Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

4668	1465468

offline

thepyro222

2,150 posts

Peasant

Posted March 29, '11 5:11am UTC

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.\r\n     I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please

4,668 Replies

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted May 14, '11 10:01am UTC

That is the great question, isn't it? Well, I honestly don't know. I know that our consciousnesses are linked to biochemical processes, no doubt; the question is "to what extent?". I think that certain "id"-like emotions, namely pleasure and rage, derive from chemical processes, whereas complex emotions (happiness, sadness, etc.) are spawned from our consciousnesses and can then manifest themselves chemically.

Even complex emotions like happiness and sadness are derived from chemical reactions in the brain. We have even found ways of control these reactions to an extent.

Umm... cause and effect. Basically, if everything in the Universe is governed by laws, including our thought-processes, then everything is already set and predetermined, as the universe will follow only one logical application of rules to determine what happens. This would mean that we have no control over our actions, and thus have no free will.

Philosophy isn't exactly my field, though many accept that because of "chance" actions that are taken for no particular reason this allows determinism and free will to co-exist.
If we are to think of chance as simply having an unforeseeable cause and effect relationship in a predetermined fashion then free will may just be an illusion of such complex interactions.

I think it has. If I have a consciousness, and if free will prevents that consciousness from being a fabrication of the Universe, then the consciousness must come from somewhere other than the Universe. That seems straightforward to me, if 3) and 4) are true.

I would say consciousness is just an emergent property of the brains functions. It can be shown as above how free will can exist in the constructs of the universe or even how it may not exist at all depending on how chance functions. So we really have determined your conclusions as true.

I agree, this part is a little shaky. I guess I think that it makes most sense that something from outside the Universe made us, perhaps for his/her/its enjoyment

I do wish more theists were like you. I think we would have to first determine that such a thing exists and that thing is as you say before we can speculate on motives.

[quote]That is the great question, isn't it? Well, I honestly don't know. I know that our consciousnesses are linked to biochemical processes, no doubt; the question is "to what extent?". I think that certain "id"-like emotions, namely pleasure and rage, derive from chemical processes, whereas complex emotions (happiness, sadness, etc.) are spawned from our consciousnesses and can then manifest themselves chemically.[/quote]\r\n\r\nEven complex emotions like happiness and sadness are derived from chemical reactions in the brain. We have even found ways of control these reactions to an extent.\r\n\r\n[quote]Umm... cause and effect. Basically, if everything in the Universe is governed by laws, including our thought-processes, then everything is already set and predetermined, as the universe will follow only one logical application of rules to determine what happens. This would mean that we have no control over our actions, and thus have no free will.[/quote]\r\n\r\nPhilosophy isn't exactly my field, though many accept that because of "chance" actions that are taken for no particular reason this allows determinism and free will to co-exist. \r\nIf we are to think of chance as simply having an unforeseeable cause and effect relationship in a predetermined fashion then free will may just be an illusion of such complex interactions.\r\n\r\n[quote]I think it has. If I have a consciousness, and if free will prevents that consciousness from being a fabrication of the Universe, then the consciousness must come from somewhere other than the Universe. That seems straightforward to me, if 3) and 4) are true.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI would say consciousness is just an emergent property of the brains functions.  It can be shown as above how free will can exist in the constructs of the universe or even how it may not exist at all depending on how chance functions. So we really have determined your conclusions as true. \r\n\r\n[quote]I agree, this part is a little shaky. I guess I think that it makes most sense that something from outside the Universe made us, perhaps for his/her/its enjoyment :)[/quote]\r\n\r\nI do wish more theists were like you. I think we would have to first determine that such a thing exists and that thing is as you say before we can speculate on motives.

offline

Programpro

562 posts

Nomad

Posted May 14, '11 3:16pm UTC

Hypothetically. If god existed and was benevolent then he would understand our need for logic. If he was not benevolent the he does not deserve to be called god.

Makes sense.

Most animals are conscious. Their brains just aren't developed enough to think stuff more complicated than run, hide, fight, eat most of the time. We just have better brains.

Here is where you're wrong; er, not necessarily right. You cannot know that animals are conscious. No one can, except for the animal itself. I think they probably are-- and if so, then their consciousness is as ethereal as our own. You didn't address my main argument:

"There is no reason why we couldn't be creatures that stored and simulated emotion when interacting, but were not actually conscious. The fact that we are conscious reveals that there is more to us than biochemical processes, in my opinion."

That is just that they are programmed to protect the nest/hive above all else and can't break free of that.

Okay.. so, based off that, I'm gonna assume insects aren't conscious, then. Not much to discuss here.

Its brain has not developed. There is scientific evidence for this but people just say "god says embryos have souls.

Babies have brainwaves after six week. This is a fact. First-trimester abortion can happen up to twelve weeks, which is twice that number.

and anyway, who are you to make a woman carry a baby she doesn't want for 9 months and give birth to it.

Who are YOU to tell a baby that he/she's better off dead than alive? In most cases, this woman isn't some victim; she was irresponsible, and paid no mind to the consequences of her actions. She in-effect made herself carry the baby for 9 months.

Here's an analogy: It's like if I decide to jump off of a building, and break my leg. I can either wait several months for my leg to heal, or choose an experimental new process whereby a doctor kills someone else, and uses them to heal my leg and relieve my burden. Such would be horribly unethical.

You mess up on 5. Consciousness is electrical impulses that require no force to let them exist. And on 10 and 11 people are not generally good they are only good fi they are brought up to be good and no one brought up god. And I take it that you support al qaeda on 11.

Okay, let me ask you this: What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?

Second, I think members of al qaeda are fooling themselves, and they really do have a conscience that says their actions are wrong. They just choose to ignore it (bad choice, btw).

