Consciousness is not a product of the brain - the evidence.

[The Pixie]

Right, so then as I questioned another; observing electro-chemical reactions = observing whatever your consciously aware of, like a pink elephant?

And when pressed, you said the point about the pink elephant was:

The point is, I never "supposed the the image will weigh 5 tonnes"​

 

[Komodo]

The point is, I never "supposed the the image will weigh 5 tonnes"

I think @The Pixie 's point is that a representation of a thing can be unambiguously physical/material -- e.g., the image of the elephant you just posted -- while not having the physical attributes of the thing being represented (the image does not weigh five tons). Therefore, the fact that the representation of the elephant in our minds does not have the physical attributes of the actual elephant (it does not weigh five tons either) is not in itself evidence that the representation in our minds could not be physical/material.

 

[Ontos]

And when pressed, you said the point about the pink elephant was:

The point is, I never "supposed the the image will weigh 5 tonnes"​

Me

What would it mean to be consciously aware of a pink elephant that weighs 10,000lbs? ....What could physically be in your brain with respect to 10,000lbs...Obviously the weight can't literally be in there, so what are we left with - another image?

You

Let us say the image is of a 5 tonne elephant. Are you saying the image must therefore weigh 5 tonnes? Of course not! So why suppose the image of an elephant in your brain will weight 5 tonnes?

You're clearly misrepresenting me.

 

[The Pixie]

You're clearly misrepresenting me.

But I have no idea how and you clearly do not want to clarify.

You have a choice in any debate. You can either strive to make your position clear, and if someone gets it wrong, you correct him. Or you strive to obfuscate, , and if someone gets your position wrong, you whine about it to score cheap points.

What is your purpose here, Ontos?

 

[Ontos]

What is your purpose here, Ontos?

Me

I've only ever have been arguing for the materiality of consciousness/object of consciousness and it's consequences, as a way to play devils advocate to the thread topic.

 

[The Pixie]

Me

Okay, so you have no interest in making your position with respect to the elephant clear. Thanks for the info; I will hence forth understand you are one of those posters.

 

[Ontos]

Okay, so you have no interest in making your position with respect to the elephant clear. Thanks for the info; I will hence forth understand you are one of those posters.

If I had no interest in making my position clear I would have never engaged with you multiple times.

If you're not understanding my position, then simply ask something of the effect of "what do you mean by...." and I would gladly try to re-explain it.

But you (and I did too) made assumptions, and thus here we are.

 

[The Pixie]

If I had no interest in making my position clear I would have never engaged with you multiple times.

If you're not understanding my position, then simply ask something of the effect of "what do you mean by...." and I would gladly try to re-explain it.

But you (and I did too) made assumptions, and thus here we are.

Post #51: I am wondering why you brought up the elephant at all though.

Was that not clear? How about this: I do not understand what your point about the elephant was, please make it clearer?

 

[Ontos]

Post #51: I am wondering why you brought up the elephant at all though.

Was that not clear? How about this: I do not understand what your point about the elephant was, please make it clearer?

I was wondering why you could even be wondering that, as I felt I explained it prior - assumptions, see...

We are talking about consciousness and the object of consciousness and whether it's material or immaterial

If material, if you're consciously aware of a pink elephant - an image - then doesn't it follow that there is a literal image of a pink elephant in your brain? If not, then what could be the material construct of the conscious awareness of an image of a pink elephant in your brain?

Or - If you had an image in mind, then doesn't follow that you literally have an image in mind. If not, then what could be the material construct of an "image in mind", if its not a literal image?

If none of this works for you, then I'm not sure where else we can go...

 

[SteveB]

To the rest of us Ockham and Occam are the same guy.

So, if I decide to call you duckie, will everyone else recognize whom I'm talking about, who've only ever known you as pixie?

I am perfectly aware of your opinion. Despite the claims of the OP it is not supported by the evidence.

Well, not your interpretation of the evidence, no.

It's not about the interpretation. It's about the evidence itself.
Consciousness simply is.
As the articles I presented have noted--- this is the most complicated aspect of human existence that is.

