If consciousness is merely a product of our brains and didn't come about by any Intelligence OUTSIDE of nature, how can your reasoning be considered valid? Your brain is determined by random collision of molecules as well as mine. So why debate? Why dialogue? You act as if there IS objective TRUTH that the other person is deviating from. But this concept lies outside of materialism. A consistent atheist is silent.
I'm not persuaded by your arguments for soul and brain being the same. The phineas gage exampe doesn't argue for this because it could be argued that personality is peripheral to soul. The same thing applies to the split corpus callosum and the god helmet examples. The corpus example references belief formation, which could be regarded as peripheral. Positing qualities of experience as the identitical to experience is similar to ascribing color to a mirror based on what is in front of it.
@truthtofind Also, the seperateness of soul and brain can be argued for based on facts rather than perceptions or feelings. To find a pretty good example of this search for "reginald firehammer" and "consciousness itself". I don't know who Firehammer is, but he makes decent arguments. One of the strongest is the possible incompatibility of the contiguity of subjective experience and the physical and temporal disunity of the brain and its processes. (Reposting due to earlier error)
You have a strong sense of reality ABC. I believe our views are congruent on this matter. I also believe that every living thing is simply one consciousness experiencing itself from a subjective point of view. Nice video and good pick on the Dvorak Cello concerto.
Like someone mentioned before, there are reports of people being completely brain dead, and they had near death experiences. I read one where a man had suffered a heart attack, saw his dead brother with his [what he thought] alive parrot pearched on his bro's shoulder. When he awoke, he asked his wife about his parrot. She said that the bird had died, but she didn't want to tell him seeing as how he had just suffered a heart attack. Regardless, I enjoy your videos.
I'm going to watch the rest of these videos and sub, because I agree with many of your opinions and facts. I have a really difficult time believing that there is no...other part to us (i.e. spirit, soul) though, and I see limited meaning to life and relationships with others if I'll someday never get to see them again. It saddens me deeply, therefor I am in the ongoing process of studying metaphysical and scientific support for an afterlife. Thanks for the vids.
I was wondering because you seem to be more intelligent then I and may be able to answer this, but I know our bodies are kinda like an electro-chemical machine. What happens to the energy in our bodies when we die? Does it just disipate into the surroundings? Also, is there any part of us that is in this energy or is it just our neural chemistry that makes us who we are?
Another good vid, ABC. I was particularly impressed with the series of conundrums that LoneStar's insistence on a soul separate from the brain would perforce lead. 5 stars
Well put as usual. Regarding an eternal spirit: Religion has evolved. Just as science has a most current hypothesis, so does Christianity. Probably others too, but I can't speak for them. The religious model with a soul drives behavior that has personal consequences as well as procreative. The best action for a 'no soul' model would be to extinguish competators outside the local community. There's no downside to war because there is no driver for accountability. Thoughts?
The idea of a soul has not - and still does not - prevent war. In the US, the most staunch supporters of the war are right wing christians...
As for my thoughts on war, the scope of empathy has broadened. A lot of people no longer just see the people of their in-group as human beings, but the rest of the world as well. This goes for both theists and atheists btw. Waging war still results in hurt and death for human beings, The only justifiable war would be in defence, not offence...
That's true (prevention of war) of modern civilization. How would a predominantly "no soul" humanity socially evolve over long periods of time? I offer this statement as a hmmm not as an ah-ha.
Is defense from a perceived threat a defense or offense? The winners write the history.
Offence. I am of the opinion that we should never strike first...
This "pre-emptive" war idea has been a disaster, it has backfired. Not having an actual plan and being too optimistic had a hand in it too, of course...
An elaboration on the supporters of the war. They do not see the muslims, or those far away as part of their in-group, and therefore do not really consider them to be deserving of human being status
Sometimes true. My brother was a Chaplain in Vietnam and many young men knew that they killed or were killed for something as trivial yet vital as a political system. They may or may not have been right, but they (many, not all) knew they were in pitch battle with someone else's sons who, in other times, might be their friends. Sorry to digress.
True, but I wasn't talking about people who are actually in a kill-or-be-killed situation. Those that I refer to are safely at home, protected from the reality of war...