Even complex emotions like happiness and sadness are derived from chemical reactions in the brain. We have even found ways of control these reactions to an extent.

Could you provide some evidence, please? It also depends on what you mean by happiness and sadness; euphoria and depression are probably id feelings, while joy or sorrow would be ethereal.

Philosophy isn't exactly my field, though many accept that because of "chance" actions that are taken for no particular reason this allows determinism and free will to co-exist.

I've heard that, too. Yes, in reality, the only way physical free will could exist is through some sort of truly random process. If you know of any truly random processes that take place in the physical brain, please present them; I don't think there are any, though.

I would say consciousness is just an emergent property of the brains functions. It can be shown as above how free will can exist in the constructs of the universe or even how it may not exist at all depending on how chance functions. So we really have determined your conclusions as true.

Was that last sentence supposed to say "haven't"? Just wondering. And I pose to you the same question I posed to qwerty: What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?

I do wish more theists were like you. I think we would have to first determine that such a thing exists and that thing is as you say before we can speculate on motives.

Well, sometimes plausible motives can make the idea more likely.

[quote]Hypothetically. If god existed and was benevolent then he would understand our need for logic. If he was not benevolent the he does not deserve to be called god.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMakes sense.\r\n\r\n[quote]Most animals are conscious. Their brains just aren't developed enough to think stuff more complicated than run, hide, fight, eat most of the time. We just have better brains.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHere is where you're wrong; er, not necessarily right. You cannot know that animals are conscious. No one can, except for the animal itself. I think they probably are-- and if so, then their consciousness is as ethereal as our own. You didn't address my main argument: \r\n\r\n"There is no reason why we couldn't be creatures that stored and simulated emotion when interacting, but were not actually conscious. The fact that we are conscious reveals that there is more to us than biochemical processes, in my opinion."\r\n\r\n[quote]That is just that they are programmed to protect the nest/hive above all else and can't break free of that.[/quote]\r\n\r\nOkay.. so, based off that, I'm gonna assume insects aren't conscious, then. Not much to discuss here.\r\n\r\n[quote]Its brain has not developed. There is scientific evidence for this but people just say "god says embryos have souls.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBabies have brainwaves after six week. This is a fact. First-trimester abortion can happen up to twelve weeks, which is twice that number.\r\n\r\n[quote]and anyway, who are you to make a woman carry a baby she doesn't want for 9 months and give birth to it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWho are YOU to tell a baby that he/she's better off dead than alive? In most cases, this woman isn't some victim; she was irresponsible, and paid no mind to the consequences of her actions. She in-effect made herself carry the baby for 9 months.\r\n\r\nHere's an analogy: It's like if I decide to jump off of a building, and break my leg. I can either wait several months for my leg to heal, or choose an experimental new process whereby a doctor kills someone else, and uses them to heal my leg and relieve my burden. Such would be horribly unethical.\r\n\r\n[quote]You mess up on 5. Consciousness is electrical impulses that require no force to let them exist. And on 10 and 11 people are  not generally good they are only good fi they are brought up to be good and no one brought up god. And I take it that you support al qaeda on 11.[/quote]\r\n\r\nOkay, let me ask you this: What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?\r\n\r\nSecond, I think members of al qaeda are fooling themselves, and they really do have a conscience that says their actions are wrong. They just choose to ignore it (bad choice, btw).\r\n\r\n[quote]Even complex emotions like happiness and sadness are derived from chemical reactions in the brain. We have even found ways of control these reactions to an extent.[/quote]\r\n\r\nCould you provide some evidence, please? It also depends on what you mean by happiness and sadness; euphoria and depression are probably id feelings, while joy or sorrow would be ethereal.\r\n\r\n[quote]Philosophy isn't exactly my field, though many accept that because of "chance" actions that are taken for no particular reason this allows determinism and free will to co-exist.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI've heard that, too. Yes, in reality, the only way physical free will could exist is through some sort of truly random process. If you know of any truly random processes that take place in the physical brain, please present them; I don't think there are any, though.\r\n\r\n[quote]I would say consciousness is just an emergent property of the brains functions.  It can be shown as above how free will can exist in the constructs of the universe or even how it may not exist at all depending on how chance functions. So we really have determined your conclusions as true. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWas that last sentence supposed to say "haven't"? Just wondering. And I pose to you the same question I posed to qwerty: What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?\r\n\r\n[quote]I do wish more theists were like you. I think we would have to first determine that such a thing exists and that thing is as you say before we can speculate on motives.[/quote]\r\n\r\n:) Well, sometimes plausible motives can make the idea more likely.

offline

qwerty1011

554 posts

Peasant

Posted May 14, '11 6:11pm UTC

"There is no reason why we couldn't be creatures that stored and simulated emotion when interacting, but were not actually conscious. The fact that we are conscious reveals that there is more to us than biochemical processes, in my opinion."

We are conscious but are still just a collection of electrical impulses. You need to provide a reason for consciousness to require more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

Babies have brainwaves after six week. This is a fact. First-trimester abortion can happen up to twelve weeks, which is twice that number.

Brainwaves are different from consciousness and anyway, while you may disagree, to me murder is mainly wrong because of all the potential of the person had and the people who would've missed him. Since the people who would love an embryo are volunteering to do this and the embryo has just as much potential as the countless sperm and eggs which die all the time it should not qualify as murder.

Who are YOU to tell a baby that he/she's better off dead than alive? In most cases, this woman isn't some victim; she was irresponsible, and paid no mind to the consequences of her actions. She in-effect made herself carry the baby for 9 months.

