IF there are those here who are well versed in the brain, perhaps someone could go over the 3 brains we have? Thanks.
On Sep 10, 8:09 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Lee, > > Thanks for the great post it is very clear. > > I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You > write: > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > In general, if by "use in order to work" you mean anything like what > happens in steering linkages then I think your argument fails because > it assumes the answer. Here is why: > > If our consciousnesses are like steering linkages and if we manipulate > one end of the linkage the other end moves then it is safe to assume > that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one > end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in > mechanical linkages. > > If however, our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages and if > we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves > (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is not > safe to assume that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" > where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what happens > generally in mechanical linkages. > > The possibility would still exist that if our consciousnesses are not > like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage and > the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material > manipulation) then it is due to some other process than "uses one end > of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means what happens > in linkages. It would then be due to an entirely different process > that still allows the cause to be transmitted. > > Whether consciousness can be affected by material manipulation is > given and has been known ever since the cavemen ducked a rock thrown > at their heads. It does not rely on modern advances in neurology in > the slightest. > > If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > it. > > Furthermore if you understand what a mechanism means to include > roughly it "being an object" and you understand that "consciousness" > means to be an "experiencing of the object" as *opposed* to the object > itself. Then saying that consciousness is a mechanism is a > contradiction in terms and no empirical question is needed to > determine whether it is materially affected. It cannot be affected > materially because what we mean by the term is not something either > objective or material. That does not mean it cannot be manipulated by > manipulating a physical object. It is obvious it can. It only means > that the linkage need not be material indeed cannot be material. > > Consider the mechanism of your brain. If consciousness is an objective > property of that mechanism then you are correct. But if consciousness > is not an objective property (meaning that when say "consciousness" we > mean something other than an objective property ) then describing the > influence of matter on it in terms of a mechanism which is an > interaction between two objects > > I further assert that what I mean by "my consciousness" is not some > property of what I experience. Therefore it is not objective, > therefore it is not material. > > Again thanks for the exasperated attempt at rigor and clarity. It is > actually that kind of clarity that is necessary to sort this out > > On Sep 9, 6:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it? > > > Ahhh yes! > > > If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you need to > > use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes? > > > I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact stear the > > car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then maybe > > you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above? > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > Or put in another way. If I drink a glass of water and notice no > > change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to > > suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in order > > to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course) > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > > Actually they do not. > > > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness being > > > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of ones > > > brain. > > > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or two), > > > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know.- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
