The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 19, 2017 12:04:26 GMT
To which I would ask them why the brain seems to be so much more than a receiver, for example it has a memory system for remembering things in numerous categories. Localized brain injuries can lead to loss of memories in specific categories, leaving others intact. Damage to the hippocampus can disable forming new memories but retain the ability to recall old memories. Does a receiver need a separate organ ("antenna") for each category? And how can one explain the hippocampus in a brain-as-receiver model? Again, Occam's Razor makes that seem very unlikely. They can just say that damaging the receiver in different ways has different effects. My approach to their view is rather to just question what reasons there are to believe that mind is something separate from brain so that brains are just receivers. The possibility of it, the desire to believe it, etc., are not sufficient. An analogy I've seen substance dualists make is that the brain is a violin and the mind a violinist. Both need to be top notch to make sweet music. Slight defects in either can make the music discordant. So if say the violin's C-string is too tight, it will make the tune sound wrong no matter how good the violinist is. And if the hippocampus is damaged it can lead to the mind not being able to access memories.
But yes you are right that just because we can conceive of mind and body as separate, doesn't mean they are. That was Descartes' mistake.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 19, 2017 15:24:13 GMT
They can just say that damaging the receiver in different ways has different effects. My approach to their view is rather to just question what reasons there are to believe that mind is something separate from brain so that brains are just receivers. The possibility of it, the desire to believe it, etc., are not sufficient. An analogy I've seen substance dualists make is that the brain is a violin and the mind a violinist. Both need to be top notch to make sweet music. Slight defects in either can make the music discordant. So if say the violin's C-string is too tight, it will make the tune sound wrong no matter how good the violinist is. And if the hippocampus is damaged it can lead to the mind not being able to access memories.
But yes you are right that just because we can conceive of mind and body as separate, doesn't mean they are. That was Descartes' mistake.
But a damaged hippocampus doesn't lead to the mind not being able to access memories, it only leads to inability to form new memories. One can quibble about how much sense it makes to stretch an analogy between parts of a violin and parts of the brain, but the fact remains that all scientific evidence points to the brain possessing the structures for processing memory, not merely just ones to function as an output device for them. I'm sure a dualist is comfortable with the idea of blind people being able to see just fine once they physically die and their mind becomes separate and independent (and capable of near death experiences like floating above one's dead body and looking down on the scene), but to me that (and dualist explanations of damaged hippocampuses) runs afoul of Occam's Razor. Descartes may have made a mistake but that hasn't been proven, anymore than anyone has proven that there is no god. Occam's Razor is the fallback when we lack experimental evidence.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 19, 2017 15:32:46 GMT
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 19, 2017 15:54:37 GMT
Descartes may have made a mistake but that hasn't been proven, anymore than anyone has proven that there is no god. Occam's Razor is the fallback when we lack experimental evidence. Descartes' mistake was in his reasoning rather than his conclusion (which may be right - as you say, no-one knows). Descartes argued that because he can clearly and distinctly conceive of mind and matter separately then it must be possible for them to exist separately. It's an argument from ignorance though. Lois Lane can conceive of Superman and Clark Kent separately but only because she does not have the full facts on either one. If she had the full facts she would no longer be able to conceive of them distinctly. Descartes didn't know whether he had all the facts about mind and matter therefore he could not rely on his conception as an accurate grasp of reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 23:01:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 23:29:30 GMT
Interesting, I will read it later.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 1:42:16 GMT
But the identity is the brain, its dynamic structure and processes/functioning. The guy in that story has a brain, and it's not even believed to be the case now that a significant percentage of it is missing. So that in no way supports belief in consciousness occurring elsewhere and simply being received by the brain.
|
|
|
Post by NishmatHaChalil on Apr 20, 2017 15:58:16 GMT
To be honest I probably would have liked it a lot more had I not read the story first. I had a similar reaction to Blade Runner, I felt it took the complete opposite stance to Dick's novel. But I would concede Blade Runner is good in its own right. That's the same problem I have with Rashomon. Kurosawa twists the source material’s study of the ability to evaluate truth from witness accounts into a melodramatic appeal towards lying. In the original, there was no implication that the characters were consciously lying in order to paint a more consistent image of themselves. In fact, many authors argue that the story suggests they were all speaking the truth as perceived by them. In this sense, the short story and the movie are almost the opposite of each other. While I find the original premise quite interesting, I tend to dislike Kurosawa’s. Nonetheless, I do admire the movie’s masterful employment of rhythm, mise-en-scène and camera movement. It’s not one of my favorites from him, but I believe its technical reputation is more than deserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 17:02:46 GMT
If matter did not come first and "consciousness awareness has always been at the forefront", then, are you saying I was consciously aware of my being before I was born? Or do you mean that some other thing or being was consciously aware of me before I was born? You are a conscious aware being, with or without your body. It is the attachment to the physical matter, and the ego monkey mind that can hold us back from not remembering. That is why we are here and we may have many many lifetimes before we transcend. I go by the notion of oneness, connectedness, wholeness and completeness. That then dispels the dualistic notion of God or a supreme being that brings forth the notion of separateness from God and creates more conflict in our external lives. This may be challenging or controversial for many to hear, but what if you are God, the master of your own universe? All we know for sure is that we are consciously aware of our being in this life. Hmm currently master or god of my own universe! I'm not sure that would be an ideal state for me or my connected universe:) How can an imperfect being, living in an imperfect world , connected to other imperfect beings , be perfect as a god? I believe a person can become perfect ,but not on his own. You believe differently I think? No God needed? Or maybe I have misunderstood what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 12:04:20 GMT
You are a conscious aware being, with or without your body. It is the attachment to the physical matter, and the ego monkey mind that can hold us back from not remembering. That is why we are here and we may have many many lifetimes before we transcend. I go by the notion of oneness, connectedness, wholeness and completeness. That then dispels the dualistic notion of God or a supreme being that brings forth the notion of separateness from God and creates more conflict in our external lives. This may be challenging or controversial for many to hear, but what if you are God, the master of your own universe? All we know for sure is that we are consciously aware of our being in this life. Hmm currently master or god of my own universe! I'm not sure that would be an ideal state for me or my connected universe:) How can an imperfect being, living in an imperfect world , connected to other imperfect beings , be perfect as a god? I believe a person can become perfect ,but not on his own. You believe differently I think? No God needed? Or maybe I have misunderstood what you are saying. An easy way for anything to be perfect: adjust your ideals for that thing to exactly how that thing happens to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 19:55:35 GMT
All you need to be aware of is the consciousness of your life and being. That is eternal. [/p]
Instead of looking at yourself as imperfect, how about seeing yourself as perfectly imperfect. That way you may not have to perceive anything wrong within yourself, or anyone else for that matter then.
Not so much that no God is needed, just that God is not a separate entity to you. If you are the master of your own universe, then you can take on the responsibility for all the consequences in your life, that are sprouted out of the seeds of your own actions. This does take it into the more philosophical karma realm and past lives as well, but at the end of day, it is quite apparent to see that everything operates on action and consequence. To see God as separate, is only taking the more conflicting and dualist route. God the supreme being is not going to do it for you, when you are your own God so to speak. God the creator, the preserver and the destructor. It is all one and the same. The divinity only need be acknowledged as being one and whole and complete. That is the connectedness. Even the famous literary novelist E.M. Forster's mantra was "only connect".