Here's an analogy: It's like if I decide to jump off of a building, and break my leg. I can either wait several months for my leg to heal, or choose an experimental new process whereby a doctor kills someone else, and uses them to heal my leg and relieve my burden. Such would be horribly unethical.

A baby is not conscious and can't be told. It is no more killing it than you killing a potential embryo by choosing not to have sex at any moment when you could. That is just impractical. And what about victims of ****. And if they are allowed why not other people. Celebrities get injunctions to cover up mistakes but women can't have abortions to cover up theirs, why? And as I already said a person is different form an embryo.

What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?

a sufficiently developed brain to overcome instincts.

[quote]"There is no reason why we couldn't be creatures that stored and simulated emotion when interacting, but were not actually conscious. The fact that we are conscious reveals that there is more to us than biochemical processes, in my opinion."[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe are conscious but are still just a collection of electrical impulses. You need to provide a reason for consciousness to require more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses.\r\n\r\n[quote]Babies have brainwaves after six week. This is a fact. First-trimester abortion can happen up to twelve weeks, which is twice that number.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBrainwaves are different from consciousness and anyway, while you may disagree, to me murder is mainly wrong because of all the potential of the person had and the people who would've missed him. Since the people who would love an embryo are volunteering to do this and the embryo has just as much potential as the countless sperm and eggs which die all the time it should not qualify as murder.\r\n\r\n[quote]Who are YOU to tell a baby that he/she's better off dead than alive? In most cases, this woman isn't some victim; she was irresponsible, and paid no mind to the consequences of her actions. She in-effect made herself carry the baby for 9 months.\r\n\r\nHere's an analogy: It's like if I decide to jump off of a building, and break my leg. I can either wait several months for my leg to heal, or choose an experimental new process whereby a doctor kills someone else, and uses them to heal my leg and relieve my burden. Such would be horribly unethical.[/quote]\r\n\r\nA baby is not conscious and can't be told. It is no more killing it than you killing a potential embryo by choosing not to have sex at any moment when you could. That is just impractical. And what about victims of ****. And if they are allowed why not other people. Celebrities get injunctions to cover up mistakes but women can't have abortions to cover up theirs, why? And as I already said a person is different form an embryo.\r\n\r\n[quote]What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?[/quote]\r\n\r\na sufficiently developed brain to overcome instincts.

offline

Programpro

562 posts

Nomad

Posted May 14, '11 9:18pm UTC

We are conscious but are still just a collection of electrical impulses. You need to provide a reason for consciousness to require more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

I have already said that that sounds incredibly arbitrary and weak. So you're saying the laws of the universe are:

F = ma
K = 1/2 m v^2
E = mc^2
And any time a group of cells cluster and produce as network of electrical impulses that record data, a consciousness is generated.

Ya, that's TOTALLY how it works.

to me murder is mainly wrong because of all the potential of the person had and the people who would've missed him.

So, let me get this straight: Murder is only wrong because those around you don't want you to die? Well, what if YOU don't want to die!! Are you about to tell me that you'd be able to go around killing lonely people, and not care because no one would miss them? Of course not! That's sick!

Since the people who would love an embryo are volunteering to do this and the embryo has just as much potential as the countless sperm and eggs which die all the time it should not qualify as murder.

Here's the caveat you're missing: The difference between making a life then killing it, and not making a life in the first place. If someone never existed, well, then they haven't lost anything. But if someone's life has begun, and you kill them, you are committing murder and taking their life away from them.

A baby is not conscious and can't be told.

Wait, I used "baby" because I see little difference between babies who've been born and babies in the womb, but YOU just defined "baby" as the entity that you would kill for its mother's convenience.

And what about victims of ****. And if they are allowed why not other people.

**** is different. Really, the same argument should still apply, but I'd be willing to compromise on that issue. Stick to the matter at hand, women who went out, had unprotected sex, then *surprise* found out they were pregnant and decided to kill their child.

a sufficiently developed brain to overcome instincts.

That is still very arbitrary... I asked for mechanical processes and conditions. Like electrons flowing through organisms or chemical reactions. At what level do you believe they spawn a consciousness?

[quote]We are conscious but are still just a collection of electrical impulses. You need to provide a reason for consciousness to require more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI have already said that that sounds incredibly arbitrary and weak. So you're saying the laws of the universe are:\r\n\r\nF = ma\r\nK = 1/2 m v^2\r\nE = mc^2\r\nAnd any time a group of cells cluster and produce as network of electrical impulses that record data, a consciousness is generated.\r\n\r\nYa, that's TOTALLY how it works.\r\n\r\n[quote]to me murder is mainly wrong because of all the potential of the person had and the people who would've missed him.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo, let me get this straight: Murder is only wrong because those around you don't want you to die? Well, what if YOU don't want to die!! Are you about to tell me that you'd be able to go around killing lonely people, and not care because no one would miss them? Of course not! That's sick!\r\n\r\n[quote]Since the people who would love an embryo are volunteering to do this and the embryo has just as much potential as the countless sperm and eggs which die all the time it should not qualify as murder.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHere's the caveat you're missing: The difference between making a life then killing it, and not making a life in the first place. If someone never existed, well, then they haven't lost anything. But if someone's life has begun, and you kill them, you are committing murder and taking their life away from them.\r\n\r\n[quote]A baby is not conscious and can't be told.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWait, I used "baby" because I see little difference between babies who've been born and babies in the womb, but YOU just defined "baby" as the entity that you would kill for its mother's convenience.\r\n\r\n[quote]And what about victims of ****. And if they are allowed why not other people.[/quote]\r\n\r\n**** is different. Really, the same argument should still apply, but I'd be willing to compromise on that issue. Stick to the matter at hand, women who went out, had unprotected sex, then *surprise* found out they were pregnant and decided to kill their child.\r\n\r\n[quote]a sufficiently developed brain to overcome instincts.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat is still very arbitrary... I asked for mechanical processes and conditions. Like electrons flowing through organisms or chemical reactions. At what level do you believe they spawn a consciousness?

offline

HahiHa

8,253 posts

Regent

Posted May 14, '11 9:24pm UTC

And any time a group of cells cluster and produce as network of electrical impulses that record data, a consciousness is generated.

Ya, that's TOTALLY how it works.

A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data. There ain't much more to it. Your idea of an ethereal consciousness however is what I find totally arbitrary.

offline

HahiHa

8,253 posts

Regent

Posted May 14, '11 9:28pm UTC

Sorry for doublepost, but I wanted to ask: how do you think an ethereal consciousness would come to be? What's your idea of that in detail?

offline

Programpro

562 posts

Nomad

Posted May 14, '11 9:43pm UTC

A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data. There ain't much more to it. Your idea of an ethereal consciousness however is what I find totally arbitrary.

I just want a simple rule as to what constitutes a consciousness. Would 2 or 3 interconnected neurons alone generate an aware being? Please break it down.

how do you think an ethereal consciousness would come to be? What's your idea of that in detail?

Another great question (this thread has many). Hmmm...
I guess I suppose there is an ethereal world outside of the physical world. Or there are two equal worlds, each unable to affect the other's rules. In our world, the Universe has laws of physics that govern everything strictly. In the other world, however, beings can be independent of rules and have free will. That is, a being can impart its will upon anything, and its will is not governed by overarching laws.

Also, beings are not naturally sentient or even really existent in the physical Universe. An analogy would be if a music box played music but no one was there to hear it; the Universe governs everything within it but nothing is there to experience it. After some time, basic organisms had evolved, but more in the sense of chemical robots, as they could not experience.

I guess some (possibly the only) outer-world being -- maybe interested in investigating the physically universe, maybe interested in having some company, who can know -- reached into the physical Universe and found an area through which it could experience it: our brains. Brains would be most convenient, as they already have the capability to move, see, hear, touch, etc.. I say "brains" instead of "minds", because it is only after this being reached into our brains that we became sentient, and had minds. The brains are linked to the sentience, and the sentience to the brains, and thusly was born our sentient race (Or sentient life in general; He could be giving consciousness to all life forms on Earth).

Wow... that's the first time I've thought about it. If we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal, does that seem plausible?

[quote]A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data. There ain't much more to it. Your idea of an ethereal consciousness however is what I find totally arbitrary.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI just want a simple rule as to what constitutes a consciousness. Would 2 or 3 interconnected neurons alone generate an aware being? Please break it down.\r\n\r\n[quote]how do you think an ethereal consciousness would come to be? What's your idea of that in detail?[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnother great question (this thread has many). Hmmm...\r\nI guess I suppose there is an ethereal world outside of the physical world. Or there are two equal worlds, each unable to affect the other's rules. In our world, the Universe has laws of physics that govern everything strictly. In the other world, however, beings can be independent of rules and have free will. That is, a being can impart its will upon anything, and its will is not governed by overarching laws.\r\n\r\nAlso, beings are not naturally sentient or even really existent in the physical Universe. An analogy would be if a music box played music but no one was there to hear it; the Universe governs everything within it but nothing is there to experience it. After some time, basic organisms had evolved, but more in the sense of chemical robots, as they could not experience.\r\n\r\nI guess some (possibly the only) outer-world being -- maybe interested in investigating the physically universe, maybe interested in having some company, who can know -- reached into the physical Universe and found an area through which it could experience it: our brains. Brains would be most convenient, as they already have the capability to move, see, hear, touch, etc.. I say "brains" instead of "minds", because it is only after this being reached into our brains that we became sentient, and had minds. The brains are linked to the sentience, and the sentience to the brains, and thusly was born our sentient race (Or sentient life in general; He could be giving consciousness to all life forms on Earth).\r\n\r\nWow... that's the first time I've thought about it. If we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal, does that seem plausible? :)

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted May 15, '11 3:07am UTC

Babies have brainwaves after six week. This is a fact. First-trimester abortion can happen up to twelve weeks, which is twice that number.

But as pointed out consciousness or just the ability to register stress doesn't develop until much later.

Was that last sentence supposed to say "haven't"? Just wondering. And I pose to you the same question I posed to qwerty: What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?

Yes "haven't". I will just leave a couple of links on the subject here that you might be interested in looking into.

http://www.theassc.org/
http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html

I just want a simple rule as to what constitutes a consciousness. Would 2 or 3 interconnected neurons alone generate an aware being? Please break it down.

I don't think we know enough yet to make such an exact determination.

the Universe has laws of physics that govern everything strictly.

Would you believe there are things that at least seem to break these rules that don't require supernatural explanations?

Wow... that's the first time I've thought about it. If we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal, does that seem plausible?

Not until we establish the ethereal as existing in the first place.