I'm a bit confused. The Casimir effect deals with virtual particles between (and around) objects. What has it got to do with the speed of light not always being constant (of which I'm quite sceptical)?
Science is all about what we don't know. Science doens't make up answers, if we don't know, it's to be found out.
Science is a very recent thing, it's not been around as long as religion or philosophy, and yet, it's given us better answers than both. Although philosophy is different because it searches for the right questions, not the right answers.
I agree, and I am very curious as to where science takes it...
As for the casimir effect, I thought it had to do with wormholes, not the speed of light (although wormhole travel would be faster than the speed of light), but then again, I am not very good at physics...
The mind/consciousness is a product of the brain's processes. It is an emergent property of the brain. They are not the same, just like forward momentum is not a car, but momentum would not exist without the car...
If you find this interesting, you should listen to the "Brain, Mind, & Consciousness" conference held by the Skeptics Society. It's 3 yrs old, but shows where science is going...
i think the persistence of non dualism stems from an illusion of simplicity in selection processes.i think the way we can sometimes appear to effortlessly choose between options is much like the way we can appear to effortlessly stand or walk.while walking can seem to the conscious mind effortless,in fact a great deal of coordination,balancing, and counter balancing are in fact going on largely unnoticed by us.i think what people call freewill is much the same in nature.
Do Christians have a working definition of what the soul is supposed to actually do (while one is still alive)? I'm really not entirely clear on that one...
I think Lonestar makes a good attempt at explaining what the soul is (this vid is a response to his). I however know of no consistent explanation as to what exactly a soul is...
What are you even talking about "you cant even scientifically prove consciousness in the first place"? What is there that needs proving? Do I have to prove to you that you are having a personal experience? I take that as a given fact that any sensible person understands. I think therefore I am. I'm not trying to prove to you that consciousness exists, that much is obvious. I'm pointing out that that consciousness is an abstract phenomenon grounded in the laws of physics.
I got in a car accident once and suffered some brain damage. I developed a strange addiction to rave music and bright colors. Colors became more vivid I also had the strange urge to hug strangers for about a year. It's just strange how that turned out.
JonathanClement140, did you know we cannot scientifically arrive at a scientific method? I guess science is not the only method of inquiry. Avoid the dogma of scientism.
Yes, Tallis is merely claiming that much of the rest of the body is important as well. Essentially, that a brain in a vat is not sufficient for consciousness.
If a vat could do everything a body can do and was given a social environment then a brain would still not be a sufficient condition for consciousness, but rather the brain plus the pseudo-body (vat) plus the society would all be necessary.
But you'd have to admit that the brain is the variable that matters the most, the body is secondary. The statement "we are our brains" is meant to point out the absurdity of seeing our selves as separate from our brain(or more accurately, our brain-FUNCTION).
Not at all. The brain is a necessary condition, but it is no more a necessary condition (whatever that means) than any other necessary condition. A community of minds, much of the rest of the body and any other possible necessary variables all shape our consciousness or selves.
I agree that environments also shape our brains, everything has an influence on our brains, but to postulate that we are not our brains because of this, I think is wrong. Influence is not the same as essence.
I am not so much claiming that environments shape our brains so much as they shape our selves and that without said environments we could not have selves. You seem to be starting from with the assumption that we are our brains so as to conclude that we are our brains.
So, for example, if everyone on this planet were to die except for you, you would cease to be conscious? That's rather absurd and I take it that you don't think that, but it's one of your postulates. That society is necessary for consciousness when obviously it isn't. Also, "shape our brains" and "shape our selves" are synonymous. You're playing a word game.
1: They are only synonymous if we are our brains and that is what is being contested. So you are right to identify a word game, but I am not the one playing it.
2: I suggest that a community of minds is necessary for the emergence and shaping of a mind, you are right that it is not necessary for sustaining a mind.
1: "if we are our brains" does not mean anything. Obviously just having brain matter doesn't constitue consciousness. It's the physiological processes of the brain that produce the effect. You've made no distinction between the two. So unless you're arguing that consciousness comes from somewhere other than the brain (in which case you're just a quack) saying "shape our brains" and "shape ourselves" are synonymous. Don't cause confusion by accusing me of what you're doing.