[/quote][ Is it wise to shut down conscious awareness of imperfection within oneself, the world? Why would a soul choose to do that, create a delusional self? God isn't separate; He/ She is present. God is Perfection. I may be perfectly me but 'me' is not perfect so I cannot be God because only God is perfect. So where is God? I believe he is working with his creation to bring it to a state of oneness and perfection with Him/ Her. His light of love , hope , wisdom on our conscious awareness prompt us to do better and be less of that which we recognise as imperfect. He loves us with a perfect love even in our imperfection, and only in that sense can we lay claim to any notion of perfection within ourselves because only God is perfect and if He loves us His love is eternally with us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 20:01:13 GMT
All we know for sure is that we are consciously aware of our being in this life. Hmm currently master or god of my own universe! I'm not sure that would be an ideal state for me or my connected universe:) How can an imperfect being, living in an imperfect world , connected to other imperfect beings , be perfect as a god? I believe a person can become perfect ,but not on his own. You believe differently I think? No God needed? Or maybe I have misunderstood what you are saying. An easy way for anything to be perfect: adjust your ideals for that thing to exactly how that thing happens to be. That would be too feckless 😀
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 22, 2017 20:18:08 GMT
An easy way for anything to be perfect: adjust your ideals for that thing to exactly how that thing happens to be. That would be too feckless 😀 It seems like rather a better way to approach things to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 22:17:08 GMT
That would be too feckless 😀 It seems like rather a better way to approach things to me. So, if my mother is an alcoholic I should regard her as perfect with no need or room for improvement? The easy way seems like a broad path to a place that's not really perfect, no?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 23, 2017 16:05:58 GMT
It seems like rather a better way to approach things to me. So, if my mother is an alcoholic I should regard her as perfect with no need or room for improvement? The easy way seems like a broad path to a place that's not really perfect, no? First, there is no such thing as "really perfect." "Perfect" merely refers to whether some thing (or some phenomenon) meets our ideal of that thing (phenomenon). That's just the point. It's not a facetious or glib comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 21:35:09 GMT
First, there is no such thing as "really perfect." "Perfect" merely refers to whether some thing (or some phenomenon) meets our ideal of that thing (phenomenon). That's just the point. It's not a facetious or glib comment. You said that the easy way to have things perfect is to adjust our ideal and in some situations that might be the best approach to adopt but not always. The definition of perfection you give is dependent on 'our ideals' but a person's ideals aren't always perfect so perfect as you define it isn't perfect perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 23, 2017 21:43:14 GMT
How would you define "perfect" other than some thing meeting a person's ideals for that thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 14:47:22 GMT
How would you define "perfect" other than some thing meeting a person's ideals for that thing? There are various dictionary definitions : flawless and so on. I am going to refer to an argument I read on aquinas. com where it was argued that there are two senses of the word 'perfect'. The first one pertains to created things whereby a thing is said to be perfect if there is nothing wanting in its actuality e. g. a wooden chair that fulfills its utilitarian potential. However, the chair does not have complete actuality in the second , universal sense because there is still potential in its nature e.g. the wood can be broken down and used to as firewood. The chair as a chair might be perfect to the designer who made it but the chair as a source of heat might be ideal to its freezing owner. Your reference to different persons ideals fits here. But , this means , by your definition, the chair is both imperfect and perfect at the same time. Perfect to either the designer or the owner and not ideal for the other. There has to be a higher level of perfection beyond subjective ideals. And it is in this universal sense that only God is perfect because only God has complete actuality.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 24, 2017 19:14:19 GMT
There has to be a higher level of perfection beyond subjective ideals. And it is in this universal sense that only God is perfect because only God has complete actuality. Why does there have to be a "higher level of perfection" beyond subjective ideals? God doesn't exist, by the way. (I would have commented on earlier parts, too, but I don't want to send off too many tangents at once. I hate long back & forth "debate"-like posts)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
Order , goodness and dignity of man. Say the designer shared ownership of the chair 50/50 with a man on the verge of freezing to death. And say the decision as to the chairs destruction (with a view to keeping one man alive )rests with you. Whose ideal for the chair to you find in favour of and to what authority can you appeal to make your decision to destroy one mans ideal? (If you cut the chair in half btw it's no longer a chair and nor is there sufficient material to keep the freezing man alive ).
|
|