This isn't going to be one of my normally long posts given the replies here. (still not feeling to good) So I'll be skipping over a lot of things that i normally wouldn't. So sorry for this being brief.\r\n\r\n[quote]Babies have brainwaves after six week. This is a fact. First-trimester abortion can happen up to twelve weeks, which is twice that number.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut as pointed out consciousness or just the ability to register stress doesn't develop until much later.\r\n\r\n[quote]Was that last sentence supposed to say "haven't"? Just wondering. And I pose to you the same question I posed to qwerty: What mechanical processes and conditions do you believe are required in order to spawn a consciousness?[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes "haven't". I will just leave a couple of links on the subject here that you might be interested in looking into. \r\n\r\n[url=http://www.theassc.org/]http://www.theassc.org/[/url]\r\n[url=http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html]http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]I just want a simple rule as to what constitutes a consciousness. Would 2 or 3 interconnected neurons alone generate an aware being? Please break it down.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't think we know enough yet to make such an exact determination.\r\n\r\n[quote]the Universe has laws of physics that govern everything strictly.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWould you believe there are things that at least seem to break these rules that don't require supernatural explanations?\r\n\r\n[quote]Wow... that's the first time I've thought about it. If we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal, does that seem plausible? :)[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot until we establish the ethereal as existing in the first place.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted May 15, '11 3:11am UTC

Programpro, Oh yeah meant to as what are your thoughts on animals in regards to consciousness and free will?

offline

qwerty1011

554 posts

Peasant

Posted May 15, '11 6:56am UTC

I have already said that that sounds incredibly arbitrary and weak. So you're saying the laws of the universe are:

F = ma
K = 1/2 m v^2
E = mc^2
And any time a group of cells cluster and produce as network of electrical impulses that record data, a consciousness is generated.

Ya, that's TOTALLY how it works.

As I said in an another thread it is electrical impulses which are influenced by memories that do this. This is why babies maybe shouldn't even be counted as sentient whereas a few years later with a lot more memories kids can think properly and talk. You need the capacity for memories and to be able to suppress and control instincts. Also since embryos have no memories and probably can't control instincts then why should an abortion be counted as murder as you are putting it.

So, let me get this straight: Murder is only wrong because those around you don't want you to die? Well, what if YOU don't want to die!! Are you about to tell me that you'd be able to go around killing lonely people, and not care because no one would miss them? Of course not! That's sick!

Er, can you read? I said also the potential that the person has to influence society and to live their life to the full and be happy. But an embryo isn't even a person becaue it has no memories and as much potential as sperm and eggs which you effectively kill by not spending every moment having sex. Which is obviously impractical.

Here's the caveat you're missing: The difference between making a life then killing it, and not making a life in the first place. If someone never existed, well, then they haven't lost anything. But if someone's life has begun, and you kill them, you are committing murder and taking their life away from them.

No, an embryo could easily die in the womb anyway but until it has memories it is not a person. So it is still a potential person right up until it starts gaining memories. The sperm and the egg are just a little further back in development.

Wait, I used "baby" because I see little difference between babies who've been born and babies in the womb, but YOU just defined "baby" as the entity that you would kill for its mother's convenience.

I used baby because you used it. And as I have said it is a potential baby just as much as a sperm and an egg.

**** is different. Really, the same argument should still apply, but I'd be willing to compromise on that issue. Stick to the matter at hand, women who went out, had unprotected sex, then *surprise* found out they were pregnant and decided to kill their child.

But fi you will accept it on **** then why not on other things. If what you percieve as murder is OK in the case of **** why not in other cases. And if a women doesn't want a baby what is to stop her killing it once it is born. And it is not murder as I said earlier anymore than not having sex. There is no reason to make someone go through pregnancy for something she doesn't even want if you wouldn't make her do it in the case of **** as if in extenuating circumstances it is OK then in normal circumstances it should be OK too as if it was truly murder nothing should justify it. And couldn't someone claim they were *****?

I guess some (possibly the only) outer-world being -- maybe interested in investigating the physically universe, maybe interested in having some company, who can know -- reached into the physical Universe and found an area through which it could experience it: our brains. Brains would be most convenient, as they already have the capability to move, see, hear, touch, etc.. I say "brains" instead of "minds", because it is only after this being reached into our brains that we became sentient, and had minds. The brains are linked to the sentience, and the sentience to the brains, and thusly was born our sentient race (Or sentient life in general; He could be giving consciousness to all life forms on Earth).

How could an outerworld being be conscious then? Your theory needs a base but it has none as your base would have to be conscious and anything conscious needs another conscious base.

[quote]I have already said that that sounds incredibly arbitrary and weak. So you're saying the laws of the universe are:\r\n\r\nF = ma\r\nK = 1/2 m v^2\r\nE = mc^2\r\nAnd any time a group of cells cluster and produce as network of electrical impulses that record data, a consciousness is generated.\r\n\r\nYa, that's TOTALLY how it works.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs I said in an another thread it is electrical impulses which are influenced by memories that do this. This is why babies maybe shouldn't even be counted as sentient whereas a few years later with a lot more memories kids can think properly and talk. You need the capacity for memories and to be able to suppress and control instincts. Also since embryos have no memories and probably can't control instincts then why should an abortion be counted as murder as you are putting it.\r\n\r\n[quote]So, let me get this straight: Murder is only wrong because those around you don't want you to die? Well, what if YOU don't want to die!! Are you about to tell me that you'd be able to go around killing lonely people, and not care because no one would miss them? Of course not! That's sick![/quote]\r\n\r\nEr, can you read? I said also the potential that the person has to influence society and to live their life to the full and be happy. But an embryo isn't even a person becaue it has no memories and as much potential as sperm and eggs which you effectively kill by not spending every moment having sex. Which is obviously impractical.\r\n\r\n[quote]Here's the caveat you're missing: The difference between making a life then killing it, and not making a life in the first place. If someone never existed, well, then they haven't lost anything. But if someone's life has begun, and you kill them, you are committing murder and taking their life away from them.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, an embryo could easily die in the womb anyway but until it has memories it is not a person. So it is still a potential person right up until it starts gaining memories. The sperm and the egg are just a little further back in development.\r\n\r\n[quote]Wait, I used "baby" because I see little difference between babies who've been born and babies in the womb, but YOU just defined "baby" as the entity that you would kill for its mother's convenience.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI used baby because you used it. And as I have said it is a potential baby just as much as a sperm and an egg.\r\n\r\n[quote]**** is different. Really, the same argument should still apply, but I'd be willing to compromise on that issue. Stick to the matter at hand, women who went out, had unprotected sex, then *surprise* found out they were pregnant and decided to kill their child.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut fi you will accept it on **** then why not on other things. If what you percieve as murder is OK in the case of **** why not in other cases. And if a women doesn't want a baby what is to stop her killing it once it is born. And it is not murder as I said earlier anymore than not having sex. There is no reason to make someone go through pregnancy for something she doesn't even want if you wouldn't make her do it in the case of **** as if in extenuating circumstances it is OK then in normal circumstances it should be OK too as if it was truly murder nothing should justify it. And couldn't someone claim they were *****?\r\n\r\n[quote]I guess some (possibly the only) outer-world being -- maybe interested in investigating the physically universe, maybe interested in having some company, who can know -- reached into the physical Universe and found an area through which it could experience it: our brains. Brains would be most convenient, as they already have the capability to move, see, hear, touch, etc.. I say "brains" instead of "minds", because it is only after this being reached into our brains that we became sentient, and had minds. The brains are linked to the sentience, and the sentience to the brains, and thusly was born our sentient race (Or sentient life in general; He could be giving consciousness to all life forms on Earth). [/quote]\r\n\r\nHow could an outerworld being be conscious then? Your theory needs a base but it has none as your base would have to be conscious and anything conscious needs another conscious base.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted May 15, '11 7:33pm UTC

