Thread: What is consciousness?

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Everything happens for a reason. This is not the begining of this situation at all but it is where I will start for my idea. A surge of electrons goes through a wire heating it up. The heating of the wire causes the gases inside a container to give off light. Light is made of particles that are rapidly moving through space the particles bounce around filling the room. Some photons bounce off a tube of blue paint in just the right way to send blue light directly into my eyes. A lens in my eye focuses the light into light sensors which then send an electrical signal to a location in my brain. From that point in my brain many different electrical pulses are sent out to different parts of my brain. One path of electrical impulses causes my subconscious to remember something pleasurable somehow associated with the color blue. Now we know that something (or several somethings) that happened in the past causes me to like the color blue.

Now because I saw and realized that I liked the color blue I asked myself how I could apply it to this conversation. Because I thought of that my brain reacted and sent electrical impulses into my muscles causing them to contract. I want to hit a certain button but the signals sent to my arms and fingers arent exact and I hit the wrong button and must go back and re-type it. AS Im typing I realize that it has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread. Except for the fact that it was all caused by multiple variables all coming together to this one post.

So basically everything in the last 10 minutes has caused what I am doing at this exact moment.

So can anybody guess which side of this debate im on yet?

Oh and one more question. If everything is happening seperate in our brains why do we interpret it as all one thought?

If you're implying that because we have a metaphorical description of the different on-going processes that occur in our brain, and because of so, there is no X, then you're just committing a genetic fallacy. As for your highly vague and possibly erroneous description on how the brain works, I suggest you improve your understanding of it before making it the highlight of your post.

Well yeah I really dont know much at all about how the brain works but that is my understanding of it.

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

Because of the obvious ambiguities in this statement, I'll oblige to the principle of charity and do my best to interpret this:

Every effect has a cause, but isn't determined before it is caused.

1.Every effect has a cause
2.Every effect isn't determined before it is caused.

No conclusion can follow from these two premises alone, so I'll just comment on them.

1.) We believe so.
2.) Explain. This claim is moot, and as you can see, there are multiple people in this thread arguing otherwise.
(Now we know what side of the debate you're likely on; indeterminism.)

Originally Posted by Malac Reborn

Because of the obvious ambiguities in this statement, I'll oblige to the principle of charity and do my best to interpret this:

Every effect has a cause, but isn't determined before it is caused.

1.Every effect has a cause
2.Every effect isn't determined before it is caused.

No conclusion can follow from these two premises alone, so I'll just comment on them.

Therefore, anything determined before it's caused, isn't an effect.

Oh how ignorant I was in the past...

I supposed I should add, too, that because the conclusion inferred is false, considering most movies are the effects of preplanned productions, the premise which it depends upon must be false.

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Well yeah I really dont know much at all about how the brain works but that is my understanding of it.

Everything happens because of something before it but everything isnt set before it happens.

But even by that logic, it follows that everything is at least set into motion before it happens, which is just as well. There really isn't much of a difference.

Yes things are set into motion before they happen but it seems hard to believe that because A relative of my friend invented the olive pitting machine a long time ago that on a specific day at a specific hour my throat will contract in the wrong way around an olive pit causing me to choke. (this is ignoring the fact that I dont like olives)

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Yes things are set into motion before they happen but it seems hard to believe that because A relative of my friend invented the olive pitting machine a long time ago that on a specific day at a specific hour my throat will contract in the wrong way around an olive pit causing me to choke. (this is ignoring the fact that I dont like olives)

I don't understand. If you acknowledge that events are determined, then why are you asking why some things would lead to other things? Why would it be hard to believe, relative to what alternate scenario... that everything happens completely at random? Although a possible explanation, but completely useless for a logical discussion.

Well what im trying to say is that I am in some kind of middle ground. It just seems extreme to say that everything happens because of something before it including the most random thoughts that randomly pop into your head.

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Well what im trying to say is that I am in some kind of middle ground. It just seems extreme to say that everything happens because of something before it including the most random thoughts that randomly pop into your head.