2: A community of minds is not even necessary for the emergence and shaping of a mind. Any experience an individual has can "emerge" and "shape" a mind, it doesn't have to involve society. Here's another hypothetical: instead of everyone you know to exist to be human, replace them all with robots just programmed to act like humans. Your mind would have been shaped in exactly the same manner as it has. Again, consciousness is a phenomenon based on the laws of physics.
You accuse me of being a quack and set up an argument (that shaping our brains is the same as shaping our selves) that presupposes what you are trying to demonstrate. Then you suggest that the (rather unlikely) possibility of perfectly simulating a community of minds to shape or create a mind shows that a community of minds is unnecessary to shape or create a mind. And I am the one that is causing confusion?
You clearly missed the point. Let me spell it out for you: A mind is shaped by experience, not anything in particular (society) about that experience. Obviously different experiences will shape a mind differently but that's irrelevant. What the experience is (society) doesn't matter, consciousness (however you want to define it I really don't care) still happens. We can therefore conclude it isn't necessary. You are a quack though if you think anything other than the brain makes you "self-aware"
Then you shouldn't have hypothesised a simulated society but suggested another experience capable of shaping and creating a mind; don't blame me because your example was inadequate.
Then I am a quack and whatever other ad-hominem you want to throw at me; I believe the brain is a necessary condition, but I also believe that society (and not any random experience) is necessary and much more of the body than just the brain.
Incidentally, have you conceded your circular semantic argument?
I have to say your intellectual dishonesty disgusts me. To enter a debate not with the intention of critically exchanging ideas (like most), but insulting and 'enlightening' (as you so condescendingly describe your intentions) is grotesque. If you can relieve yourself of that arrogance for long enough you would do well to learn a few lessons for Socrates.
lol intellectual dishonesty? I'm being honest, really I am, if you think your "consciousness" comes from anywhere other than the brain... I mean it's just so obvious when you take a look at the facts that you'd have to be trying not to understand where it comes from to reach any other conclusion. That or trying to make "consciousness" fit with some preconcieved notion that it doesn't come from the brain (dualism), which I think is what you're trying to do.
I don't doubt that you're 'honest', but I don't think anybody that regards there own position as 'so obvious when you take a look at the facts that you'd have to be trying not to understand [...] to reach any other conclusion' intellectually honest. There is a distinction between honesty (not deceiving) and intellectual honesty (being rigorously critical of yourself and aware of your own fallibility). And no, I'm not a dualist, as I already noted in the first comment of this thread.
I wonder if you have the courage to admit what follows from the statement that we are our brains: We do not possess what is commonly called "free will."
In some ways you're wrong. Quite a few people plead innocent for crimes by blaming chemical reactions in the brain. When we ARE our brains, the chemical reactions and us are one and the same. We'd have none to blame but ourselves.
Indeed, while I do not agree with the conclusion that we are our brains, John Traviss is right that this conclusion still allows for free will. This is Hume's compatibalism, although I believe the stoics had a similar notion.
Actually i quite agree with the suggestion that free will is really an illusion. As because we are matter, me are subject to the incredibly complex cause and effects od the universe. However, we humans are so incapable of comprehending this cause and effect that for all intents and purposes, we do have free will.
I would say that those who make a false distinction between "chemicals" and "us" are wrong. You can say "we" are responsible for everything or "we" are responsible for nothing; and doing either isn't really making a distinction.
Still, "punishments" are "causes" just like anything else. So, it's logically consistent (and in agreement with materialism) to theorize they could be used to alter behavior.
Personally, I don't believe in a moral justification for punishments.
Nope, I think free will is an illusion. That doesn't mean we need to be fatalistic, since we experience everything as if we do have free will. So I will exercise my free will, or what I think of as free will, since I am not aware of the limits to it...
Exactly. Just because we can deduce a lack of free will doesn't mean we're "wrong" to feel the way we feel (that we can "decide" things).
There is considerable magic in the process of knowing/learning. We can never be anything but "the universe." Enlightenment is just mind seeing itself, i.e., the universe.