Could you provide some evidence, please? It also depends on what you mean by happiness and sadness; euphoria and depression are probably id feelings, while joy or sorrow would be ethereal.

I mean the full range of emotions that encompass it.

"The id comprises the unorganised part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts according to the &quotleasure principle", seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure aroused by increases in instinctual tension." -Rycroft, Charles (A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis.)

id; the part of the psyche, residing in the unconscious, that is the source of instinctive impulses that seek satisfaction in accordance with the pleasure principle and are modified by the ego and the superego before they are given overt expression.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/id

By this happiness would most definitely be part of the id.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/3/341

Another thing to keep in mind about consciousness and free will, Benjamin Libet had conducted a study indicating that conscious action originates first in the subconsciousness. So while your decision might seem spontaneous, your brain is already actively preparing you to preform the action before you even know you will.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623

[quote]Could you provide some evidence, please? It also depends on what you mean by happiness and sadness; euphoria and depression are probably id feelings, while joy or sorrow would be ethereal.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI mean the full range of emotions that encompass it.\r\n\r\n"The id comprises the unorganised part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The id acts according to the "pleasure principle", seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure aroused by increases in instinctual tension." -Rycroft, Charles (A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis.)\r\n\r\nid; the part of the psyche, residing in the unconscious, that is the source of instinctive impulses that seek satisfaction in accordance with the pleasure principle and are modified by the ego and the superego before they are given overt expression. \r\n[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/id]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/id[/url]\r\n\r\nBy this happiness would most definitely be part of the id.\r\n\r\n[url=http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/3/341]http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/3/341[/url]\r\n\r\nAnother thing to keep in mind about consciousness and free will, Benjamin Libet had conducted a study indicating that conscious action originates first in the subconsciousness. So while your decision might seem spontaneous, your brain is already actively preparing you to preform the action before you even know you will. \r\n\r\n[url=http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623]http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623[/url]

offline

Programpro

562 posts

Nomad

Posted May 15, '11 9:48pm UTC

Yes "haven't". I will just leave a couple of links on the subject here that you might be interested in looking into.

http://www.theassc.org/
http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html

Those are interesting. Glad people are looking into it!

I don't think we know enough yet to make such an exact determination.

Well, unless it can be explained how some cells arranged in some way can make a consciousness, it doesn't sound plausible at all to me.

Would you believe there are things that at least seem to break these rules that don't require supernatural explanations?

They'd have to be on the smallest scale, and I don't know of any. From what we know, the Universe seems to be structured according to fixed rules.

Not until we establish the ethereal as existing in the first place.

That's why I said "if we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal". Under that premise, I wanted to know what you thought of my posit.

Oh yeah meant to ask what are your thoughts on animals in regards to consciousness and free will?

I'd assume that animals (just the general term, not the kingdom) are conscious, and that insects probably are not (at least, swarm insects are not... eg. bees, ants, termites). Also, plants aren't, either. That's my guess, based on how they act and on what seems likely.

As I said in an another thread it is electrical impulses which are influenced by memories that do this. This is why babies maybe shouldn't even be counted as sentient whereas a few years later with a lot more memories kids can think properly and talk. You need the capacity for memories and to be able to suppress and control instincts. Also since embryos have no memories and probably can't control instincts then why should an abortion be counted as murder as you are putting it.

Again, arbitrary. I want a real, mechanical definition of consciousness. Sorr,y g2,g respond later

[quote]Yes "haven't". I will just leave a couple of links on the subject here that you might be interested in looking into.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.theassc.org/\r\nhttp://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html[/quote]\r\n\r\nThose are interesting. Glad people are looking into it! :)\r\n\r\n[quote]I don't think we know enough yet to make such an exact determination.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, unless it can be explained how some cells arranged in some way can make a consciousness, it doesn't sound plausible at all to me.\r\n\r\n[quote]Would you believe there are things that at least seem to break these rules that don't require supernatural explanations?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey'd have to be on the smallest scale, and I don't know of any. From what we know, the Universe seems to be structured according to fixed rules.\r\n\r\n[quote]Not until we establish the ethereal as existing in the first place.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's why I said "if we had as a premise that our minds are a marriage of physical and ethereal". Under that premise, I wanted to know what you thought of my posit.\r\n\r\n[quote]Oh yeah meant to ask what are your thoughts on animals in regards to consciousness and free will?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'd assume that animals (just the general term, not the kingdom) are conscious, and that insects probably are not (at least, swarm insects are not... eg. bees, ants, termites). Also, plants aren't, either. That's my guess, based on how they act and on what seems likely.\r\n\r\n[quote]As I said in an another thread it is electrical impulses which are influenced by memories that do this. This is why babies maybe shouldn't even be counted as sentient whereas a few years later with a lot more memories kids can think properly and talk. You need the capacity for memories and to be able to suppress and control instincts. Also since embryos have no memories and probably can't control instincts then why should an abortion be counted as murder as you are putting it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain, arbitrary. I want a real, mechanical definition of consciousness. Sorr,y g2,g respond later

offline

vesperbot

955 posts

Nomad

Posted May 16, '11 6:40am UTC

ACCORDING TO DANTE? Oh dear. Dante is a prophet too now?

Dante is no prophet, he is a representative of Catholic faith of 1300. Therefore a believer can rely on his "Comedy" to base on what was believed back there. And this is not to be assumed as cast-iron truth, IIRC there was also a teaching that states Limbo being neither Heaven nor Purgatory nor Hell, while Dante placed Limbo as first circle of Hell. This means: SO WHAT?

do you take what Dante wrote as directive in christian matters

A representative, not a directive. Note also that I have cited the known common teaching prior to that document.

No I'm simply following the logical conclusion of the qualities stated for God.

Tell me who invented logic, and I'll tell you if you're the ultimate judge.

No, I'm just tired of seeing them being used as if it represented factual evidence rather then something that may or may not have even happen in the way described or if at all.

This is personal factual evidence, therefore can be believed or not. I know you don't believe in this, but again this wasn't aimed at you.

I find such a view purely closed minded.

Mind disproving this with facts? No?

As an animal capable of decision making their is no reason to think they wouldn't.

This means no proof. Since there's no proof, I can still state they don't have free will. This, in order, means that your claim of "Actually it stems from an evolutionary benefit as a social animal." is unsupported, at least unverified.

However, if you like I can give plenty of examples of other animals demonstrating free will.

I'd like you to give me examples where an animal goes contrary with its instincts, as we humans are capable to do that. And that animal should not be influenced with anything that interferes with neural activity, since right now humans can make rats go against fear by suppressing certain brain centers and/or neurohormones.

Also your attempt to intentionally misuse reasonable doubt is quite apparent.

I'm using your own logic. You ask me to prove that God exists, and simultaneously state that "God does not exist" does not require proof. Here, I'm stating that you need to prove "Other social animals have free will and can go contrary to instincts", and stating the opposite (that they don't have free will or can't go contrary to instincts), and that this statement does not require proof.

Well, by this I mean that we have free will. I feel like my will is free. Do you feel like yours is bound? I guess that's all the evidence I can offer

MGW never accepts personal evidence as base for logical conclusions. Sorry pal.

That's what the Catholic church says. But I read in the New Testament where Jesus pretty-much flat-out says that those who do not believe in him will suffer forever. That doesn't seem right, to me.

So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly.

And sorry but I find it perfectly that your story is just that--a story.

Well, it's a story with a moral, based on some monks' vision. I wonder what would you say about Gloria Polo's testimony (please read page 82 of this topic for links), this one is firsthand.

If you use the argument of animals not having a soul so that we can slaughter and have dominion over them, then it's you who has to prove they're soulless.

I don't need proving this, I am given commandment over animals by God And please read above for the logic I have used to ground this statement. If you're stating otherwise, this will mean either that I don't need to prove this, or that I don't need to prove God existing, which will in turn imply this to be proven by God's words.

This parallels my abortion beliefs: those who want abortions legal need to prove that the baby shows no signs of consciousness before the act is committed.

Speaking about abortions, I base their inacceptability on the fact that a baby is a human, regardless of its age after conception. I have seen E1337 object about that state can't interfere with abortion, and NOW I have a support.

Could you provide some evidence, please? It also depends on what you mean by happiness and sadness; euphoria and depression are probably id feelings, while joy or sorrow would be ethereal.

They failed last time, stating that a possibility of such a describe is enough to prove their position.

It is no more killing it than you killing a potential embryo by choosing not to have sex at any moment when you could.

Plain wrong. You already have a living human in case of abortion, and you have only a possibility to conceive in the other case. In case of induced permanent infertility, this might be considered as killing the possibility of that person to have children (normally) while choosing not to have sex with a woman might not even alter the case since that woman could be temporarily infertile due to periodical changes in her body.

a sufficiently developed brain to overcome instincts.

What degree of "sufficient" is enough? I can claim that your brain is not sufficiently developed to overcome instincts, implicitly depriving you of sanity. And you will never prove otherwise, since all your proof will be discarded because of you being "technically insane". Period. Your logic allows this.

A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data.

Prove this. I have requested this once already, IIRC of you personally HahiHa, and you failed.