You get a high-paying job because you got a degree. You develop the Bean Catapult 9000 because a "random" thought told you it was a good idea. In some instances, we may not be able to always predict the future (i.e. quantum mechanics (I think) states there are infinitely many outcomes during an interaction between particles with varying probabilities of each outcome (I think, don't blast me, I'm just stating an interesting hypothesis)), but regardless, the events ultimately achieved are still the result of past interactions.

Understand, by the way, that I think determinism could be true; it's just that I accept that there's no solid logical grounds for it.

It is of course possible to ascertain as to whether the macroscopic world is deterministic for all useful intents and purposes, the answer being yes. It also seems that the scale of the brain is still too large for it to be reasonably classed as non-deterministic.

Consciousness is the soul that our Lord and savior has blessed us with. In this world, many people are confused about the simplest of stuff. Search for yourself in the bible and let the Lord grace you with His presence. And then we all died from aids. what?

Originally Posted by malac

Consciousness is the soul that our Lord and savior has blessed us with. In this world, many people are confused about the simplest of stuff. Search for yourself in the bible and let the Lord grace you with His presence. And then we all died from aids. what?

:bravo:

I dont get it but in a discussion like this you are supposed to stay away from religious explanations

I have had this problem with you Laughing man. I think this last question is the most important one. Since the laws of physics pretty much govern everything else, why would they not govern human action?

Originally Posted by Indecent Exposure

I have had this problem with you Laughing man. I think this last question is the most important one. Since the laws of physics pretty much govern everything else, why would they not govern human action?

Because human action is not a natural science. You cannot look at an individual and say 'Oh yes, he/she is buying chocolate ice cream because it is in line with the first law of thermodynamics.' In order to understand human action, you must place yourself in the mindset of the individual your viewing. You can't put yourself in the mindset of a rock being thrown in the air, can you?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because human action is not a natural science. You cannot look at an individual and say 'Oh yes, he/she is buying chocolate ice cream because it is in line with the first law of thermodynamics.' In order to understand human action, you must place yourself in the mindset of the individual your viewing. You can't put yourself in the mindset of a rock being thrown in the air, can you?

What is this I don't even

Now you're just being silly. Tell me, do you actually have any clue as to how the universe works? Or do you just like arguing in circles for the hell of it?

Let's take your example. Instead of spouting nonsense, I would go "I hypothesize that this woman is buying chocolate ice cream because her brain, governed solely by the laws of the universe, controlled her body in such a way as to execute the exchange of money for frozen dairy products." Everything within our universe, as long as it remains within this universe, is governed by the laws within it. What you propose is an incredulous claim, and as it is the more extraordinary, the burden of proof rests solely on you. Now, instead of some half-baked fallacious argument, could you possibly give us a substantial reason, hypothesis, and most importantly EVIDENCE to show exactly why humans are not governed by the laws of the universe like everything else? Until you do so, there is absolutely no reason to take you seriously. Good day.

Originally Posted by Mario92

What is this I don't even

Now you're just being silly. Tell me, do you actually have any clue as to how the universe works? Or do you just like arguing in circles for the hell of it?

Let's take your example. Instead of spouting nonsense, I would go "I hypothesize that this woman is buying chocolate ice cream because her brain, governed solely by the laws of the universe, controlled her body in such a way as to execute the exchange of money for frozen dairy products." Everything within our universe, as long as it remains within this universe, is governed by the laws within it. What you propose is an incredulous claim, and as it is the more extraordinary, the burden of proof rests solely on you. Now, instead of some half-baked fallacious argument, could you possibly give us a substantial reason, hypothesis, and most importantly EVIDENCE to show exactly why humans are not governed by the laws of the universe like everything else? Until you do so, there is absolutely no reason to take you seriously. Good day.

So I will ask you what I ask another, if our actions are governed simply by brain chemicals, why aren't we having sex in the streets? Committing senseless violence because of rage? The reason we don't is because we have reason. The ability of reason to govern our emotions puts it above our emotions ( it controls them but they don't control it ). So unless you can show that there is a brain chemical that is 'reason' then you have to accept that our actions aren't governed by brain chemicals. And again, people keep saying 'laws of the universe,' which laws!? Name these laws! Which specific laws govern human action?!