I'm unsure what the point of educating an animal too stupid to realize this on its own is (it creates a facade i.e. the intelligence they attain from the learn is disingenuine, making plebeians less identifiable and causing them to breed with the legitimately intelligent) but yes, that's all very true. We only have need of one or the other, if they believe in brains, why do they believe in a soul beyond the figurative? Well, actually I know the answer to that question. Anyway, entertaining video
That is a very elitist view, and I have to disagree. We all need to learn things, and some things may be less obvious to one person than to another. However, this doesn't mean that one person is less valuable than another. Intelligence does not define worth.
Good work. Always nice to see someone arguing against dualism. It would seem painfully obvious that it's wrong but all too many people still cling to it.
Perhaps, but some people might say the same about type physicalism. Hippocrates was wrong in 500BC when he postulated that the Brain was the sufficient condition for consciousness and people still cling to that theory.
So, do you experience your brain? We all experience ourselves as the person who lives inside our brain, which is where this idea of dualism comes from
I do not necessarily believe we are our brains. I believe that our self-awareness makes us a little more. But also, I believe that all things that react to their environments {which can include robots} have souls of some kind as well. But then, I'm weird. XD
So an electron has a soul? It reacts to it's environment.
There is nothing special about being "self-aware". It's a phenomenon based on the laws of physics, like evolution. Conciousness happens - nothing more, nothing less.
If consciousness is merely a product of our brains and didn't come about by any Intelligence OUTSIDE of nature, how can your reasoning be considered valid? Your brain is determined by random collision of molecules as well as mine. So why debate? Why dialogue? You act as if there IS objective TRUTH that the other person is deviating from. But this concept lies outside of materialism. A consistent atheist is silent.
dwheel39 3 months ago
I'm not persuaded by your arguments for soul and brain being the same. The phineas gage exampe doesn't argue for this because it could be argued that personality is peripheral to soul. The same thing applies to the split corpus callosum and the god helmet examples. The corpus example references belief formation, which could be regarded as peripheral. Positing qualities of experience as the identitical to experience is similar to ascribing color to a mirror based on what is in front of it.
truthtofind 4 months ago
Comment removed
truthtofind 4 months ago
@truthtofind Also, the seperateness of soul and brain can be argued for based on facts rather than perceptions or feelings. To find a pretty good example of this search for "reginald firehammer" and "consciousness itself". I don't know who Firehammer is, but he makes decent arguments. One of the strongest is the possible incompatibility of the contiguity of subjective experience and the physical and temporal disunity of the brain and its processes. (Reposting due to earlier error)
truthtofind 4 months ago
Abc, have you ever asked yourself how life would be if you have never been conscious (a wake)?
superbn0va 6 months ago
What a terrible place to use Dvořák. Nevertheless, good content. :-)
RichieJohnSauls 11 months ago
You have a strong sense of reality ABC. I believe our views are congruent on this matter. I also believe that every living thing is simply one consciousness experiencing itself from a subjective point of view. Nice video and good pick on the Dvorak Cello concerto.
Fisherdec 1 year ago
Like someone mentioned before, there are reports of people being completely brain dead, and they had near death experiences. I read one where a man had suffered a heart attack, saw his dead brother with his [what he thought] alive parrot pearched on his bro's shoulder. When he awoke, he asked his wife about his parrot. She said that the bird had died, but she didn't want to tell him seeing as how he had just suffered a heart attack. Regardless, I enjoy your videos.
Illyria23alyssa 2 years ago
I'm going to watch the rest of these videos and sub, because I agree with many of your opinions and facts. I have a really difficult time believing that there is no...other part to us (i.e. spirit, soul) though, and I see limited meaning to life and relationships with others if I'll someday never get to see them again. It saddens me deeply, therefor I am in the ongoing process of studying metaphysical and scientific support for an afterlife. Thanks for the vids.
Illyria23alyssa 2 years ago
Thank you so much for those links. I'm in the process of watching Phantoms In The Brain right now, and it's fascinating!