So, if highly skilled, and qualified scientists--- within this field of specialty haven't figured it out yet, why on would I think you're the sole expert on the topic, and no other understanding is valid?

For someone who claims to have a PhD, you sure aren't very smart. One of the first things I learned in my academic, indeed, my biblical studies, is that I don't know very much, and the people with the PhD's are so narrowly focused, they only know their fields of study--- and even then, they don't know their complete field, only that which they did their dissertation on.

So, thank you, but I don't find you as reliable a source as you want everyone to believe you are.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one genuine expert, and he's not living IN our universe.
He Inhabits eternity, and is gracious enough to dwell with the humble and contrite.

And of those that have, they all seem to side with me that consciousness is based in the material world, not the divine. Does that not make you think? I guess not.

Well, if I'm to side with anyone here--- it definitely will NOT be you.
and it's for the reasons I stated above.....

 

[The Pixie]

I was wondering why you could even be wondering that, as I felt I explained it prior - assumptions, see...

We are talking about consciousness and the object of consciousness and whether it's material or immaterial

If material, if you're consciously aware of a pink elephant - an image - then doesn't it follow that there is a literal image of a pink elephant in your brain? If not, then what could be the material construct of the conscious awareness of an image of a pink elephant in your brain?

Or - If you had an image in mind, then doesn't follow that you literally have an image in mind. If not, then what could be the material construct of an "image in mind", if its not a literal image?

If none of this works for you, then I'm not sure where else we can go...

I see a difference between "a literal image of a pink elephant in your brain" and an actual pink elephant in your brain. I get the impression you do not, but I have a feeling you will shriek "You're clearly misrepresenting me" again.

 

[The Pixie]

So, if I decide to call you duckie, will everyone else recognize whom I'm talking about, who've only ever known you as pixie?

What has that to do with Ockham and Occam being the same guy?

Is this you - once again - unable to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong?

Well, not your interpretation of the evidence, no.

It's not about the interpretation. It's about the evidence itself.
Consciousness simply is.
As the articles I presented have noted--- this is the most complicated aspect of human existence that is.

The articles certainly say it is complicated. I did not see anything that said it was "the most complicated aspect of human existence" but, okay, it may well be.

So, if highly skilled, and qualified scientists--- within this field of specialty haven't figured it out yet, why on would I think you're the sole expert on the topic, and no other understanding is valid?

Because I agree with those highly skilled, and qualified scientists that it is a physical thing residing in the brain.

Why should on earth would I think you are right, when you clearly disagree with them?

For someone who claims to have a PhD, you sure aren't very smart.

And yet of the two of us, I am the one who knows positrons do not bounce off electrons.

One of the first things I learned in my academic, indeed, my biblical studies, is that I don't know very much...

Like that Saul and Paul were two names for the same guy; he did not change his name when he became a Christian. But do go on.

One of the first things I learned in my academic, indeed, my biblical studies, is that I don't know very much, and the people with the PhD's are so narrowly focused, they only know their fields of study--- and even then, they don't know their complete field, only that which they did their dissertation on.

And yet I did know that positrons do not bounce off electrons, and I did know that Saul did not change his name to Paul, despite neither physics nor the Bible being my area of expertise. And you did not, despite your claims to have studied both.

Odd that.

So, thank you, but I don't find you as reliable a source as you want everyone to believe you are.

You would be an idiot to blindly take the word of anyone on CARM. Check what people say. That is why i posted links to show that positrons do not bounce off electrons. That is why I posted links to show that Saul and Paul were two names for the same guy; he did not change his name when he became a Christian. So you could check for yourself and confirm that I was right and you were wrong.

 

[Ontos]

I see a difference between "a literal image of a pink elephant in your brain" and an actual pink elephant in your brain. I get the impression you do not, but I have a feeling you will shriek "You're clearly misrepresenting me" again.

You see a difference precisely because there is a difference

image of a pink elephant =/= actual pink elephant

Pointing out that difference though is irrelevant since I'm only talking about an image of a pink elephant.

