16 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour 'immaterial self' is what your brain does. When your brain stops, so does your 'immaterial self'. It doesn't go anywhere, it simply ceases to be.
When a someone's material self dies it's usually buried or burned;
at the moment of the cessation of brain waves, what happens to the immaterial self;
and where does it go?
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow many times are you going to ask this question?
When a someone's material self dies it's usually buried or burned;
at the moment of the cessation of brain waves, what happens to the immaterial self;
and where does it go?
How many times do we have to answer it before you listen?
Seriously.
Originally posted by PenguinYour 'immaterial self' Is. Your brain is the rational component of your immaterial self. It functions within your material self while you are physically alive. Your material self will die. The moment when your material self dies, you (your immaterial self) instantly departs from your material self. Your person/your soul is you: your ultimate being with spiritual potential.
Your 'immaterial self' [b]is what your brain does. When your brain stops, so does your 'immaterial self'. It doesn't go anywhere, it simply ceases to be.
--- Penguin.[/b]
God does not create disposable human beings (as are members of the food chain). What He does is perfect. Our immaterial self, our beings with our bank of memories will seamlessly continue to live/remain alive for eternity [infinity X infinity, ad infinitum] in one of two locations: 1. In the Presence of God or 2. Separated from God (and alone). You, your immaterial self, makes the call by reason your own free will/uncoerced decisions, i., e., during | your lifetime---->|----> (eternity
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWe know that is what you believe.
Your 'immaterial self' Is. Your brain is the rational component of your immaterial self. It functions within your material self while you are physically alive. Your material self will die. The moment when your material self dies, you (your immaterial self) instantly departs from your material self. Your person/your soul is you: your ultimate being with ...[text shortened]... on your own free will/uncoerced decisions, i., e., during | your lifetime---->|----> (eternity
You asked us what we believe, again, and again...
If you want to claim souls exist and that there is an afterlife
and a god as gatekeeper to it then prove it.
Otherwise you are just wishing it to be true against all the
evidence science has that it isn't.
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinI think it's a legitimate question. We can assume the brain is simply a mechanical apparatus as is the rest of the body. And a theator with a movie running is also simply a structure with a mechanism running, but if I ask myself who is watching the feature being shown, then I cannot just assume there is only a mechanical aspect to this. Unless I can answer the question Who is watching the images, which necessarily presumes the existence of something other than a theator with a mechanism running, then I can't just assume the brain is simply a mechanism with no one in there that is able to call itself me.
Your 'immaterial self' [b]is what your brain does. When your brain stops, so does your 'immaterial self'. It doesn't go anywhere, it simply ceases to be.
--- Penguin.[/b]
If someone can adequately explain why it's not necessary for there to be a self having self awareness (a sentient consciousness) to occupy this mechanism, and show we are nothing more than mobil homes with no one there (the lights are on but no one is home) then the case can be made we are nothing more than complex machines with highly evolved computers for directing its operation.
To put it more simply, what exactly in our mind/brain is seeing images being watched and hearing sounds being listened to when we are watching and listening to the images and sounds coming in from outside of ourselves? Something in there (our brains) is watching and listening, but where exactly is this something and how do we identify it? Where exactly inside the brain is it, and how does it work? Where is Waldo?
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThis is a very valid question and quite hard to do justice to. The book Conciousness Explained by Dan Dennett (yes, one of the 'new atheists'😉 does a pretty good job I think. Whether it really achieves the assertion of its title is debatable!
I think it's a legitimate question. We can assume the brain is simply a mechanical apparatus as is the rest of the body. And a theator with a movie running is also simply a structure with a mechanism running, but if I ask myself who is watching the feature being shown, then I cannot just assume there is only a mechanical aspect to this. Unless I ca ...[text shortened]... entify it? Where exactly inside the brain is it, and how does it work? Where is Waldo?
Essentially, the argument is that 'conciousness' emerges from the interactions between the different areas of the brain. The analogy of the 'running' is quite good. When the man is running, which part of him is doing the running? exactly where in the man is the 'running'? The answer is that there is no centre where the running occurs, it is just a process that emerges from the actions of the muscles.
If you try to explain a car, you can talk about the chassis, suspension, drive-train, engine, instruments, upholstery etc but at no point do you say "and this bit is the car. If you have to do that then you have not actually explained the car. It has to be explained by talking about its constituent parts.
It is hugely harder to appreciate all this when it comes to conciousness because it naturally feels like there must be some centre, some extra little homunculus sitting inside us, actually doing the experiencing but really, the experiences are just what the brain is doing.