AislinCade 2 years ago
Bjork, is this you??
kali17 2 years ago
Agreed 100%, ABC. Prejudice and intolerance are legions more hostile and destructive to society than atheism will ever be.
frededison 2 years ago
I was wondering because you seem to be more intelligent then I and may be able to answer this, but I know our bodies are kinda like an electro-chemical machine. What happens to the energy in our bodies when we die? Does it just disipate into the surroundings? Also, is there any part of us that is in this energy or is it just our neural chemistry that makes us who we are?
clokwerk1945 2 years ago
Brain chip - CHECK MY SITE.
bpyjktgiuk 2 years ago
Great stuff. Fascinating, interesting commentary delivered in a great accent, I simply cannot avoid subscribing!
Stegocephalian 2 years ago
Great Video!! Thanks for addressing a common misconception.
verstwo2 2 years ago
You could have made this without the music. I wanted to focus only on your words, but the music hindered me.
DaleHusband 2 years ago
Another good vid, ABC. I was particularly impressed with the series of conundrums that LoneStar's insistence on a soul separate from the brain would perforce lead. 5 stars
MainStreetMonochrome 2 years ago
Fantastic video! Well done. Where in Scotland are you from? I'm from Sussex in England, but I now live in Florida.
ChrisBovington 2 years ago
Well put as usual. Regarding an eternal spirit: Religion has evolved. Just as science has a most current hypothesis, so does Christianity. Probably others too, but I can't speak for them. The religious model with a soul drives behavior that has personal consequences as well as procreative. The best action for a 'no soul' model would be to extinguish competators outside the local community. There's no downside to war because there is no driver for accountability. Thoughts?
--- Peace
RabbitEars001 2 years ago
The idea of a soul has not - and still does not - prevent war. In the US, the most staunch supporters of the war are right wing christians...
As for my thoughts on war, the scope of empathy has broadened. A lot of people no longer just see the people of their in-group as human beings, but the rest of the world as well. This goes for both theists and atheists btw. Waging war still results in hurt and death for human beings, The only justifiable war would be in defence, not offence...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
That's true (prevention of war) of modern civilization. How would a predominantly "no soul" humanity socially evolve over long periods of time? I offer this statement as a hmmm not as an ah-ha.
Is defense from a perceived threat a defense or offense? The winners write the history.
RabbitEars001 2 years ago
Offence. I am of the opinion that we should never strike first...
This "pre-emptive" war idea has been a disaster, it has backfired. Not having an actual plan and being too optimistic had a hand in it too, of course...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
If you were to replace soul in your comment with empathy, you would understand my point of view.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Would empathy drive the same results (on a personal scale but replicated over generations) as enlightened self interest?
RabbitEars001 2 years ago
I don't see why not.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
An elaboration on the supporters of the war. They do not see the muslims, or those far away as part of their in-group, and therefore do not really consider them to be deserving of human being status
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Sometimes true. My brother was a Chaplain in Vietnam and many young men knew that they killed or were killed for something as trivial yet vital as a political system. They may or may not have been right, but they (many, not all) knew they were in pitch battle with someone else's sons who, in other times, might be their friends. Sorry to digress.
RabbitEars001 2 years ago
True, but I wasn't talking about people who are actually in a kill-or-be-killed situation. Those that I refer to are safely at home, protected from the reality of war...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
I'm a bit confused. The Casimir effect deals with virtual particles between (and around) objects. What has it got to do with the speed of light not always being constant (of which I'm quite sceptical)?
Itslvle 2 years ago
Hahaha, a much better title Atheistblindchick! It wouldn't have anything to do with my and Rowans inane ranting would it? :P
aenrko 2 years ago
Brava!!!!
Elaina43 2 years ago
Hey there beauty queen, Jay here.
Nice piece about brain injury.
jkeaty2 2 years ago
ABC, you have such a knack for explaining these things, It is a joy to listen to your videos.
wavymavy 2 years ago
It's a simple question, but not a simple answer.
Science is all about what we don't know. Science doens't make up answers, if we don't know, it's to be found out.
Science is a very recent thing, it's not been around as long as religion or philosophy, and yet, it's given us better answers than both. Although philosophy is different because it searches for the right questions, not the right answers.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
All in all an outstanding video. Excellent.
Brandt761 2 years ago
umm....Phineas Gage was 1948, right? You said 1448. Also, he was a railroad construction foreman.
Brandt761 2 years ago
errrr 1848, sorry.
Brandt761 2 years ago
1848
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
There isn't even a real definition of awareness, which is why science can't agree if animals are really aware. Or that we are even truly conscious...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
I agree, and I am very curious as to where science takes it...
As for the casimir effect, I thought it had to do with wormholes, not the speed of light (although wormhole travel would be faster than the speed of light), but then again, I am not very good at physics...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
I know of this project.
The mind/consciousness is a product of the brain's processes. It is an emergent property of the brain. They are not the same, just like forward momentum is not a car, but momentum would not exist without the car...
If you find this interesting, you should listen to the "Brain, Mind, & Consciousness" conference held by the Skeptics Society. It's 3 yrs old, but shows where science is going...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
great video
ticijev 2 years ago
i think the persistence of non dualism stems from an illusion of simplicity in selection processes.i think the way we can sometimes appear to effortlessly choose between options is much like the way we can appear to effortlessly stand or walk.while walking can seem to the conscious mind effortless,in fact a great deal of coordination,balancing, and counter balancing are in fact going on largely unnoticed by us.i think what people call freewill is much the same in nature.
NemoUtopian 2 years ago
a series of processes that remain largely undetectable to our conscious minds.
NemoUtopian 2 years ago
I think we are on the same page here.
As for free will, we cannot but think we act as free agents because we will never fully know all the reasons we chose on thing over another...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Do Christians have a working definition of what the soul is supposed to actually do (while one is still alive)? I'm really not entirely clear on that one...
Elithrion 2 years ago
I think Lonestar makes a good attempt at explaining what the soul is (this vid is a response to his). I however know of no consistent explanation as to what exactly a soul is...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
What are you even talking about "you cant even scientifically prove consciousness in the first place"? What is there that needs proving? Do I have to prove to you that you are having a personal experience? I take that as a given fact that any sensible person understands. I think therefore I am. I'm not trying to prove to you that consciousness exists, that much is obvious. I'm pointing out that that consciousness is an abstract phenomenon grounded in the laws of physics.
aenrko 2 years ago
I think I came to this conclusion also when I reflected on "brain dead" patients a few years ago. I wondered, "where are their souls?"
amberview30 2 years ago
I got in a car accident once and suffered some brain damage. I developed a strange addiction to rave music and bright colors. Colors became more vivid I also had the strange urge to hug strangers for about a year. It's just strange how that turned out.
Nihilist127 2 years ago
Seems like you had a year of free X ;)
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
I would have to say it was a fun time. :)
Nihilist127 2 years ago
Not trying too trivialize the accident but...
Boy, do i want that to happen to me.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
That's only because science has just begun to look into this, it's a very new field. We haven't even defined consciousness yet.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Your the BEST! Thank you!
brklynusa 2 years ago
JonathanClement140, did you know we cannot scientifically arrive at a scientific method? I guess science is not the only method of inquiry. Avoid the dogma of scientism.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Comment removed
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Isn't the brains part of our body?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Yes, Tallis is merely claiming that much of the rest of the body is important as well. Essentially, that a brain in a vat is not sufficient for consciousness.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
However if the vat can function like a body. I.E. life support, oxygen, nutrition, and sensory input, ithink the brain can still have conciousness.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
If a vat could do everything a body can do and was given a social environment then a brain would still not be a sufficient condition for consciousness, but rather the brain plus the pseudo-body (vat) plus the society would all be necessary.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
But you'd have to admit that the brain is the variable that matters the most, the body is secondary. The statement "we are our brains" is meant to point out the absurdity of seeing our selves as separate from our brain(or more accurately, our brain-FUNCTION).
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Not at all. The brain is a necessary condition, but it is no more a necessary condition (whatever that means) than any other necessary condition. A community of minds, much of the rest of the body and any other possible necessary variables all shape our consciousness or selves.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
I agree that environments also shape our brains, everything has an influence on our brains, but to postulate that we are not our brains because of this, I think is wrong. Influence is not the same as essence.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
I am not so much claiming that environments shape our brains so much as they shape our selves and that without said environments we could not have selves. You seem to be starting from with the assumption that we are our brains so as to conclude that we are our brains.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
How do you define "self"? Is it consciousness?
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Yes.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
So, for example, if everyone on this planet were to die except for you, you would cease to be conscious? That's rather absurd and I take it that you don't think that, but it's one of your postulates. That society is necessary for consciousness when obviously it isn't. Also, "shape our brains" and "shape our selves" are synonymous. You're playing a word game.
aenrko 2 years ago
aenrko,
1: They are only synonymous if we are our brains and that is what is being contested. So you are right to identify a word game, but I am not the one playing it.
2: I suggest that a community of minds is necessary for the emergence and shaping of a mind, you are right that it is not necessary for sustaining a mind.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
RowanFortuneWood:
1: "if we are our brains" does not mean anything. Obviously just having brain matter doesn't constitue consciousness. It's the physiological processes of the brain that produce the effect. You've made no distinction between the two. So unless you're arguing that consciousness comes from somewhere other than the brain (in which case you're just a quack) saying "shape our brains" and "shape ourselves" are synonymous. Don't cause confusion by accusing me of what you're doing.
aenrko 2 years ago
2: A community of minds is not even necessary for the emergence and shaping of a mind. Any experience an individual has can "emerge" and "shape" a mind, it doesn't have to involve society. Here's another hypothetical: instead of everyone you know to exist to be human, replace them all with robots just programmed to act like humans. Your mind would have been shaped in exactly the same manner as it has. Again, consciousness is a phenomenon based on the laws of physics.
aenrko 2 years ago
aenrko,
You accuse me of being a quack and set up an argument (that shaping our brains is the same as shaping our selves) that presupposes what you are trying to demonstrate. Then you suggest that the (rather unlikely) possibility of perfectly simulating a community of minds to shape or create a mind shows that a community of minds is unnecessary to shape or create a mind. And I am the one that is causing confusion?
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
You clearly missed the point. Let me spell it out for you: A mind is shaped by experience, not anything in particular (society) about that experience. Obviously different experiences will shape a mind differently but that's irrelevant. What the experience is (society) doesn't matter, consciousness (however you want to define it I really don't care) still happens. We can therefore conclude it isn't necessary. You are a quack though if you think anything other than the brain makes you "self-aware"
aenrko 2 years ago
aenrko
Then you shouldn't have hypothesised a simulated society but suggested another experience capable of shaping and creating a mind; don't blame me because your example was inadequate.
Then I am a quack and whatever other ad-hominem you want to throw at me; I believe the brain is a necessary condition, but I also believe that society (and not any random experience) is necessary and much more of the body than just the brain.
Incidentally, have you conceded your circular semantic argument?
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Conceded? This is the internet. I was merely trying to enlighten you. You're too daft though.
aenrko 2 years ago
I have to say your intellectual dishonesty disgusts me. To enter a debate not with the intention of critically exchanging ideas (like most), but insulting and 'enlightening' (as you so condescendingly describe your intentions) is grotesque. If you can relieve yourself of that arrogance for long enough you would do well to learn a few lessons for Socrates.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
lol intellectual dishonesty? I'm being honest, really I am, if you think your "consciousness" comes from anywhere other than the brain... I mean it's just so obvious when you take a look at the facts that you'd have to be trying not to understand where it comes from to reach any other conclusion. That or trying to make "consciousness" fit with some preconcieved notion that it doesn't come from the brain (dualism), which I think is what you're trying to do.
aenrko 2 years ago
I don't doubt that you're 'honest', but I don't think anybody that regards there own position as 'so obvious when you take a look at the facts that you'd have to be trying not to understand [...] to reach any other conclusion' intellectually honest. There is a distinction between honesty (not deceiving) and intellectual honesty (being rigorously critical of yourself and aware of your own fallibility). And no, I'm not a dualist, as I already noted in the first comment of this thread.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Comment removed
aenrko 2 years ago
That's entirely possible.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Exactly what i was gonna say.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
We are our brains.
Every action we do is decided by our brains(us) and then done.
