Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: The relationship between the brain, mind, thoughts, and consciousness.

  1. #21
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,232
    Amen (Given)
    2471
    Amen (Received)
    1777
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Enjoy your stay in the Shunya loop, where self-contradiction is a virtue, and incoherence and mangled syntax is the standard for discourse. You are invincible in your self-imposed ignorance.
    It would be more productive if you actually responded to Shunya’s point:

    Again:

    “Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and output of computers and TVs are emergent from the source, and NOT immaterial. This is demonstrated by the research cited that shows an instantaneous response from different areas of the brain in instantaneous changing of the mind”.

    Do you consider that “consciousness, mind and thoughts” are immaterial beyond the brain, on what basis?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,091
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    It would be more productive if you actually responded to Shunya’s point:

    Again:

    “Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and output of computers and TVs are emergent from the source, and NOT immaterial. This is demonstrated by the research cited that shows an instantaneous response from different areas of the brain in instantaneous changing of the mind”.

    Do you consider that “consciousness, mind and thoughts” are immaterial beyond the brain, on what basis?
    There is a lot of confusion in the other threads on terminology concerning the relationship between the brain, and the consciousness, mind and thoughts. The scientific view of the emergence of the consciousness, mind and thoughts is important and based on the evidence. Also the fact that consciousness, the mind and thoughts cannot be separated as distinct from each other. The fact that these emergent attributes of the brain reflect increasing complexity parallel with the evolution of the brain and nervous system.

    So far no objective verifiable evidence has been provided that contradict these conclusions confirmed through research.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  5. #23
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    109
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I consider the 'actual interest' is related to the problem of the willingness to accept science. Again the request was for me to present the scientific evidence of the relationship. I fully realize that some will, of course, avoid the scientific evidence in guise of not being interested...No one yest here nor anywhere else have settled the metaphysical questions, because there is not any objective verifiable evidence to support any one of the the different answers proposed from the metaphysical perspective.

    If you are aware of evidence that others would be interested in please cite it.
    I've been remodeling my basement and listening to Tom Campbell vids lately, if I understand him correctly he feels he has a legitimate scientific approach concluding that consciousness is not a material function. The guy has a PhD in Physics and I think works for NASA. Consider:

    "In the field of consciousness research-and also in physics and astronomy-we are breaking past the cause-and-effect, mechanistic way of interpreting things. In the biological sciences, there is a vitalism coming in that goes much further toward positing a common universal consciousness of which our brain is simply an organ. Consciousness does not come from the brain. The brain is an organ of consciousness. It focuses consciousness and pulls it in and directs it through a time and space field. But the antecedent of that is the universal consciousness of which we are all just a part."
    Joseph Campbell

    If you haven't heard him, consider this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6omqNajtw

    He comes at things from an idealist perspective, which I'm not prepared to accept with open arms, but he makes some interesting, logical points. I remain perplexed at your worship of science as the only valid approach to anything. The religious text of OVE (objective verifiable evidence) you regularly preach from has been crumbling in light of the double slit experiment and the non-mechanistic behaviors of subatomic reality, Shunyadragon. Your claims (as above) that those who don't accept the materialist venue do so "in the guise of not being interested" suggests that those who dissent are ignorant of the 'one true way' of Holy Materialism, which you seem to imply is ignorance of the worst kind. But science just presents facts. Your stubborn embrace of Materialism is at the end of the day just a religious interpretation of those facts molded into a worldview. It seems to me your repeated tirades against others for not meeting your demand that they conform to OVE is circular; you are just saying, "unless you play in the arena of my choosing (materialism) you're not real players!" Christians who use the literalness of the Bible as objective evidence are taking essentially the same circular approach to argument.

  6. #24
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,091
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    I've been remodeling my basement and listening to Tom Campbell vids lately, if I understand him correctly he feels he has a legitimate scientific approach concluding that consciousness is not a material function. The guy has a PhD in Physics and I think works for NASA. Consider:

    "In the field of consciousness research-and also in physics and astronomy-we are breaking past the cause-and-effect, mechanistic way of interpreting things. In the biological sciences, there is a vitalism coming in that goes much further toward positing a common universal consciousness of which our brain is simply an organ. Consciousness does not come from the brain. The brain is an organ of consciousness. It focuses consciousness and pulls it in and directs it through a time and space field. But the antecedent of that is the universal consciousness of which we are all just a part."
    Joseph Campbell

    If you haven't heard him, consider this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6omqNajtw

    He comes at things from an idealist perspective, which I'm not prepared to accept with open arms, but he makes some interesting, logical points. I remain perplexed at your worship of science as the only valid approach to anything. The religious text of OVE (objective verifiable evidence) you regularly preach from has been crumbling in light of the double slit experiment and the non-mechanistic behaviors of subatomic reality, Shunyadragon. Your claims (as above) that those who don't accept the materialist venue do so "in the guise of not being interested" suggests that those who dissent are ignorant of the 'one true way' of Holy Materialism, which you seem to imply is ignorance of the worst kind. But science just presents facts. Your stubborn embrace of Materialism is at the end of the day just a religious interpretation of those facts molded into a worldview. It seems to me your repeated tirades against others for not meeting your demand that they conform to OVE is circular; you are just saying, "unless you play in the arena of my choosing (materialism) you're not real players!" Christians who use the literalness of the Bible as objective evidence are taking essentially the same circular approach to argument.
    I will have to give him a read over to see what he has to say.

    My main concern is your negative view toward science and my view. First, I believe in God, and I am NOT a materialist. Personally I believe in the soul, and our mind and consciousness are not necessarily separate from the brain for the soul to exist. I believe that the soul may be sort of the mirror image of our consciousness and mind.

    This thread is for the science of the relationship between the brain, and the mind, consciousness, and thoughts. There are no religious interpretation from me in this thread, simply the results of scientific research on the relationship between the brain, and the mind, consciousness and thoughts.

    The bold I will have to discard as ridiculous 'It seems to me' stuff, and does not reflect anything from my posts.

    One comment concerning Tom Campbell is he is not a theist, and does not propose a relationship between the brain, and the consciousness or mind as the existence of the soul and God.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  7. #25
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    109
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    My main concern is your negative view toward science and my view. First, I believe in God, and I am NOT a materialist. Personally I believe in the soul, and our mind and consciousness are not necessarily separate from the brain for the soul to exist. I believe that the soul may be sort of the mirror image of our consciousness and mind.
    Yes, you state your beliefs from time to time Shunyadragon, but your arguments continually mirror those of atheist materialists. If you waddle and quack like a duck, you have to know you're going to be called a duck from time to time my friend. I don't think I have a negative view toward science at all, I've been interested in things scientific since I was a teenager. I worked for over 30 years in one of the more technically-oriented trades (HVAC) and have always loved the science associated with it. I don't pledge allegiance to science for the reasons stated earlier: science is about facts but there's a lot more to life and reality than facts, as science itself has been showing us for some time now.

    This thread is for the science of the relationship between the brain, and the mind, consciousness, and thoughts. There are no religious interpretation from me in this thread, simply the results of scientific research on the relationship between the brain, and the mind, consciousness and thoughts.
    Understood. But I feel Campbell, though he doesn't address the science of brain states and their relationship to mental content directly, nevertheless as a physicist has things to contribute about peripheral downstream issues associated with matters of consciousness that play into this discussion.

    One comment concerning Tom Campbell is he is not a theist, and does not propose a relationship between the brain, and the consciousness or mind as the existence of the soul and God.
    True, as noted above he doesn't deal with the scientific specifics of consciousness, but he does have quite a bit to say about consciousness qua consciousness from his own scientific perspective which bears close relationships to the same issues dualists have with the idea of a soul separate from the material body. That's one reason I find his stuff interesting. As noted above, he approaches the issue from more of a deist-idealist position, but his conclusions include (or at least leave open the possibilities for) most of the ingredients for the presence of what one would call "the soul" as the consciousness each person possesses. But I don't want to be accused of taking your thread off course, so will back out.

  8. #26
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    109
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    19
    One thing about mental-brain associations. I've tried (and failed) to express here and other places my metaphysical hypothesis of a value-endued reality (value mechanics) and won't get into it here, except to state that it starts with Avicenna's comment on the subject of truth in the Summa Theologica from his Metaphysic (viii, 6), "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." I suggest that the essence of both matter and the animation principle we find in life (of which the soul, if it exists, would logically be made) subsist in two different kinds of truth which we easily recognize: descriptive having to do with factual reality, and prescriptive associated with morality, respectively.

    With this principle in mind, one argument dualists sometimes make is that the physical event of electro-chemical processes in the brain are not true or false. But mental states like thoughts and beliefs have truth-value. Since it seems meaningless to attribute truth to material states, mental states aren't body states.

    To this I’d argue that electro-chemical discharges in brains or anywhere else do contain their material and descriptive truth. (This view is tied to the teleological argument, i.e., value is designed into reality at the level of essence.) The value difference attests to the presence of a soul, and is found in the "no ought from is" contention; mental states contain prescriptive value over and above descriptive value, though discernably coupled with those descriptive brain states. Since brain states can have only descriptive value and prescriptive value is a property of mental experience, it follows that there must be a soul in some sort of association with the material body.

    My two cents anyway.

  9. #27
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,091
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    Yes, you state your beliefs from time to time Shunyadragon, but your arguments continually mirror those of atheist materialists. If you waddle and quack like a duck, you have to know you're going to be called a duck from time to time my friend. I don't think I have a negative view toward science at all, I've been interested in things scientific since I was a teenager. I worked for over 30 years in one of the more technically-oriented trades (HVAC) and have always loved the science associated with it. I don't pledge allegiance to science for the reasons stated earlier: science is about facts but there's a lot more to life and reality than facts, as science itself has been showing us for some time now.
    As a scientist I support Methodological Naturalism, which does not address theological nor philosophical questions, and cannot be associated with atheism nor any form of materialism by definition and and deals only with the science of our physical existence. I do not 'pledge allegiance to science' either, and that is a foolish accusation. The reasons you stated are an emotional response and do not represent a coherent rational response concerning the nature of science as science.

    Technical oriented trades like HVAC are a long way from the fundamental sciences like biology, geology, chemistry, physiology, and the science of evolution which are my specialties.


    Understood. But I feel Campbell, though he doesn't address the science of brain states and their relationship to mental content directly, nevertheless as a physicist has things to contribute about peripheral downstream issues associated with matters of consciousness that play into this discussion.
    Still reading Tom Campbell, but based on his education and work history he is a computer engineer specializing in large complex systems analyst for NASA. He describes the 'Source' some call God(s) as an evolving universal consciousness something a computer based hologram. Our consciousness is a part of this universal consciousness,


    True, as noted above he doesn't deal with the scientific specifics of consciousness, but he does have quite a bit to say about consciousness qua consciousness from his own scientific perspective which bears close relationships to the same issues dualists have with the idea of a soul separate from the material body. That's one reason I find his stuff interesting. As noted above, he approaches the issue from more of a deist-idealist position, but his conclusions include (or at least leave open the possibilities for) most of the ingredients for the presence of what one would call "the soul" as the consciousness each person possesses. But I don't want to be accused of taking your thread off course, so will back out.
    As above, his view of consciousness and the mind is more a computer based model. Yes, he describes the 'Source' in terms of a 'deist-idealist' computer based model. I do not believe his view describes a separate soul, but our consciousness is a part of the universal consciousness.

    You are not at present going off topic, and a comparison of theories and models that describe the relationship between the brain, and the conscious, and the mind are on topic. Though scientific research on the topic is emphacised.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #28
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    109
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    As a scientist I support Methodological Naturalism, which does not address theological nor philosophical questions, and cannot be associated with atheism nor any form of materialism by definition and and deals only with the science of our physical existence. I do not 'pledge allegiance to science' either, and that is a foolish accusation. The reasons you stated are an emotional response and do not represent a coherent rational response concerning the nature of science as science.
    Okay, but I think you're deceiving yourself in your assumption that methodological naturalism "deals only with the science of our physical existence." We are not beings who can switch off our intuitive and prescriptive side to set our brains to rationalize in purely mechanistic ways re scientific pursuits. The pledging allegiance to science is, despite your objection, not a foolish accusation at all. I watched a TED talk today by David Eagleman a neuroscientist at Stanford who coined the phrase Possibilism, the position that replaces "agnostic" with what he feels is a more positive approach to the God question. He feels that we should consider the question of whether God exists from the standpoint of our current knowledge, hence, because we can't with current scientific knowledge rule God out, God must be at least a possibility.

    But about 2/3 through the talk, he explained that Possibilism might be thought of as anything goes at first, but we must "import the tools of science...to structure the possibility space."

    The morphing of science--whether by methodological naturalism, particle physics, neuroscience or any other discipline--into the religion of materialism is revealed in the commitment by adherents to its supposed ability to provide answers to the multitude of questions of life. It's accepted and promoted the same way Eagleman and most others among the intelligentsia do. This commits the circularity of stating that evidence for God must be judged by scientific methodology--a topic about which materialists know full well science has nothing to say. "Come on, let's talk about God" says the theological materialist. "The rule for intelligent discussion is simple: only things found in time and space are real and worth discussing. Now then, trot out the evidence for your God." This is a religious commitment to matter as able to answer practically anything. Your alleged commitment to the idea that methodological naturalism does not address theological questions suggests you would agree with my assessment that Materialism a worldview and religion that's circular, right?

  11. Amen seer amen'd this post.
  12. #29
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,091
    Amen (Given)
    1507
    Amen (Received)
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    Okay, but I think you're deceiving yourself in your assumption that methodological naturalism "deals only with the science of our physical existence." We are not beings who can switch off our intuitive and prescriptive side to set our brains to rationalize in purely mechanistic ways re scientific pursuits. The pledging allegiance to science is, despite your objection, not a foolish accusation at all. I watched a TED talk today by David Eagleman a neuroscientist at Stanford who coined the phrase Possibilism, the position that replaces "agnostic" with what he feels is a more positive approach to the God question. He feels that we should consider the question of whether God exists from the standpoint of our current knowledge, hence, because we can't with current scientific knowledge rule God out, God must be at least a possibility.
    You attitude toward science is unreasonable, and precludes any dialogue on this issue. It reflects an ancient archaic anti-science worldview that is out of touch with the reality.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  13. #30
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    109
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You attitude toward science is unreasonable, and precludes any dialogue on this issue. It reflects an ancient archaic anti-science worldview that is out of touch with the reality.
    So be it. I rest my case; your reply is consistent with Eagleman's and scores of others who fall under the umbrella of theological Materialism as a religious [value] construct, all of which are predicted responses within the hypothesis of value mechanics.

    Good luck in your search for truth Shunyadragon, God bless.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •