I would like to hear what you found to be way off.
On Sep 11, 2:47 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I checked out his video, Molly. Honestly, I have to say that I think
> that either this guy has no idea what he is talking about or he is a
> fraud. I can go over the details with you if you are interested, but
> his understanding of the science is just way, way off.
>
> On Sep 11, 7:58 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Gregg Braden termed consciousness the Divine Matrix:
>
> >http://www.talktotara.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=139
>
> > On Sep 11, 7:51 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > So your argument is that although its "held in the brain" it is not
> > > material?
>
> > > On Sep 11, 2:09 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Just,
>
> > > > Yes that is the idea my claim is that conciousness is held in the
> > > > brain, and so it must be a biological mechanism, so yes it does assume
> > > > that answer.
>
> > > > You say:
>
> > > > ' 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.'
>
> > > > Which really is you doing the same thing is it not?
>
> > > > Of course not all mechaninsims can be said to be objects either. Would
> > > > you not call mathamatical formulea mechinisms? Lets take Pi for
> > > > example, is it not a mechanism by which a carpenter can figure out the
> > > > diamater of round table that he has been asked to build?
>
> > > > On 10 Sep, 16:09, 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
