Welcome Simon. I'm with you, well sorta, it seems like a 'fact' to me that conciousness is a propertiy of the brain and usless to argue any other way. Yet the soul, ahhh now the question arises what has the soul got to do with conciousness, which I guess helps to explain why some want to see conciousness outside of the brain.
Myself well I'malmost agnostic on questions of the soul, I kow such a thing exists, I know it does not equal conciousness and so no need for conciousness to reside outside of the brain. What the soul is? Well I'm gonna have to say I don't know, how does it work, umm I don't know. I have some ideas, but none of them live up to logical scrutiny, but shit that's okay see Chris's defintion of faith elsewhere this thread, I can live with this faith bassed belife. On 6 Sep, 02:10, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > The word 'soul' means nothing to me. I have no idea what that is. How do we > measure it to see if it exists or not? And, even if it does, where does it > come from, the brain? Where does it stay once it has come from wherever, the > brain? > > Sorry, it still seems to me like the brain is the source of self and > consciousness. > > Souls are all well and good but if I am to be questioned on the evidence > supporting the brain's electro-chemical functioning as the source of > consciousness then surely there is an equal or even greater need for some > shred of evidence to support a 'soul' as the origin of the same. > > Can you give me as detailed a description of the soul as possible, please? > How does it give rise to consciousness? How does it communicate with the > brain, when and how does it develop. Lots of questions so please be as > detailed as you can. I have heard people talking about souls for decades but > nobody ever seems to be able to describe them or support their idea with > more than simple assertion, which experience has taught me to reject > out-of-hand initially. > > Look forward to some details. > > Cheers. > > 2009/9/5 archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > These are areas where what we say can often not be what we mean. > > Bullet through brain does seem sensible as leading to no person here > > (i.e. presence of corpse) but there could be a soul and so on - or > > consciousness might take the 'self' and re-deliver it somewhere. > > There are plenty of examples of 'mirror-world' science about. I think > > we may be approaching a time at which we can use memory in something > > like real-time and this will speed up our knowing and probably stop > > much of the political drivel we suffer from wasting so much time (and > > all the rest). At most, I believe this would open up new mysteries or > > paths to take. > > > On 6 Sep, 00:20, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank-you. This is an area of particular interest to me. > > > > I have no problem with bits of faith, I think that without faith, > > > doing anything in the course of the day would be next to impossible. > > > However, before I takes any leaps of faith I try to first measure the > > > distance. That said, I am interested in ideas concerning awareness of > > > self, consciousness, that try to do away with the physical brain as > > > the source. From what I can tell no brain is no self therefore self > > > must come, somehow, from the brain. Where to you see self coming from, > > > awareness and consciousness, if not the lump of matter, the brain? > > > > On Sep 5, 12:09 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to > > > > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry….” – SE > > > > > “…The brain is being mapped and it won't be very > > > > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE > > > > > First, you have been taken off of moderation. Welcome to Mind’s Eye! > > > > > Next, I applaud what appears to be a conflation of a scientific > > > > attitude with faith…in this case, faith in the coming of a world > > > > without ‘mystery’. While it is a common view, seldom is it presented > > > > so succinctly! > > > > I. actually, didn't say a 'world' without mystery, since I was > > > referencing the mapping of the brain> So I was indicating the mystery > > > of brain function, self, awareness, consciousness et. al. will soon be > > > removed. > > > > > On Sep 5, 8:10 am, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not addressing Dennett. I am talking about experiments that can > > > > > change consciousness. If a chemical can change consciousness then > > > > > obviously chemicals are a great part of consciousness. Likewise for > > > > > the application of electro-magnetic forces. > > > > > > Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious > > > > > activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external > > > > > sensory input. > > > > > > Neuro-transmitters are essentially, also simply chemical transfers > > > > > launch by electrical energy. > > > > > > For example, LSD exclusively affects the temporal lobe. If you remove > > > > > the temporal lobe the subject can consume buckets of LSD and it will > > > > > have no effect on him/her at all.. > > > > > > Absolutely all psychotropic drugs alter consciousness via physical > > > > > chemical influences, from god experiences to colour perception. > > > > > Serotonin, as an example, is manipulated by large numbers of > > > > > hallucinogenics as well as ant-depressants. > > > > > > I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to > > > > > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry. > > > > > > This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would > > > > > strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in > > > > > neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by > > > > > Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very > > > > > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed. > > > > > > >No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and > > > > > >what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious > > meaning > > > > > >what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed > > > > > >phenomenological descriptions of experience. > > > > > > We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where > > > > > our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same > > area > > > > > we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self. A duality that > > > > > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like.- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