[quote]ACCORDING TO DANTE? Oh dear. Dante is a prophet too now?[/quote]Dante is no prophet, he is a representative of Catholic faith of 1300. Therefore a believer can rely on his "Comedy" to base on what was believed back there. And this is not to be assumed as cast-iron truth, IIRC there was also a teaching that states Limbo being neither Heaven nor Purgatory nor Hell, while Dante placed Limbo as first circle of Hell. This means: SO WHAT?\r\n[quote]do you take what Dante wrote as directive in christian matters[/quote]A representative, not a directive. Note also that I have cited the known common teaching prior to that document.\r\n[quote]No I'm simply following the logical conclusion of the qualities stated for God.[/quote]Tell me who invented logic, and I'll tell you if you're the ultimate judge.\r\n[quote]No, I'm just tired of seeing them being used as if it represented factual evidence rather then something that may or may not have even happen in the way described or if at all.[/quote]This is personal factual evidence, therefore can be believed or not. I know you don't believe in this, but again this wasn't aimed at you.\r\n[quote]I find such a view purely closed minded.[/quote]Mind disproving this with facts? No?\r\n[quote]As an animal capable of decision making their is no reason to think they wouldn't.[/quote]This means no proof. Since there's no proof, I can still state they don't have free will. This, in order, means that your claim of "Actually it stems from an evolutionary benefit as a social animal." is unsupported, at least unverified.\r\n[quote]However, if you like I can give plenty of examples of other animals demonstrating free will.[/quote]I'd like you to give me examples where an animal goes contrary with its instincts, as we humans are capable to do that. And that animal should not be influenced with anything that interferes with neural activity, since right now humans can make rats go against fear by suppressing certain brain centers and/or neurohormones.\r\n[quote]Also your attempt to intentionally misuse reasonable doubt is quite apparent.[/quote]I'm using your own logic. You ask me to prove that God exists, and simultaneously state that "God does not exist" does not require proof. Here, I'm stating that you need to prove "Other social animals have free will and can go contrary to instincts", and stating the opposite (that they don't have free will or can't go contrary to instincts), and that this statement does not require proof.\r\n[quote]Well, by this I mean that we have free will. I feel like my will is free. Do you feel like yours is bound? I guess that's all the evidence I can offer[/quote]MGW never accepts personal evidence as base for logical conclusions. Sorry pal.\r\n[quote]That's what the Catholic church says. But I read in the New Testament where Jesus pretty-much flat-out says that those who do not believe in him will suffer forever. That doesn't seem right, to me.[/quote]So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly. \r\n[quote]And sorry but I find it perfectly that your story is just that--a story.[/quote]Well, it's a story with a moral, based on some monks' vision. I wonder what would you say about Gloria Polo's testimony (please read page 82 of this topic for links), this one is firsthand.\r\n[quote]If you use the argument of animals not having a soul so that we can slaughter and have dominion over them, then it's you who has to prove they're soulless.[/quote]I don't need proving this, I am given commandment over animals by God :) And please read above for the logic I have used to ground this statement. If you're stating otherwise, this will mean either that I don't need to prove this, or that I don't need to prove God existing, which will in turn imply this to be proven by God's words.\r\n[quote]This parallels my abortion beliefs: those who want abortions legal need to prove that the baby shows no signs of consciousness before the act is committed.[/quote]Speaking about abortions, I base their inacceptability on the fact that a baby is a human, regardless of its age after conception. I have seen E1337 object about that state can't interfere with abortion, and [url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-hungarian-constitution-recognizing-life-from-conception-signed-into-law]NOW I have a support.[/url] \r\n[quote]Could you provide some evidence, please? It also depends on what you mean by happiness and sadness; euphoria and depression are probably id feelings, while joy or sorrow would be ethereal.[/quote]They failed last time, stating that a possibility of such a describe is enough to prove their position.\r\n[quote]It is no more killing it than you killing a potential embryo by choosing not to have sex at any moment when you could. [/quote]Plain wrong. You already have a living human in case of abortion, and you have only a possibility to conceive in the other case. In case of induced permanent infertility, this might be considered as killing the possibility of that person to have children (normally) while choosing not to have sex with a woman might not even alter the case since that woman could be temporarily infertile due to periodical changes in her body.\r\n[quote]a sufficiently developed brain to overcome instincts.[/quote]What degree of "sufficient" is enough? I can claim that your brain is not sufficiently developed to overcome instincts, implicitly depriving you of sanity. And you will never prove otherwise, since all your proof will be discarded because of you being "technically insane". Period. Your logic allows this.\r\n[quote]A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data. [/quote]Prove this. I have requested this once already, IIRC of you personally HahiHa, and you failed.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted May 16, '11 10:21am UTC

[quote]A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data.

Prove this. I have requested this once already, IIRC of you personally HahiHa, and you failed.[/quote]

"Consciousness is a term that has been used to refer to a variety of aspects of the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts." -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This would seem to indicate that we need to establish what a mind is.

from wiki
"Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes."

Each one of these combinations constituting a mind are the result of neural processes. This would mean a consciousness is various relationships in which these neural processes interact with the world.

Again this post really should be longer to address the other points brought up but I just don't have the energy to do so at this time.

[quote]\r\n[quote]A consciousness IS a network of neurons recording and transmitting data.[/quote] \r\n\r\nProve this. I have requested this once already, IIRC of you personally HahiHa, and you failed.[/quote]\r\n\r\n"[i]Consciousness is a term that has been used to refer to a variety of aspects of the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts.[/i]" -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.\r\n\r\nThis would seem to indicate that we need to establish what a mind is.\r\n\r\nfrom wiki\r\n"[i]Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes.[/i]"\r\n\r\nEach one of these combinations constituting a mind are the result of neural processes. This would mean a consciousness is various relationships in which these neural processes interact with the world.\r\n\r\nAgain this post really should be longer to address the other points brought up but I just don't have the energy to do so at this time.

offline

vesperbot

955 posts

Nomad

Posted May 16, '11 11:29am UTC

Each one of these combinations constituting a mind are the result of neural processes.

Then, how can a human overcome instincts?

Showing 1591-1605 of 4668

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism