Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[joobz]

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.

Nope. You keep avoiding actually addressing the points I've made. and made claims of some illusionary problems that aren't well described. You even go so far as to create ill defined words to do this. You are now introducing new terms "personhood" as though this changes something. I am speaking of your personality and your consciousness. your brain is your consciousness. It's entire make up is you. If I damage it, I damage you.
If I were to say something that hurt you emotionally, I could change the physical nature of your brain.

This is verifiable fact.

Let's not forget where all this stemmed from. It came from the claim that our consciousness couldn't have evolved because cells don't have consciousness. This has been demonstrated to be a false claim as the part isn't expect to have the property of the whole. The emergent behavior that is our consciousness is intimately dependent upon our brain. If you don't believe this, you will need to introduce actual evidence to support your claim.

 

[joobz]

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?

I don't know. Very possibly you may not be still you. After all, you are making a rather large claim to be able to say you can replace the exact functioning of the neurons (and don't forget the glial cells as well). Further, are those new neurons going to decay/age/adjust/reorganize in the exact same way to the stimuli that will be presented further down the road? If not, then how can you say it is still "You"?

ETA:
It should be interesting to point out that there have been studies demonstrating structural/functional differences in brains of monozygotic (identical) twins. In other words, despite identical genetic make up, they have different personality and different brain behavior. Are you going to tell me that these things aren't related? That there isn't a structure/function relationship between "you" and your Brain?

 

[Ignosticist]

Does your brain like certain people and dislike certain people?

My cat likes some people.... and dislikes some other people... likes some food, and dislikes some food... likes some places, and dislikes others....

DOC... Is that proof that my cat has a soul?


And if I had a pet octopus, that also liked and disliked some stuff... DOC... Is that proof that my octopus has a soul?

And if I had a pet lizard, that also liked and disliked some stuff... DOC... Is that proof that my lizard has a soul?

And if I had a pet lobster, that also liked and disliked stuff... DOC... Is that proof that my lobster has a soul?

How about sunflowers? they "like" sunlight... do they have a soul?

 

[Ignosticist]

First, I don't think this is a new idea. Didn't the writer C.S.Lewis originally bring up this point?

But leaving that aside, the premise is that chemical reactions, no matter how complex, cannot evaluate the truth or falsehood of a proposition. Therefore man must have a soul that does this.

Computers can evaluate the truth or falsehood of a proposition. Guess C.S.Lewis never programmed a computer.

 

[Ignosticist]

Try living without skin. Or heart. Or Liver. Or intestines.
Bad argument.

You can, maybe not for long but you can.

 

[Malerin]

Nope. You keep avoiding actually addressing the points I've made. and made claims of some illusionary problems that aren't well described. You even go so far as to create ill defined words to do this. You are now introducing new terms "personhood" as though this changes something.

Let's just stick with "you" then. I was using "person" and "you" interchangeably.

So your claim is that

You replace my brain, on the other hand, and you have a problem

This simply establishes that your brain is a necessary condition for you (see how strange that sounds? That's why I said "personhood", but no matter). A necessary condition means that in order for you to be you, you need your brain. Likewise, fire cannot exist without heat. Heat is a necessary condition for fire. That doesn't mean that heat IS fire, you just can't have fire without heat.

You're making a much stronger claim here, that you haven't backed up, and is causing you all sorts of problems. You're claiming your brain is a necessary and sufficient for you (again, personhood would be a better word here). You've got the necessary part, no one's really denying that, but the sufficient part is mere assertion on your part. Lemurian has valid objections to it: Simple claims like "you ate a sandwich" become nonsensical. Does your brain have a mouth?

I am speaking of your personality and your consciousness. your brain is your consciousness.

If your brain is your consciousness, then what happens when you're unconscious? Are you brainless?

It's entire make up is you. If I damage it, I damage you.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the converse is true. If I cut off your finger are you not going to mind because I didn't damage your brain?

If I were to say something that hurt you emotionally, I could change the physical nature of your brain.

Doing anything to me will change the physical nature of my brain. Simply talking to me will. New sensory information will come in, synapses will fire, etc. What you should say is

If I were to say something that hurt you emotionally, I could change the physical nature of hurt your brain.

(this is consistent with your position that you are your brain}
How, exactly, does that work?

Let's not forget where all this stemmed from. It came from the claim that our consciousness couldn't have evolved because cells don't have consciousness. This has been demonstrated to be a false claim as the part isn't expect to have the property of the whole. The emergent behavior that is our consciousness is intimately dependent upon our brain. If you don't believe this, you will need to introduce actual evidence to support your claim.

Again, that's a claim for a necessary, not sufficient condition. I don't think DOC would disagree with you. I'll argue for him:
Fine, consciousness is dependent on the brain. I don't disagree. It's also dependent on souls. No souls, no consciousness. We're all conscious because we have brains and souls.

 

[Ignosticist]

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?

I think I see your point now... "I" am not my brain... "I" am not my body, "I" am not my brain and my body, there is something, else, the software running in the brain, the "mind" if you like that name. Theoretically, it should be possible to copy it to an artificial brain (and/or to an artificial body).

Now... if my mind were copied to 2 artificial brains...well, I guess they would still be "I"... until they started having different perceptions due to their different perspectives... at that moment "I" would be gone and 2 new minds would be born.

In that sense "I" am always ending, and a new "I" is being created... as Heraclitus once said:

"You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you"

(And "You" as the river, are flowing too (in spacetime?) and therefore "you" are different from the you that existed only for an instant )

 

[Ignosticist]

mind = soul = software therefore computers have a soul?

Now if DOC would like to argue that software = mind = soul (and therefore software = soul) and therefore humans and computers have "souls", I guess I could agree with that (as long as we accept that unless you provide some hardware for this software to be stored and to run, it ceases to exist)

 

[Malerin]

I don't know. Very possibly you may not be still you. After all, you are making a rather large claim to be able to say you can replace the exact functioning of the neurons (and don't forget the glial cells as well).

I'm not claiming anything. It's a hypothetical: assume there's a mechanical neuron that is functionally identical to a biological neuron. Assume that we can stop your brain acticity without killing you and replace one of your neurons with a mechanical neuron. All synaptic connections are preserved. Are you still you? If no, how are you still you when one of your neurons dies? If yes, how about if I replace two neurons... three? 50 million? At what point are you no longer you?

Further, are those new neurons going to decay/age/adjust/reorganize in the exact same way to the stimuli that will be presented further down the road? If not, then how can you say it is still "You"?

Yes, they're functionally equivalent. They behave just like biological neurons.

ETA:
It should be interesting to point out that there have been studies demonstrating structural/functional differences in brains of monozygotic (identical) twins. In other words, despite identical genetic make up, they have different personality and different brain behavior. Are you going to tell me that these things aren't related? That there isn't a structure/function relationship between "you" and your Brain?

Why would I tell you those aren't related? Just because I disagree that "you are your brain" doesn't mean I'm claiming your brain has nothing to do with who you are. Is that what you think disagreeing with you entails?

 

[lemurien]

I see a fundamental logical fault in Joobz's posting.

We do seem to agree that brain is the seat of our identity.
The Self (core self and extended one) is a function of the brain.
Also, I believe that we agree that everything we can know about the universe is a brain map.

And here's where we differ:
I see the brain creating maps and representations about body states (this includes sensory input from eyes, ears and body senses) as well as memories, dreams and ideas.

The third-order representation or the Self observing itself in juxtaposition to the representations of body states is our subjective experience of what we are. It is still a map.
Do you see a difference between a map and the terrain?

We are more than that. We take and utilize energy, we grow, we move, we are interacting with material things. A brain alone is not capable of doing this.

Saying that you are your brain is silly for two reasons.
The first one is that if you were your brain, you could not say anything.
The second one is that nobody in this world has the knowledge of whether an isolated brain preparation would be conscious or human in any sense. It does not exist. It never will.

 

[Aepervius]

I see a fundamental logical fault in Joobz's posting.

We do seem to agree that brain is the seat of our identity.
The Self (core self and extended one) is a function of the brain.
Also, I believe that we agree that everything we can know about the universe is a brain map.

And here's where we differ:
I see the brain creating maps and representations about body states (this includes sensory input from eyes, ears and body senses) as well as memories, dreams and ideas.

The third-order representation or the Self observing itself in juxtaposition to the representations of body states is our subjective experience of what we are. It is still a map.
Do you see a difference between a map and the terrain?

We are more than that. We take and utilize energy, we grow, we move, we are interacting with material things. A brain alone is not capable of doing this.

Saying that you are your brain is silly for two reasons.
The first one is that if you were your brain, you could not say anything.
The second one is that nobody in this world has the knowledge of whether an isolated brain preparation would be conscious or human in any sense. It does not exist. It never will.

You are confusing again, the body with the brain.

Let us take a brain dead persons. The body will eat (thru tube) / excecrate and even breath alone in some time. It is a "terrain" without "map". Is that a person ? Medicinal science certainly don't seem to think so.

The site of consciousness is the brain. It is not only the necessary , but it is also the nothing Beyond so. With advanced enough science you could theoretically have the brain in a jar, with the sensory input replaced by mechanic part, and little cute wheel under the jar. The brain would still be "you".

The difficulty is that right now, the brain cannot function in stand alone, it needs non conscious part to handle the dirty job : a mouth to input fuel and oxydant, a lung to take in the oxydant and expell reducted material, an oesephage and intestine system to process the fuel, a blood system to bring the fuel where it will be used, muscle and skeleton to support and make the whole mobile.

All that makes up a human. But the Necessary and Enough site of consciousness is and is ONLY the brain. If you want to give evidence that the site of consciousness is more than the brain, you would have to give evidence that consciousness is addled when those other part are damaged. An evidence that it is not the case for limb, and some sensory input organs, is that when anaesthetised locally consciousness is not altered. We do not have evidence for all those add-on organs, but we have evidence for ENOUGH of them to show that the SOLE consciousness holder is the brain. Heck you can even strike out part of the brain stem in the vertebrae because people routinely get in accident severing those, and do not get their self or consciousness , personality changed.

You , the conscious one are just a brain. Without the brain you are just a body. Without the body, you are still you as demonstrated when part of it is hacked/Anaesthetised off.

So no, the evidence provided is enough to say that "you" is solely the brain. No terrain , no map analogy will help. The support stuff for the brain, known as the the body, has no active part in consciousness beyond giving sensory impulse.

 

[Akhenaten]

Saying that you are your brain is silly for two reasons.
The first one is that if you were your brain, you could not say anything.

Like Stephen Hawking can't say anything?

The second one is that nobody in this world has the knowledge of whether an isolated brain preparation would be conscious or human in any sense. It does not exist. It never will.

How do you know this?

 

[dafydd]

Like Stephen Hawking can't say anything?





How do you know this?

Omniscience?

 

[lemurien]

Since I do not seem to be able to make my point clear, I quote a neurology professor from University of Colorado, Dr. Don Smith: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/3050/Default.aspx


Pure reason, reason uninfluenced by emotion, seems to occur only in pathological states that are characterized by impairment of day-to-day decision-making and social interaction.

Says Damasio, "Certain aspects of the process of emotion and feeling are indispensable for rationality." To think otherwise was Descartes' error. "(The error was) the abyssal separation between body and mind, between the sizable, dimensioned, mechanically operated, infinitely divisible body stuff, on the one hand, and the unsizable, undimensioned, un-pushpullable, nondivisible mind stuff; the suggestion that reasoning, and moral judgement, and the suffering that comes from physical pain or emotional upheaval might exist separately from the body.

Specifically: the separation of the most refined operations of the mind from the structure and operation of a biological organism."


(In fact, that was Dr. Don Smith quoting prof. Damasio)

 

[Mashuna]

External stimulus interacts with senses, senses send electrochemical messages to the brain, the brain's processes (fed by information from the senses) result in consciousness, an aspect of consciousness is my sense of "I".

 

[Hokulele]

External stimulus interacts with senses, senses send electrochemical messages to the brain, the brain's processes (fed by information from the senses) result in consciousness, an aspect of consciousness is my sense of "I".

It is even weirder than that. I have a good friend who was in a motorcycle accident in his 20's. Due to this, he lost an arm. Well, to everyone else, it is apparent he is missing an arm, but it seems like his brain didn't get the message. He says it still feels like his arm is there, and it really messes him up on occasion. For example, he will feel like he just waved "Hello" to someone, and wonders why they ignored him, until he remembers he can't wave with that arm. He will start to fall and catch himself with his missing arm, and wonder why he is hitting the ground.

The funniest example (to me, not to him) is that his wrist will itch, even though there is no wrist. Scratching the stump doesn't help, he just has to wait for it to go away.

So, based on all this, does he have an arm or not? His body says "No" but his brain says "Yes". When the map and the terrain conflict, which is right? Both? Neither?

 

[Mashuna]

It is even weirder than that. I have a good friend who was in a motorcycle accident in his 20's. Due to this, he lost an arm. Well, to everyone else, it is apparent he is missing an arm, but it seems like his brain didn't get the message. He says it still feels like his arm is there, and it really messes him up on occasion. For example, he will feel like he just waved "Hello" to someone, and wonders why they ignored him, until he remembers he can't wave with that arm. He will start to fall and catch himself with his missing arm, and wonder why he is hitting the ground.

The funniest example (to me, not to him) is that his wrist will itch, even though there is no wrist. Scratching the stump doesn't help, he just has to wait for it to go away.

So, based on all this, does he have an arm or not? His body says "No" but his brain says "Yes". When the map and the terrain conflict, which is right? Both? Neither?

You're right, that is weirder!

I remember seeing a program about a woman who was unable to control one of her hands - it used to pinch her, slap her and try to strangle her. I can't remember the terminology, maybe alien hand syndrome?

 

[Akhenaten]

You're right, that is weirder!

I remember seeing a program about a woman who was unable to control one of her hands - it used to pinch her, slap her and try to strangle her. I can't remember the terminology, maybe alien hand syndrome?

Thing?

 

[Mashuna]

Thing?

I should really check if I'm actually watching documentaries, shouldn't I.

 

[lemurien]

Phantom limb pain. Patient who has had his leg amputated can still feel as if there is a leg that hurts. Lesions on the right side of the brain are associated with 'anosognosia' which means that the patient refuses to accept that a body part is paralyzed. Also, he/she can feel that the leg belongs to somebody else and is behaving aggressively trying to get in the same bed with him/her.

An example how subtle the body-brain interaction ca be a fascinating study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5986/1712

In six experiments, holding heavy or light clipboards, solving rough or smooth puzzles, and touching hard or soft objects nonconsciously influenced impressions and decisions formed about unrelated people and situations.

Among other effects, heavy objects made job candidates appear more important, rough objects made social interactions appear more difficult, and hard objects increased rigidity in negotiations. Basic tactile sensations are thus shown to influence higher social cognitive processing in dimension-specific and metaphor-specific ways.