|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2004 : 17:28:04 [Permalink]
|
As a side note.... anyone read American Scientist?
www.americanscientist.org
There is an article in the July-August issue that is pretty interesting. I mention it only because it's slightly related to this current conversation.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/34008
quote:
Motor activity in the brain precedes our awareness of the intention to move,
Can't read the whole thing online unless your an online subscriber... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2004 : 21:54:46 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Maybe partially conflate, yes. For good reason though. When you start with and observable phenomenon (consciousness) and some time passes/environment changes/ ect... we should be able to determine what happens to that phenomenon, what changes it undergoes, ect... I can't think of any observable phenomenon that we can look at now, and then at a later time say, with real certainty, that the phenomenon "just dissapeared". Nobody would accept that as an explanation for any other observable phenomenon.
They did for aspirin, until the mechanism of action was discovered (some 60 years or so after Bayer cranked up production). And people today do reject that state of affairs for consciousness, and are actively involved in attempting to recitfy the situation. Just because the search is on for the nitty-gritty details doesn't mean my overall conclusion is necessarily invalid, just like not knowing the mechanism behind aspirin didn't mean it didn't work.quote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeming to have much success in conveying what I'm trying to say here.
No, I understand you now. And I've understood much of what you've said previous to this. I disagree with it, but I understand it.quote:
I think it's not apprpriate to consider only PMC when discussing the subject. It's an inapropriate division of the subject of human consciousness. But yes, the arguments stated are sound if only considering PMC. Any argument made on the topic needs to take consciousness before death into account and explain what happens to it upon death of the body.
I had a big, long thing typed out, but then I realized the major disconnect between our views.
You, through your "we don't know if consciousness causes brain activity" assertion, are assuming that might actually be the case. I, on the other hand, am aware that the causal "direction" between neural firing and consciousness must be bi-directional.
For direction #1, take my "I want a beer" example. A desire (nothing more than consciousness) which causes a whole slew of neural activity which propels the body up the stairs, into the kitchen, and over to the fridge.
For direction #2, use the example of a bee sting. Sensory neurons fire back into the brain, which eventually cause a feeling of "pain" to intrude rudely upon our consciousness.
We also have plenty of evidence that certain types of brain damage can effect one or the other causal mode. Damage to a certain areas of the brain can leave a person unable to speak or to walk (direction #1). Damage to other areas can leave a person unable to smell or to feel pain (direction #2).
This all leads me to believe that consciousness is brain activity, and that there really is no "causal direction" in the sense of brain activity "causing" a separate effect called consciousness, or of consciousness causing a separate effect we see as brain activity. Consciousness is precisely the same thing as brain activity.
And if true, then if brain activity ceases, so to will consciousness, since they are the same thing. This is really no different from what happens when a light switch is turned off.
In fact, we have examples of brains with no activity, and no consciousness. We call them "the current U.S. Federal Executive Branch."
Seriously, brains in a jar don't exhibit consciousness. Brains which are seriously misfiring don't exhibit it, either. Everything I know about brains and consciousness points towards the conclusion that "certain patterns of brain activity" and "consciousness" are so intimately tied together that they are the same thing. And based upon that conclusion I also conclude that brains without the ability to form those patterns - or brains without activity at all - will be unable to maintain consciousness, just like a computer with damaged transistors (or cut wires, or no power) will fail to function.
You appear to assume that it's possible that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. I do not.
That is the difference between us that is keeping this thread alive.
(Well, the above didn't wind up being much shorter than the original, but it is more coherent and direct.)
You also wrote:quote:
[I wrote:]quote:
Just because the arguments I use against two different subjects are identical doesn't mean I am confusing or equating the two subjects. There are an infinite number of non-existant things for which the same argument is appropriate.
Ok, then you do understand that just because you can use similair arguments for topic A and topic B, that the two topics have nothing to do with one another.
When did I ever claim that god and P.M.C. had anything to do with one another, other than being analogous in terms of the evidence and the logic with which one can dismiss either? I never have.quote:
Which makes me wonder why the topic of god has been brought into a conversation about human consciousness ,and it's post mortem fate, with such frequency.
It's only been brought into the conversation once, when, as Ricky told you, he saw the parallels between the two subjects and thought your conclusions regarding them would be identical. As did I.