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So I will ask you what I ask another, if our actions are governed simply by brain chemicals, why aren't we having sex in the streets? Committing senseless violence because of rage? The reason we don't is because we have reason. The ability of reason to govern our emotions puts it above our emotions ( it controls them but they don't control it ). So unless you can show that there is a brain chemical that is 'reason' then you have to accept that our actions aren't governed by brain chemicals. And again, people keep saying 'laws of the universe,' which laws!? Name these laws! Which specific laws govern human action?!

We aren't having sex in the streets because we have a society and with that come ethics and social norms. Society is advantagous to humans from an evolutionary standpoint and so are ethics and so are taboos. I could ask you why aren't bears organizing mass bear riots to take back their forests from humans. I mean, we ripped down their homes and kill alot of them. If all emotions are chemical why aren't those bears getting pissed off and destroying our cities/raping our women in a bear-testosterone induced fury?!?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So I will ask you what I ask another, if our actions are governed simply by brain chemicals, why aren't we having sex in the streets? Committing senseless violence because of rage? The reason we don't is because we have reason. The ability of reason to govern our emotions puts it above our emotions ( it controls them but they don't control it ). So unless you can show that there is a brain chemical that is 'reason' then you have to accept that our actions aren't governed by brain chemicals. And again, people keep saying 'laws of the universe,' which laws!? Name these laws! Which specific laws govern human action?!

This post is laden with fail.

First, reason and logic are functions of the brain.
Second, you are making the extraordinary claim by saying that reason is something beyond the brain. That it comes from some other unknown unobserved force. I don't have to accept anything until YOU provide evidence for YOUR crackpot hypothesis. You must prove to me that there is some higher power or other entity beyond that of normal brain processes influencing our behavior. I don't have to prove to you that thinking isn't part of the brain.
Third, try Newton's laws of motion (e.g. every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Consider carefully how this applies to the ions, chemicals, and cellular processes in your brain that create thought).

Hmm I was watching the movie waking life that has a few lines about this. The speaker seems to prefer the deterministic view but still thinks there must be something that we cannot understand about free will.

Ok you just kinda replied to his post by confirming it in another way.

Are you saying now that what ever natural laws control human behavior dont apply to bears? Spockman I thought you were on the side of everything being controlled by natural laws. With this last post you seem to be saying that either bears are above nature or humans are.

Where does society come from? Dont we have to be aware of ourselves to form into groups with rules and norms? What has more affect on the other society or self?

Prove me wrong!

I don't know how.

Prove me right?

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Ok you just kinda replied to his post by confirming it in another way.

Are you saying now that what ever natural laws control human behavior dont apply to bears? Spockman I thought you were on the side of everything being controlled by natural laws. With this last post you seem to be saying that either bears are above nature or humans are.

Where does society come from? Dont we have to be aware of ourselves to form into groups with rules and norms? What has more affect on the other society or self?

On the contrary, I am trying to illustrate how ridiculous it is to presume that if human emotion is chemical a complete societal breakdown would occur. Bears emotions are chemical as well, so why aren't they ignoring what is beneficial to their species and living on raw emotion? I am attempting to show that if human dualism surpasses the laws of physics, so must bears be dualistic as well.

Ok well can you now address the second part of my post? How does society form? Why do bears not organize themselves in the same way?

Originally Posted by Waterknight

Ok well can you now address the second part of my post? How does society form? Why do bears not organize themselves in the same way?

I do believe the formation of society was Divinely guided. However, I also think that society is a natural evolution. Humans, with our intelligence, have been able to take great advantage of society in so far as raising our carrying capacity substantially. Because that is what evolution allows animals to do, reach their population density. Since society allows man to do that, Va-voom, we have ethics and cities and language and such. Plenty of animals form society and a social structure. Most bears just happen to survive best by being lone/small familial units. If Bears could fill their niche better with complex social structure, there is no guarantee of course, but there is a good chance they would evolve society as well.