 

[The Pixie]

You see a difference precisely because there is a difference

image of a pink elephant =/= actual pink elephant

Pointing out that difference though is irrelevant since I'm only talking about an image of a pink elephant.

Okay. So then what is your point about the image? Yes, there is an image of a pink elephant in your brain when you think about a pink elephant. That does not imply we must necessarily be able to examine a brain to find that image, because right now we do not know how to, but there is no why it should not be possible one day.

 

[Whateverman]

You see a difference precisely because there is a difference

image of a pink elephant =/= actual pink elephant

Pointing out that difference though is irrelevant since I'm only talking about an image of a pink elephant.

I confess I'm having a hard time understanding your POV in this discussion. Yes, you played the devil's advocate, but that still leaves me wondering what your actual position is. Without meaning to be pedantic, this thread - which is notable for its relatively civil discussion of a genuinely interesting topic - would be aided by spelling out why you appear to think ideas/opinions/memories can't be materially-based.

Just my 2cp

 

[Ontos]

Okay. So then what is your point about the image? Yes, there is an image of a pink elephant in your brain when you think about a pink elephant.

Good we agree

That does not imply we must necessarily be able to examine a brain to find that image, because right now we do not know how to, but there is no why it should not be possible one day.

Right, we don't know how too and maybe someday we will, but the fact remains - there is literally an image of a pink elephant in your brain when you're consciously aware of it.

Which then leads me to why I brought up weight and height.

It's one thing to have an image of a pink elephant in your brain, but it's quite another thing to have a quantity in your brain.

So if having an image in mind - means you literally have an image in your brain
Then, if you have a quantity in mind - what do you literally have in your brain?

 

[SteveB]

What has that to do with Ockham and Occam being the same guy?

ok.
Apparently you really aren't as smart as you think you are.
Ockham is not even remotely a similar spelling as Occam.
Just like Pixie isn't even remotely a similar spelling as Duckie.
There are however two letters which are identical, in each use.
O, and M.
And for yours, I and E.
So....... if you don't care, then apparently it doesn't matter..... Duckie.

Is this you - once again - unable to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong?

Nope.
I daily swallow my pride, and acknowledge my sin to God.
So, if I'm supposed to swallow me pride for a guy who's too afraid to face YHVH in this life, and continues to tell himself that he can put it off indefinitely, I really have only one response that's remotely reasonable.......

The articles certainly say it is complicated. I did not see anything that said it was "the most complicated aspect of human existence" but, okay, it may well be.

Looking around the world today, most of the issues we face have been resolved.
Understanding of the human condition is not among them, neither is human consciousness.

Because I agree with those highly skilled, and qualified scientists that it is a physical thing residing in the brain.

Which is based on belief.
I thought you needed empirical evidence!

apparently not.
Ok.
You keep up with the faith thing. It's obviously a thing with you, and seems like an equivocational vocation with you.

Why should on earth would I think you are right, when you clearly disagree with them?

Because I know God is right.

And yet of the two of us, I am the one who knows positrons do not bounce off electrons.

Which is humongously hilarious, because this shows you don't read the posts which are posted to you.
Thank you.

Like that Saul and Paul were two names for the same guy; he did not change his name when he became a Christian. But do go on.

I'm not the one who is having a problem with what they don't know, but want others to believe they know.

And yet I did know that positrons do not bounce off electrons, and I did know that Saul did not change his name to Paul, despite neither physics nor the Bible being my area of expertise. And you did not, despite your claims to have studied both.

Odd that.

Yep.... further evidence you don't actually read posts which were directed to you.

You would be an idiot to blindly take the word of anyone on CARM. Check what people say. That is why i posted links to show that positrons do not bounce off electrons. That is why I posted links to show that Saul and Paul were two names for the same guy; he did not change his name when he became a Christian. So you could check for yourself and confirm that I was right and you were wrong.

I was an idiot before, so believing you won't make me any smarter.

 

[The Pixie]

ok.
Apparently you really aren't as smart as you think you are.
Ockham is not even remotely a similar spelling as Occam.
Just like Pixie isn't even remotely a similar spelling as Duckie.
There are however two letters which are identical, in each use.
O, and M.
And for yours, I and E.
So....... if you don't care, then apparently it doesn't matter..... Duckie.

You are determined to prove your own ignorance it seems.

For the benefit of others:

Ockham (Occam), William of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Nope.
I daily swallow my pride, and acknowledge my sin to God.
So, if I'm supposed to swallow me pride for a guy who's too afraid to face YHVH in this life, and continues to tell himself that he can put it off indefinitely, I really have only one response that's remotely reasonable.......

And yet you cannot admit you were wrong about positrons, or about Paul, and now we can add Occam to the list too.

Which is based on belief.
I thought you needed empirical evidence!

apparently not.
Ok.
You keep up with the faith thing. It's obviously a thing with you, and seems like an equivocational vocation with you.

Are you suggesting all those scientific papers you linked to are based on faith, rather than evidence? I suggest you actually look at them before spouting any more nonsense.

The fact is that there is a lot of evidence that consciousness supervenes on the brain, from the effect of damage and drugs on the brain to fMRI experiments. Whereas, despite the claims in the title of this thread, I have to see any evidence that consciousness exists outside the brain.

Which is humongously hilarious, because this shows you don't read the posts which are posted to you.

Are you saying you admitted that I was right and you were wrong in a post you were replying to someone else? I do not believe, you Steve. I have done a search for posts made by yourself with the word "positron" and I see no sign of such a post. I have done a search for posts made by yourself with the word "saul" and I see no sign of such a post. I have actually checked for empirical evidence, rather than just faith. Looks to me like you are making this up, and I will continue to think that until you show me otherwise.

I guess it is easier for a Christian to lie than to swallow his pride and admit an atheist was right.

 

[The Pixie]

Right, we don't know how too and maybe someday we will, but the fact remains - there is literally an image of a pink elephant in your brain when you're consciously aware of it.

Which then leads me to why I brought up weight and height.

It's one thing to have an image of a pink elephant in your brain, but it's quite another thing to have a quantity in your brain.

So if having an image in mind - means you literally have an image in your brain
Then, if you have a quantity in mind - what do you literally have in your brain?

A number.

Are you happy that a Wikipedia article can have an image of an elephant, and can also state the typical weight of an elephant?

 

[SteveB]

You are determined to prove your own ignorance it seems.

For the benefit of others:

Ockham (Occam), William of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Ok Duckie

And yet you cannot admit you were wrong about positrons, or about Paul, and now we can add Occam to the list too.

Actually, I did. You just didn't bother reading the post which was a direct response to you.
It's a pity too..... because if you weren't so desperate to embarrass yourself, and need to play the king of the sandbox, this would be a far more enjoyable conversation.

Are you suggesting all those scientific papers you linked to are based on faith, rather than evidence? I suggest you actually look at them before spouting any more nonsense.

No.... that'd be you jumping to conclusions.
Thank you for the great laugh though..... this is indeed enlightening.

The fact is that there is a lot of evidence that consciousness supervenes on the brain, from the effect of damage and drugs on the brain to fMRI experiments. Whereas, despite the claims in the title of this thread, I have to see any evidence that consciousness exists outside the brain.

You'll get all you need upon your death.

Are you saying you admitted that I was right and you were wrong in a post you were replying to someone else? I do not believe, you Steve. I have done a search for posts made by yourself with the word "positron" and I see no sign of such a post. I have done a search for posts made by yourself with the word "saul" and I see no sign of such a post. I have actually checked for empirical evidence, rather than just faith. Looks to me like you are making this up, and I will continue to think that until you show me otherwise.

And what if I am?
What if I'm just saying that you're really making this a boring discussion, because the only thing I'm seeing is a kid who likes to play king of the sandbox, and it makes genuinely interesting conversation with you a tedious and pointless experience?

I guess it is easier for a Christian to lie than to swallow his pride and admit an atheist was right.

Well, we already know that it's easier for you to jump to such conclusions, just so you can have the appearance of being justified.