Our brains are complex and magnificent, but they are not supernatural, they're are collection of cells.
qanazir 2 years ago
Fabby-Dabulous!
OnTheFritz602 2 years ago
You make my neurons connect in whole new ways.
samsroomie 2 years ago
nicely put, ABC.
I wonder if you have the courage to admit what follows from the statement that we are our brains: We do not possess what is commonly called "free will."
Even many atheists have trouble with that one.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
We do not.
But because we have a large problem accuratly predicting events, we might as well act as IF we had free will.
qanazir 2 years ago
In some ways you're wrong. Quite a few people plead innocent for crimes by blaming chemical reactions in the brain. When we ARE our brains, the chemical reactions and us are one and the same. We'd have none to blame but ourselves.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Indeed, while I do not agree with the conclusion that we are our brains, John Traviss is right that this conclusion still allows for free will. This is Hume's compatibalism, although I believe the stoics had a similar notion.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Actually i quite agree with the suggestion that free will is really an illusion. As because we are matter, me are subject to the incredibly complex cause and effects od the universe. However, we humans are so incapable of comprehending this cause and effect that for all intents and purposes, we do have free will.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I would say that those who make a false distinction between "chemicals" and "us" are wrong. You can say "we" are responsible for everything or "we" are responsible for nothing; and doing either isn't really making a distinction.
Still, "punishments" are "causes" just like anything else. So, it's logically consistent (and in agreement with materialism) to theorize they could be used to alter behavior.
Personally, I don't believe in a moral justification for punishments.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Nope, I think free will is an illusion. That doesn't mean we need to be fatalistic, since we experience everything as if we do have free will. So I will exercise my free will, or what I think of as free will, since I am not aware of the limits to it...
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Exactly. Just because we can deduce a lack of free will doesn't mean we're "wrong" to feel the way we feel (that we can "decide" things).
There is considerable magic in the process of knowing/learning. We can never be anything but "the universe." Enlightenment is just mind seeing itself, i.e., the universe.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
on the title, we are not our brains we are what our brain dose. It has to be running.
Ishta5 2 years ago
You're absolutely right, and I do address that in the video. I'll think about changing it.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Another great post, ABC. You rock.
Giuvannuzzeddu 2 years ago
Perfectly said and done Atheistblindchick... ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Absolutely! Understanding the brain evaporates superstitions like the soul.
Chibling 2 years ago 2
I'm unsure what the point of educating an animal too stupid to realize this on its own is (it creates a facade i.e. the intelligence they attain from the learn is disingenuine, making plebeians less identifiable and causing them to breed with the legitimately intelligent) but yes, that's all very true. We only have need of one or the other, if they believe in brains, why do they believe in a soul beyond the figurative? Well, actually I know the answer to that question. Anyway, entertaining video
MassZombicide 2 years ago
That is a very elitist view, and I have to disagree. We all need to learn things, and some things may be less obvious to one person than to another. However, this doesn't mean that one person is less valuable than another. Intelligence does not define worth.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Good work. Always nice to see someone arguing against dualism. It would seem painfully obvious that it's wrong but all too many people still cling to it.
Nykytyne2 2 years ago 3
Perhaps, but some people might say the same about type physicalism. Hippocrates was wrong in 500BC when he postulated that the Brain was the sufficient condition for consciousness and people still cling to that theory.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
So, do you experience your brain? We all experience ourselves as the person who lives inside our brain, which is where this idea of dualism comes from
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Ramachandran is great!
Nice video!
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Brilliant., best summary of monism I've heard so far.
Thanks
thorungal 2 years ago
"But then, I'm weird"
I can't argue that.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago 4
I do not necessarily believe we are our brains. I believe that our self-awareness makes us a little more. But also, I believe that all things that react to their environments {which can include robots} have souls of some kind as well. But then, I'm weird. XD
LeksServices 2 years ago
So an electron has a soul? It reacts to it's environment.
There is nothing special about being "self-aware". It's a phenomenon based on the laws of physics, like evolution. Conciousness happens - nothing more, nothing less.
aenrko 2 years ago 2
We are more than the sum of our parts. But does this mean that the soul exists separate from us?
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago