brain".
It just is not true. It is an idiotic statement. Your brain can exist and function with no representation of you. You can even be awake without being you, that's what happens in epileptic automatism and vegetative state.

If you were your brain, this would not be possible.

You say "my personality, who I think and feel I am, is a process going on in my brain" and then you make sense.

Brains don't eat, talk, play games, make love or play instruments.
Only a body-brain does all this human stuff.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree

‘You’ are actually a representation in your brain, it is connected to the body and part and parcel. So I agree there is no true brain and body divide, any more than there is a heart body divide.

However your body map of sensations and actions is all a brain process, your emotion, thoughts and memories and most habit are all brain processes.

In short every thing the is 'you' outside of the what is called the body, is directly a brain process.

And you are wrong, without the brain you can not "eat, talk, play games, make love or play instruments", that is the locus of action, you can not make those acts without a body, but without the brain, they don't happen at all.

It takes the union, but most of 'you' is a brain process.

Which is very similar to what the alleged historical buddha said

There are:
body
emotions
thoughts
perceptions
habits

That is all there is there is no atman or transcendent self there is only those five things, and really there is only the one thing:

body.
 
lemurien said:
Akhenaten, you are arguing from ignorance.

Just an example.
Imagine a mean man throws a stone at you.
You duck.
Why?

So that somebody would not get hurt?
Who?

You. Not your brain. You.
Click to expand...

This is where I differ, all those things are only going to happen as part of a brain process and no where else.

'a mean man throws a stone at you. You duck.'

All of that is a result of brain process, you only see, hear and sense the rock because of a brain process that takes the sensations and makes a perception.
The training and habits of avoidance are all learned behaviors they all occur as brain processes, all choices, volitional, avolitional, conscious and preconscious: they only happen in the brain.
The mostly volitional act of ducking all occurs because of more brain processes, the body exists and the brain is part of it. No sensation, no perceptions, but no perceptions, no training, no coordinated muscle responses.

But the perceptions, the training the actions are all brain processes.

:)
 
lemurien said:
This flesh is not you? Other people think so.
Click to expand...

Nope, in common usage the 'you' has two meanings 'the self' as in the volitional interacting, memory of personhood and the body.

The you is usually reffered to as the abstracted, non actual entity of the self. The body is often referenced especially in a physical context "I licked you" but in most context the 'you' is an abstracted entity.

So it really depends upon context.

Now I resolve it thus, I am only my body.

:)
 
Dancing David said:
This is where I differ, all those things are only going to happen as part of a brain process and no where else.

'a mean man throws a stone at you. You duck.'

All of that is a result of brain process, you only see, hear and sense the rock because of a brain process that takes the sensations and makes a perception.
The training and habits of avoidance are all learned behaviors they all occur as brain processes, all choices, volitional, avolitional, conscious and preconscious: they only happen in the brain.
The mostly volitional act of ducking all occurs because of more brain processes, the body exists and the brain is part of it. No sensation, no perceptions, but no perceptions, no training, no coordinated muscle responses.

But the perceptions, the training the actions are all brain processes.

:)
Click to expand...


You duck to protect your flesh.
Your Self thinks that the flesh is an essential part of Dancing David and likes to keep it intact. It does not hesitate, it knows right away who should duck. In fact he has executed the movement before the autobiographical Self has even realized the danger.

These are the subroutines we inherited from our ancestors. Fast, robust and efficient. Playing any sport or an instrument would be impossible with only the rational mind. It takes too much time to activate all the association cortices and value applicators and then formulate the action.

Animal automatisms fare much better in simple, repetitive tasks.
Of course, they can modified and learned. In the course of learning less and less effort is needed and when the learning process was documented in fMRI, the amount of brain tissue exceuting the task had diminished by 80%
 
Dancing Dave: And you are wrong, without the brain you can not "eat, talk, play games, make love or play instruments", that is the locus of action, you can not make those acts without a body, but without the brain, they don't happen at all.


I wrote: Brains don't eat, talk, play games, make love or play instruments.
Only a body-brain does all this human stuff.
Misquoted. I hope not on purpose.
 
How do I know others are conscious? What is their conscious experience like? Is such a thing, in principle, knowable?
Click to expand...

That's easy. All the other drivers on the road are unconscious morons, and I'm not. ;)
 
lemurien said:
I told you, he is arguing from ignorance.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't.

There's some ignorance in this thread but it doesn't arise from our friendly Egyptian god. I think he overreached and called him on it. He acknowledged. That is called thinking. Give it a try, you'll like it.
 
SezMe said:
No, you didn't.

There's some ignorance in this thread but it doesn't arise from our friendly Egyptian god. I think he overreached and called him on it. He acknowledged. That is called thinking. Give it a try, you'll like it.
Click to expand...

Yes I did. Yesterday, 01:21 PM : "Akhenaten, you are arguing from ignorance."

He acknowledged for which I give him kudos.
Do gods need our kudos, I am not sure.
 
joobz said:
Seems like this is a given when one says "brain", but you are correct.
Click to expand...

in the similar vein:
Gun = gun+gunshot.

If you think that this kind of logical limping saves your face, OK then.
Point taken.
 
lemurien said:
in the similar vein:
Gun = gun+gunshot.

If you think that this kind of logical limping saves your face, OK then.
Point taken.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Are you saying that joobz actually did mean that, for example, we are dead brains? And he's simply trying to wiggle out of admitting that he meant this?

If that is what you're saying, then I find it a bit difficult to believe.
 
Last edited:
lemurien said:
in the similar vein:
Gun = gun+gunshot.

If you think that this kind of logical limping saves your face, OK then.
Point taken.
Click to expand...
Your analogy is poor. A better one is Engines.
When I talk about an engine, I speak of ones that actually function. Unless, stated otherwise.
Or Nuclear Reactors.
When I speak of a nuclear reactor, I speak of an active nuclear reactor. Not one that's dormant.


You are welcome to continue your game, but it doesn't change my response.
We are our brains. You can replace my foot, and you will still have me. You wouldn't have changed me.
You replace my brain, on the other hand, and you have a problem.
And, as I've said (which you have quite conspicuously failed to address), I am not convinced you could simply "download" your program and have it still be you. Afterall, as I've stated and as the science seems to bear out, the program alters the brain, just as the brain alters the program. The brain is much more of you than you seem to be willing to admit to.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Your analogy is poor. A better one is Engines.
When I talk about an engine, I speak of ones that actually function. Unless, stated otherwise.
Or Nuclear Reactors.
When I speak of a nuclear reactor, I speak of an active nuclear reactor. Not one that's dormant.


You are welcome to continue your game, but it doesn't change my response.
We are our brains. You can replace my foot, and you will still have me. You wouldn't have changed me.
You replace my brain, on the other hand, and you have a problem.
And, as I've said (which you have quite conspicuously failed to address), I am not convinced you could simply "download" your program and have it still be you. Afterall, as I've stated and as the science seems to bear out, the program alters the brain, just as the brain alters the program. The brain is much more of you than you seem to be willing to admit to.
Click to expand...

That just means a brain is a necessary condition for personhood. Even I might agree with you (well, probably not). You are making a much stronger claim: your brain is a sufficient condition for personhood. Lemurian is rightly pointing out there are problems with this.
 
joobz said:
Your analogy is poor. A better one is Engines.
When I talk about an engine, I speak of ones that actually function. Unless, stated otherwise.
Or Nuclear Reactors.
When I speak of a nuclear reactor, I speak of an active nuclear reactor. Not one that's dormant.


You are welcome to continue your game, but it doesn't change my response.
We are our brains. You can replace my foot, and you will still have me. You wouldn't have changed me.
You replace my brain, on the other hand, and you have a problem.
And, as I've said (which you have quite conspicuously failed to address), I am not convinced you could simply "download" your program and have it still be you. Afterall, as I've stated and as the science seems to bear out, the program alters the brain, just as the brain alters the program. The brain is much more of you than you seem to be willing to admit to.
Click to expand...

Suppose I replace one of your neurons with a functionally equivalent mechanical neuron. The synaptic connections are all preserved. Are you still you? Suppose I replace another neuron. Still you? And another...

At what point do you cease to be you? 10% 50% 100%? Or are you still you with a functionally identical mechanical brain? Now suppose I take all the neurons I've slowly taken from you and reassemble your brain. Is it you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom