Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[PixyMisa]

Mmm. It needs some sort of interface to be a computer, otherwise it's just a box doing... Stuff. Cf. humans in total sensory deprivation - we tend to first hallucinate and then enter a barely-conscious dreamlike state.

No given part of the body, and no given individual sense, is essential to what we are, but if all of them are absent, then we do lose what we are even if the brain remains intact.

 

[joobz]

Mmm. It needs some sort of interface to be a computer, otherwise it's just a box doing... Stuff. Cf. humans in total sensory deprivation - we tend to first hallucinate and then enter a barely-conscious dreamlike state.

That doesn't happen immediately. What is hallucinating and in a barely-conscious dream like state if not you?

No given part of the body, and no given individual sense, is essential to what we are, but if all of them are absent, then we do lose what we are even if the brain remains intact.

The self changes depending upon the systems that connect to it, but no other part of the body could be called "you" without the brain.

If you isolated your hand, it doesn't "first Hallucinate and then enter a barely-conscious dream-like state". Indeed, you would never call anything other than your brain conscious.

 

[Hokulele]

No I believe it comes from God.

Does your god make things blue, too? I mean, atoms aren't blue, so where else could color come from?

 

[PixyMisa]

That doesn't happen immediately. What is hallucinating and in a barely-conscious dream like state if not you?

A subset of me? Me in potentia? A large part of the functionality that makes me, me, has been suspended.

The self changes depending upon the systems that connect to it, but no other part of the body could be called "you" without the brain.

If you isolated your hand, it doesn't "first Hallucinate and then enter a barely-conscious dream-like state". Indeed, you would never call anything other than your brain conscious.

Sure. Just that the brain in absolute isolation wouldn't be conscious either.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The most stable thing in the process is the body maps.
All the rest is aleatory and take whatever whimsy it might come up with.
But the body maps (let's not talk about hallucinations and amputations here) remain stable.
They are the backbone against which the changes in the neural patterns are measured.

Of course, the body maps are in the brain. But hey could not be adequately created with the body.

So I say that what you know about yourself is in the brain.
But there is more.

The one thing that bothers me about your argument is that if you define the self this way, then stopping at the flesh interface as you call it presents the same issues that you're arguing against with joobz stopping at the brain interface. What you want to demand inclusion of using this approach isn't the body per se, but rather body signals. For that, you need to reach into the environment.

The sensory deprivation that PixyMisa mentioned is a good example of the body being present without requisite signals coming from an environment.

 

[joobz]

A subset of me? Me in potentia? A large part of the functionality that makes me, me, has been suspended.

not instantly

Sure. Just that the brain in absolute isolation wouldn't be conscious either.

But this isn't true. Certainly, it wouldn't be sustainable you, but it would be you.

Cut of your hand, and there is NOTHING in that hand that is the conscious "you", not even for a femtosecond.

 

[Malerin]

not instantly



But this isn't true. Certainly, it wouldn't be sustainable you, but it would be you.

Cut of your hand, and there is NOTHING in that hand that is the conscious "you", not even for a femtosecond.

Assuming materialism, you're correct. There's nothing to suggest that your brain, removed from your body and kept alive in a nutrient solution, would be unconscious or wouldn't be you in some way. It wouldn't be much of an existence, but it would still be you. A thinking brain in a vat.

Sensory deprivation experiments suggest you would begin hallucinating pretty rapidly in such a state. Perhaps that's the reality you've created, Joobz.

 

[lemurien]

not instantly
But this isn't true. Certainly, it wouldn't be sustainable you, but it would be you.
Cut of your hand, and there is NOTHING in that hand that is the conscious "you", not even for a femtosecond.

The pain becomes a very central part of your conscience a couple of milliseconds after the cut. The processing milieu of the brain changes completely.
If it is a hand of a violinist or a braille-reading blind man's hand, it is a very essential part of the brain's interfaces with the world.
Certainly something central for the conscious violinist and his audience.

Or maybe you can port the Stradivarius directly to the motor cortex?

 

[lemurien]

I could argue further, that you are not the complete you as a brain certainly but not even as a body-brain. To really express your human potential to the fullest you need to live in a society of other human beings, cats, dogs, horses and birds.

Even our home-brewed philosophical discussion here would not be possible without the achievements of the Western civilization. To be a part of that you nin the flesh interface!

 

[yy2bggggs]

I could argue further, that you are not the complete you as a brain certainly but not even as a body-brain. To really express your human potential to the fullest you need to live in a society of other human beings, cats, dogs, horses and birds.

Indeed; however, now you're talking about categories formed via invariants that are useful for our world models, which do in fact majorly influence us. But they also introduce other meaningful alternate definitions of "you" besides the one you're giving.

ETA:
This is what Dancing David was alluding to earlier.

 

[Slimething]

No I believe it comes from God.

I have pointed out to you that you and everyone else is made up of atoms. Ignorant, unintelligent atoms. Atoms that carry no intelligence or artifice whatsoever. Yet you have not explained how atoms, let alone the vastly more complex systems of neurons and neurotransmitters comprise intelligence and emotion. Please address this. It's vitat to your point (such as it is).

Your point is meaningless. Simple components can rearrange to form more complex functions. See if you can find the name of the postulate that tries to explain this.

Really, people shouting "god" every time they don't understand something is quite tiresome. If you have nothing better, leave the humans alone. We don't need this type of distraction. It's your right to live in fantasy but it's not your right to foist it on everyone else.

 

[PixyMisa]

not instantly

True.

But this isn't true. Certainly, it wouldn't be sustainable you, but it would be you.

But in absolute isolation, there's no not-you to not be.

Not really an important point.

Cut of your hand, and there is NOTHING in that hand that is the conscious "you", not even for a femtosecond.

Agreed.

 

[PixyMisa]

I could argue further, that you are not the complete you as a brain certainly but not even as a body-brain. To really express your human potential to the fullest you need to live in a society of other human beings, cats, dogs, horses and birds.

You could argue that. You'd be arguing complete nonsense, but don't let that stop you.

Even our home-brewed philosophical discussion here would not be possible without the achievements of the Western civilization. To be a part of that you nin the flesh interface!

True, but entirely irrelevant.

 

[zooterkin]

No I believe it comes from God.

So intelligence is something separate from our bodies, not a property of our brains? How does that work, then? Where is it? Why does damage to the brain affect personality and intelligence?

The book cited in post #1 probably explains this better than I can. Hit the arrow to page 130 and it starts 5 lines down.

People outside the US might not be able to get this page.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So, why not attempt to explain it?

 

[Akhenaten]

So you believe intelligence comes from non-intelligent neurons?

So you believe that intelligence comes from nothing?...

No I believe it comes from God.

Of course you do, but haven't you ever wondered what it would be like to be right for change.

The book cited in post #1 probably explains this better than I can.

It's utter twaddle, DOC, and that's why neither you or those useless flogs Geisler and Turek will ever be able to explain it. GIGO, in other words.

Hit the arrow to page 130 and it starts 5 lines down.

People outside the US might not be able to get this page.

Have you ever noticed, DOC, that nobody else in the entire forum ever attempts to present information to support their arguments in this fashion?

Are you able to draw any conclusions from this?

 

[Aepervius]

We look at things a bit differently.

My way of thinking...well...let's look at a computer.
You are saying that a computer is its processor running an operating system and you cannot really differentiate between the two. (this was a question)

Whereas I see that there is a processor that can run this or that operating system (Christian, Muslim, Atheist) which is one thing and that the processor actually running an operating system is another thing.

It is a question of perpective and also where the analogy break. At the most VERY basic level, you do not need a monitor, you do not need RAM you do not need a HD to have computer. You only need a processor with inbuilt RAM, I have programmed a few of those, where beside the board holding them and the input power there was nothing. You are speaking of a specially made expanded computer where the element are separated and bigger and intercommunicate. That is why the analogy break down.

But the basic fact, is that even in those big computer, the ONLY part calculating is the processor. The rest is only temporary memory (HD/RAM/Cache) output devices or input devices. Where does the program run ? In the processor only. The processor might from time to time get something from all those device, but it fully and ONLY run in the processor.

So taking the human analogy, when we say "my computer is running microsoft word" we are wrong. The "YOU" in this case being Word, and the "body" being the fully computer, the "brain" being the processor, it is painfully obvious that the YOU (program) is fully located and running in the processor and only there. The rest is only/input /output from the brain. The computer program is only running in the braina nd the YOu is only the brain.

IN FACT, if you were powering up and down the processor line manually without HD , keyboard or anything whatsoever, the processor would see no difference. I would wager it would eb the same for a brain : repalce allnever input by a simulated input for a brain in a jar , including details like heartbeat , and the brain inside would see no difference. That would still be a "you". Just like for that single processor with memory on board I used to program for my university degree.

PS: the reason I think the computer analogy with a processor is dumb and break down, is that today comptuer have RAM, HD, and processor separated (and heck even processor have ALU FPU separated on dye for example) whereas what we call the brain is a full set.

 

[pakeha]

No I believe it comes from God.

The book cited in post #1 probably explains this better than I can. Hit the arrow to page 130 and it starts 5 lines down.

People outside the US might not be able to get this page.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Why do you insist on using a source the posters here can't access?
Are you getting some sort of commisssion on sales or what?
edited to add-
I apologise if that sounds accusatory, but I wonder why you do this.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Have you ever noticed, DOC, that nobody else in the entire forum ever attempts to present information to support their arguments in this fashion?

Are you able to draw any conclusions from this?

Sir! Sir! I know this one. Is it because Doc has a shallow grasp of most of the arguments being made but likes the conclusions because they agree with his world view and are presented in what appears to be clever philosophical form, coming from the authority of apparent learned scholars?

 

[Darat]

You could argue that. You'd be arguing complete nonsense, but don't let that stop you.

...snip...

Have to disagree, we learn to be human by interaction with other people and of course the environment around us. There are tantalising hints that if a child is isolated and cannot interact with other humans some behaviours that we label as "human" do not develop. (Tantalising because there are some soft-hearted folks who think it would be wrong to bring a child up completely isolated so we could get to the bottom of this.)

If you were an adult who had had a normal upbringing and then the brain in the sack of chemicals we call "I" was completely isolated than of course you would still have a sense of "I". Whether that "I" would develop in a way that we would recognise in a brain isolated from birth I doubt it would.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why do you insist on using a source the posters here can't access?
Are you getting some sort of commisssion on sales or what?
edited to add-
I apologise if that sounds accusatory, but I wonder why you do this.

The World According to DOC​