Like yourself, I look at the lack of evidence for god (even in light of the assumption that a true god would be unpredictable), and the uselessness of the hypothesis (even in light of the assumption that a true god would be unpredictable), and I conclude that no gods appear to exist. But if one were to show up and display to the world some things which could only be explained as the effects of an omnipotent being, I would certainly change my conclusion.
Unlike yourself, I look at the lack of evidence for P.M.C. (even in light of the existence of living consciousness), and the uselessness of the hypothesis (even in light of the existence of L.C.), and I conclude that P.M.C. does not appear to exist. But, if one were to find some evidence which could only be satisfactorily explained as the effects of P.M.C., I would certainly change my conclusion.
It is the difference you exhibit in these two arguments which has kept "god" in this thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2004 : 02:29:46 [Permalink]
|
I think consciousness is about processing information. Information has to be stored somewhere during processing, brain matter does that. With a dead brain there will be no means to retrieve data for processing.
Information gathering and storing depends of the second law of thermodynamics. Sensory input comes from eyes or ears, are biologically amplified and converted to information that the consciousness can process.
Without sensors, consciousness can not receive new data to process.
Without stored data or new data there is nothing to process, hence there is no processing being done, hence no consciousness. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 18:35:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dave W: You appear to assume that it's possible that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. I do not.
No. Nowhere have I said that, and nowhere did I imply that. I've said repeatedly that there is insufficient evidence to reach that (or any other) conclusion.
Something happens to human consciousness upon death. Obviously it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living. Beyond that (unless your a believer in John Edwards) you can't make any conclusion. Whether or not brain activity is consciousness, the cause of consciousness, or caused by consciousness has yet to be determined.
quote:
Dude wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe partially conflate, yes. For good reason though. When you start with and observable phenomenon (consciousness) and some time passes/environment changes/ ect... we should be able to determine what happens to that phenomenon, what changes it undergoes, ect... I can't think of any observable phenomenon that we can look at now, and then at a later time say, with real certainty, that the phenomenon "just dissapeared". Nobody would accept that as an explanation for any other observable phenomenon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dave W:
They did for aspirin, until the mechanism of action was discovered (some 60 years or so after Bayer cranked up production).
what? Aspirin disappeared? (besides the figurative "off the shelf" kind of disappearing)
This has nothing to do with the conversation about consciousness.
Comparison studies provide evidence of causation.... In the case of aspirin they just didn't know how it worked, but there was plenty of evidence for cause prior to learning the mechanism of action.... if you don't get that, then there is little more I can say. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 19:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
No. Nowhere have I said that, and nowhere did I imply that. I've said repeatedly that there is insufficient evidence to reach that (or any other) conclusion.
Complete and utter crap. If you didn't think it was possible that consciousness might continue after death, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That you keep that option open, due to a lack of evidence, is what is at issue here.quote:
Something happens to human consciousness upon death. Obviously it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living.
Wonderful. Did you miss my post, pages back, in which I said that for all intents and purposes, consciousness appears to end upon death? How is that any different from "Obviously it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living?" And just how, precisely, do you know "it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living," anyway? Are you just eliminating that hypothesis for lack of evidence? If so, why not eliminate the hypothesis that consciousness continues after death for lack of evidence?
This is a truth claim: "Obviously it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living." Back it up.quote:
Beyond that (unless your a believer in John Edwards) you can't make any conclusion.
Great. The same logic applies to gods. Gods do not exist in any meaningful way for the living. Beyond that (unless you're already faithful), you can't make any conclusion.
Why have you done so? Why do you refuse to do so for P.M.C.?
I know this is going to get me another ration of shit from you regarding "conflating" things, but I'm not. I just see too many parallels between these arguments to be able to dismiss the question of your consistency of logic.
quote:
Whether or not brain activity is consciousness, the cause of consciousness, or caused by consciousness has yet to be determined.
Thanks for dismissing my arguments regarding this question without actually addressing them. It's mighty generous of you.quote:
what? Aspirin disappeared? (besides the figurative "off the shelf" kind of disappearing)
This has nothing to do with the conversation about consciousness.
You appear to once again be being purposefully obtuse. If you honestly don't understand how the medical aspects of this discussion - including aspirin and clinical trials - have something to do with what appears to be a biological process - consciousness - then you're right, there's little more that you can say.quote:
Comparison studies provide evidence of causation.... In the case of aspirin they just didn't know how it worked, but there was plenty of evidence for cause prior to learning the mechanism of action.... if you don't get that, then there is little more I can say.
And what I'm saying is, with all the available evidence, and given our limitations on knowledge, that it sure as hell looks like consciousness ends upon death, even if we don't know how consciousness is created in detail. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 23:34:08 [Permalink]
|
I wanna get in this only because Dude is being bullied and Dave W is just funny with his good attacks. I wanna try to divert attention away from Dude, because feeling alone isn't fun. First of all the topic of conciousness have been argued for centuries and is still argued with modern science. So don't plan on thinking that somehow with your logic you've proven it doesn't exists after death. Same way the other way around. If you did, I'd see your name on C-fucking-NN. But I don't. So I don't see any reason to why you all are attacking each other wasting your time when you can do better things, like discussing. This calls for the magical phrase, "I believe..." followed up with a "So what do you BELIEVE..." And end this looping debate. It's great that all of you have thoughtful and smart inputs. I enjoy learning from you people, being young and all.
So here is my 2 cents. I BELIEVE that this is a matter of science and not some logic applied in the form of argument. From what I learned from school is that science has a strict procedure. This involves making a hypothesis, finding variables, creating a procedure, observe and record, analyze, conclude, repeat the steps. So, on that basis we CANNOT conclude anything. We cannot say that conciousness exists in post-mortem nor can we say it doesn't. Scientists have been dealing with this issue with various experiments; both with the hypothesis of existing and not existing. But in the end both have been inconclusive thus far. If there was a conclusion, someone would have a Nobel prize.
The difficulty in overcoming this problem scientifically though is that our knowledge and grasp in the concept of what exactly the conciousness is not much. Science is still in its prematurity. I'm sure you can find a definition of conciousness, but the world is still debating on its definition. We are still in the state of undeveloped theories. As far as I know, there are brain activities post-mortem for a short time. We still don't know how this can relate to a conciousness existing post-mortem. That short brain activity is the only thing we've got. So far, patients who go through this short time and are revived ahve reported they see a white tunnel. Or a black tunnel. People say they see a garden. Though as a person of science I can say its a possibility that this is due to the brain doing some sort of flashback or accessing a specific part of the brain, I cannot conclude why those specific thoughts.
Now what happens when that brain activity goes totally dead? Is it that the person's conscience reached the gates of Heaven, leaving the brain thus stopping all neural activity? I can't conclude. This is why the world still debates over it. We have no conclusion, so therefore Dude is right...it's scientifically INCONCLUSIVE. If it wasn't...where can I pick up my Nobel Prize? lol.
As for the arguments of Big Foot, Santa Claus, Aliens, etc. Yes, we do say that Big Foot doesn't exist. But here is why, scientists did try to search for him, but the search started to die off after the hoax video a long time ago. It was a discouragement to the scientific community I think. But, because we couldn't find him scientists say it's inconclusive...but our society chose to say it doesn't exist. This was eventually accepted. Though there are still, skeptics..haha..get it? Anyways, Santa and Big Foot can also go in the same category when it comes to technology. We have satellites, thermal sensors, etc. As our search capabilities increases, we found less and less chances of such beliefs to be true. Eventually, it was accepted by society and then there was no need for a scientific community to further search (people really stopped caring) but under science it will always be inconclusive. As for Aliens, whether they exist or not is inconclusive. You cannot say "Because we cannot find them, they must not exist." Why? What the fuck is SETI there for? Until we look in every nook and cranny and vacuum every corner of space I'm not satisfied. I am appaulled that people accept that there is no conscience in post-mortem yet claiming that they logistically concluded it. Thats not possible in the world of science. Saying that this is inclonclusive is the way of science. Fuck this form of 'critical thinking' thats been happening. This is a scientific matter, it cannot be dealt in an argumentative fashion. If this was a different topic, Critical Thinking in arguemnts do come in play.
Also, I'd like to point out that I am a Muslim. It's sort of ironic that our religion calls for science and education to be more important that prayer itself, because wisdom is what prevents ignorance. The Islamic history were full of pre-science explorers. From Astronomers, to early Chemists, to Mathematics. By the time Ottomans came around, nation of Islam became the Grandfather of Science (the Father being Europe). Though I've seen you guys really despising religion and creationists, blah blah (I myself am a creationist/evolutionist...hard to explain but I peice the concepts of Science and Religion together) I think properly respecting them is necessary. If a few billion people are still religious and believe in some post-mortem thing happening, it doesn't mean they are scared of death or believe in everything they hear, spirituality has driven our culture and philosophy. If anything, it envokes us to want to learn more about our beliefs through education. Sometimes I feel that the people in this forum talk as if they are cold, having no sense of open-mindedness to the wonders of different people's culture and belief. I mean, even Einstein or Feynman had a religion. Yet they master in objectivity. I question people's ignorance in not seeing religion as a possibility in scientific matters because you cannot dismiss any possibilities in science unless proven wrong. That is the beauty of science. What is a better quality in research? Pinpointing and concluding something is right or eliminating everything until you are left with the answer? I am not asking you to believe anything, but instead open to possibilities.
I know I did some bashing, but as I was writing this I got more pissed off because of this stupid argument. Not only that, sometimes people in this forums remind me of my fellow friends arguing (we are teenagers). Anyways, I know I'm about to get MAJORLY bashed by this forum now but at least Dude can sleep at night. If you think I'm just inexperienced, well I am...I have a lifetime to learn. But, critisize all you want but at least I voiced my opinion and hopefully someone out there listens. |
|
|
|
Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2004 : 23:41:49 [Permalink]
|
| And in addition, sorry, is how many believe in Atomic Theory? I bet all of you do. Notice I said THEORY and not THEOREM...well that's what it is...a theory. But it has so much evidence that we CHOOSE to accept it. And that is what we build off of. The newest edition of my high school textbook calls the fundemental ideas of cells as Cell THEORY. We can see cells, but it's still called a theory. But we accept it. But it can always be questioned by skeptics if the proper proof is given. In this related topic, there is no proof on either side. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 00:42:49 [Permalink]
|
Well, Skyhawk, there's a big difference between the "bashing" sort of criticism and the "constructive" sort of criticism. I hope you'll take what follows as the latter.
First off, you are using - as do many people - the common definition of the word 'theory' instead of the scientific definition when it comes to your second post to this thread. Scientifically, a "theory" is an explanation which has been demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a "guess," as the common definition suggests. Atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory, the theory of evolution, plate tectonics theory, the theory of relativity: they're all "accepted" because to reject them would mean rejecting these huge, incredible mounds of evidence which all point towards them being correct.
Secondly, and in answer to your main point: logic, properly applied, allows us to make inferences about the world around us. Without it, science would not progress, as we would be stymied by possibilities heaped upon possibilities. We can take a suggested hypothesis, such as P.M.C., examine the facts we know about it (none), examine the evidence which supports it (none), examine the theories which require it as a premise (none), and examine the phenomena we see which need it to be explained (none), and make a tentative conclusion that, as far as science is concerned, it simply does not exist. Future evidence may show otherwise (and importantly: I want that to be true), but right now, there is no need to even entertain the idea that it might exist.
And yes, I'm saying there's no need to research the subject. Because as soon as something is discovered which requires P.M.C. to exist to explain it, the research will begin all over the world. Furiously. With numerous researchers vying to win a Nobel. You seem to understand this motivation.
People who see tunnels and/or gardens are not necessarily viewing anything paranormal. Such experiences have been triggered with drugs, oxygen depravation, and other methods. Such images may be nothing more than a somewhat-common side-effect of a brain shutting down. To my knowledge, nobody has ever done the experiments - very strictly controlled - which could demostrate that the patient "came back" with knowledge that they could not otherwise have.
Scientifically, we have exactly zero evidence - either for or against - the existence of "chilli-flavored williwumpums" (CFWs). Should I suspend judgement on whether CFWs exist or not? Since we're talking about scientific evidence, the untested "fact" that I just invented the very concept of CFWs has no bearing on the question of their existence. Logically, we can infer their absence, however, by the fact that there is no evidence for them, there is no logical need for them, and no established theories are based upon them. We do know that other chilli-flavored stuff exists, but so what? They aren't williwumpums.
(My apologies to any CFWs out there reading this.)
Finally, if I'm bullying Dude, I apologize. I just can't avoid seeing inconsistencies in his applications of logic - which he demands people use when discussing the subject of P.M.C. Just like I see inconsistencies in your logic. There is zero scientific evidence either for or against God, yet you claim to be a believer. Should you not suspend your judgement until you have evidence one way or the other?
In short: that's what the majority of this thread has been about: a person maintains that the "correct" attitude towards some alleged phenomenon is one of undecidedness, yet that person has made a conclusion with regard to another phenomenon which has precisely the same amount of evidence supporting (and negating) it, and all arguments supporting indecision have been lacking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 17:26:38 [Permalink]
|
I don't feel bullied.... And I hope I'm not bullying anyone else.... This is a great thread, it's forced some hard thinking and defense. The very reason such places as this site exist.... and the very reason people seek them out.
And I am having trouble getting my point accross.... it's clear from the replies by Dave W and Ricky. I assume it's fault on my end of the communication.
I can't seem to convey the reason why human consciousness and whatever happens to it upon death cannot be compared to wholly unevidenced concepts like god and bigfoot. This is a major sticking point in this conversation, and it's beginning to frustrate me somewhat.
quote:
Posted by Dave W: Complete and utter crap. If you didn't think it was possible that consciousness might continue after death, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That you keep that option open, due to a lack of evidence, is what is at issue here.
and
quote:
Posted by Dave W: Wonderful. Did you miss my post, pages back, in which I said that for all intents and purposes, consciousness appears to end upon death? How is that any different from "Obviously it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living?" And just how, precisely, do you know "it doesn't continue to exist in any meaningfull way to the rest of the living," anyway? Are you just eliminating that hypothesis for lack of evidence? If so, why not eliminate the hypothesis that consciousness continues after death for lack of evidence?
Let me try it this way..... it is meaningless to discuss PMC alone. There is no evidence to suggest in any way that human consciousness survives the death of the body, and I have never stated that I thought this was even possible.
To me, the statements:
"consciousness survives death intact"
and
"consciousness is extinguished with the death of the body"
are equally invalid. Neither one is supported by any evidence.
quote:
Posted by Dave W: I know this is going to get me another ration of shit from you regarding "conflating" things, but I'm not. I just see too many parallels between these arguments [god and PMC] to be able to dismiss the question of your consistency of logic.
And, once again, I can't seem to convey the distinction I am making here. I think it's an important distinction, and I obviously don't have the language skills to explain it.
I'll try it from another angle...
What happens to human consciousness when the body dies?
That is an unanswered question. It's a question that needs a solidly evidenced answer.
quote:
Posted by Ricky: Dude, I would like to see what you have to say on the evidence that I and Dave W. provided that conciousness is from the brain.
What evidence?
(feeling crappy today, summer cold, so will respond to a couple more points later....) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 18:44:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I am having trouble getting my point accross.... it's clear from the replies by Dave W and Ricky. I assume it's fault on my end of the communication.
This sounds like an assumption that you are right, you just can't display what you think. If it is so, it is an assumption that no one here should make. Its why we are having this discussion in the first place. Remember, there are two things, how you display what you think and what you actually think. Each one can be flawed, or maybe even both at once.
quote:
Let me try it this way..... it is meaningless to discuss PMC alone. There is no evidence to suggest in any way that human consciousness survives the death of the body, and I have never stated that I thought this was even possible.
So make the damn statement already ;) If you don't think its possible, then we have been arguing over nothing. So I think obviously you think that it is possible. (Hell, I even think that it is possible, just like the idea of god).
quote:
To me, the statements:
"consciousness survives death intact"
and
"consciousness is extinguished with the death of the body"
are equally invalid. Neither one is supported by any evidence.
And to us, the statement that you can't decide which hypothesis to support based on a position of no evidence is invalid (especially since you do so with god. And don't deny that, you do say there is no god in a no evidence situation).
quote:
What happens to human consciousness when the body dies?
That is an unanswered question. It's a question that needs a solidly evidenced answer.
As Dave W. said before, absence of evidence can lead to evidence of absence. Is it strong evidence? No. But its the only thing we have to go off of.
quote:
What evidence?
Me:
1.) If the brain is the source of consciousness, then a blow on the head would disrupt it.
2.) If the brain is the source of consciousness, then those born with defects in their brain would have an altered consciousness.
3.) If the brain is the source of consciousness, then drugs which effect the brain would also effect the state of consciousness.
4.) If the brain is the source of consciousness, then some activity should take place everytime we think.
5.) If the brain is the source of consciousness, then death would result in a loss of consciousness.
Dave W:
You, through your "we don't know if consciousness causes brain activity" assertion, are assuming that might actually be the case. I, on the other hand, am aware that the causal "direction" between neural firing and consciousness must be bi-directional.
For direction #1, take my "I want a beer" example. A desire (nothing more than consciousness) which causes a whole slew of neural activity which propels the body up the stairs, into the kitchen, and over to the fridge.
For direction #2, use the example of a bee sting. Sensory neurons fire back into the brain, which eventually cause a feeling of "pain" to intrude rudely upon our consciousness.
We also have plenty of evidence that certain types of brain damage can effect one or the other causal mode. Damage to a certain areas of the brain can leave a person unable to speak or to walk (direction #1). Damage to other areas can leave a person unable to smell or to feel pain (direction #2).
This all leads me to believe that consciousness is brain activity, and that there really is no "causal direction" in the sense of brain activity "causing" a separate effect called consciousness, or of consciousness causing a separate effect we see as brain activity. Consciousness is precisely the same thing as brain activity.
And if true, then if brain activity ceases, so to will consciousness, since they are the same thing. This is really no different from what happens when a light switch is turned off. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 20:49:50 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
To me, the statements:
"consciousness survives death intact"
and
"consciousness is extinguished with the death of the body"
are equally invalid. Neither one is supported by any evidence.
I agree: that is the only conclusion one could reach if one's conclusions are based solely upon the evidence. But your conclusion regarding god (for example) is not based solely upon evidence, it also uses logic and inference to predict that no god will ever be in evidence, because no gods exist.
Given the evidence we have to date for the function of the brain in relation to consciousness, and the complete lack of evidence we have for its fate after death, coupled with a complete lack of the necessity of the hypothesis that consciousness survives death, I infer that consciousness ends with the termination of brain function. Precisely like you've inferred the non-existence of god.
It doesn't matter one little bit that we know consciousness exists in the living. To compare consciousness with a functioning brain to consciousness without a functioning brain is to compare apples and oranges. After all, since we have no evidence of P.M.C., we cannot assume that it would be anything like what we experience as consciousness now. To think that we would just keep on being "conscious" as we know it is as equally invalid - from an evidenciary viewpoint - as the statements "consciousness survives death intact" and "consciousness is extinguished with the death of the body." We have no reason to think so.
And so, given two contradictory truth statements like the above, without a bit of evidence for either, I look to the hypotheses which would be required to support either one, and follow up with Occam's Razor to trim away the fat. "Consciousness survives death" requires several assumptions for which we have no evidence, including (but not limited to) "consciousness can exist outside a functioning brain," and/or "there is a form of matter or energy we have not yet detected through which consciousness works, and it can interect with neurons made of normal matter." While on the other hand, "consciousness ends when the brain ceases to function" requires only one assumption: that the brain and consciousness are intimately tied together - and we have some evidence for that.
Your evidence-only argument, Dude, is absolutely correct, if you only want to pay attention to the evidence. However, to limit yourself to the evidence with regards to P.M.C., when you expand your views to include logical inference with respect to god(s), is an inconsistent application of methodology. I want to know why you do so, when your only apparent argument also lacks an evidenciary basis (that P.M.C. is somehow comparable to living consciousness). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2004 : 22:12:33 [Permalink]
|
If you have zero evidence that something exists then logically you should suspend belief until some evidence arrives.
P.M.C = Zero Evidence
Dave's CFW's = Zero Evidence
God(s) = Zero Evidence |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2004 : 04:02:48 [Permalink]
|
hehe.... seriously, any statements made about the presence OR abscence of an afterlife are questionable at best. The only thing we can say, and still be inside the realm of reason and rationality, is "there is no evidence to support <Jesus and his resurrection from the dead>".
Those who seriously make claims to the presence or abscence of life after death both assume/claim knowledge that is not verifiable. Such claims are called gratuitous assertions. As such, they can be gratuitously ignored or dismissed.
Remember, lack of evidence proves nothing except that you lack evidence. This is me DA I guess you got a new way of posting? The NT gives us pleanty of skeptical responses to Jesus resurrection |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