--- Penguin.
I went back to read from the beginning and ran into something which is often misunderstood.
Time is not a true dimension. This is both intuitive and correct, and is easily proven. If you freeze time and then view any physical object you will see that all three dimensions of that object are still there, but the so called 4th dimension of time has vanished. And just to be clear, all three true dimensions are needed for any material object to exist as physical reality. Take away one and the object will cease to exist, and can then only exist as a concept or an idea. For example, a two dimensional object cannot actually exist, because even with length and width it still needs the dimension of depth to be anything other than an idea or an imagined concept. Two dimensional objects cannot actually exist except in the imagination.
In equations and formulas time is often regarded as a true physical dimension, but only because of the necessity of turning it into an imaginary or conceptual number to conform with whatever reality the equation is designed to express. Saying the same thing in another way (which is probably unneccessary except for those who get off on verbosity [verbal obesity] and count sheer number of words as proof of validity) converting time into a value that will conform with other (true) physical values is done so it will fit into formulas and equations and not because time itself (or of itself) has any true physical properties, such as being another 4th (physical) dimension that can literally be added to a 3 dimensional object.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSays the Nobel prize winning physicist...
I went back to read from the beginning and ran into something which is often misunderstood.
Time is not a true dimension. This is both intuitive and correct, and is easily proven. If you freeze time and then view any physical object you will see that all three dimensions of that object are still there, but the so called 4th [i]dimension[/ ...[text shortened]... as being another 4th (physical) dimension that can literally be added to 3 dimensional objects.
Oh! No wait...
I know a fair few physics professors who would take issue with all of that.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI missed winning the Nobel prize by thaaaaaat much...
Says the Nobel prize winning physicist...
Oh! No wait...
I know a fair few physics professors who would take issue with all of that.
(imagine my thumb and forefinger being held apart by 1/2 inch)
I don't dispute the authority of people who know so much more than I do. What I dispute is a presumption of enforcement by self-deputized authoritarian wannabes who went to university before ending up at a game site message board, expecting to dazzle with brillance without needing to fall back on befuddling BS... or is it the other way around?
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinIf you ask anyone What part of your body do you believe your consciousness resides? the answer is always (a few exceptions are to be expected) the same. It's easy enough to make the argument that the mind and brain are same, until it's understood that the mind simply resides in the brain and is not the brain itself. Proof of this is when you die your brain is still there. But not your conscious mind, and what happens to that consciousness is not something science is able to definitively prove or disprove one way or the other. There are legimate scientists arguing both sides of this issue, but without a realistic philosophical overview they can't get very far with it.
This is a very valid question and quite hard to do justice to. The book Conciousness Explained by Dan Dennett (yes, one of the 'new atheists'😉 does a pretty good job I think. Whether it really achieves the assertion of its title is debatable!
Essentially, the argument is that 'conciousness' emerges from the interactions between the different areas of the ...[text shortened]... eriencing but really, the experiences are just what the brain is doing.
--- Penguin.
Some scientists forget (or perhaps don't know) that science itself is a direct outgrowth of philosophy, and that science owes many if not most of its methods to the philosophy that spawned it. Methods such as identifying and examining evidence, as well as methods of testing our assumptions and educated guesses. Logic as a tool for reasoning is also an invention (and therefore a product) of philosophy. So in spite of how some scientists may disagree, regarding science as a specialized outgrowth of philosophy is really not much of a stretch. The two are much more closely related than they might first appear to be.
29 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon lime"If you ask anyone What part of your body do you believe your consciousness resides? the answer is always (a few exceptions are to be expected) the same. It's easy enough to make the argument that the mind and brain are same, until it's understood that the mind simply resides in the brain and is not the brain itself. Proof of this is when you die your brain is still there. But not your conscious mind, and what happens to that consciousness is not something science is able to definitively prove or disprove one way or the other." (lemon lime)
If you ask anyone What part of your body do you believe your consciousness resides? the answer is always (a few exceptions are to be expected) the same. It's easy enough to make the argument that the mind and brain are same, until it's understood that the mind simply resides in the brain and is not the brain itself. Proof of this is when you die ...[text shortened]... much of a stretch. The two are much more closely related than they might first appear to be.
"Your 'immaterial self' Is. Your brain is the rational component of your immaterial self. It functions within your material self while you are physically alive. Your material self will die. The moment when your material self dies, you (your immaterial self) instantly departs from your material self. Your person/your soul is you: your ultimate being with spiritual potential." (my same page reply to Penguin)
Similar observation?