Filip Sandor

Then what makes you think I paraphrased?

Please make a note, for the future, that I do not manipulate people's words.

P.S. In case you're still confused, I did not paraphrase what they said.

Theophage

I hope so, but there are two different level of explanation that you might be looking for:

The first level is simply not understanding or accepting the idea of mind as function. You agree that there is a difference between a system and that system's function, correct? Well, I am claiming that teh mind is simply the brain's function (though not it's only function).

To use the example of the circulatory system again, when that system is working correctly, the effect is curculation. Similarily, when the brain is functioning correctly, the effect is awareness/consciousness/mind.

The deeper level your question may possibly be asking is more like "What specific functions of the brain are mind?" Alas, this question I cannot answer, since my knowledge of neuroscience is quite limited. Indeed, even an expert in the field may not have a satisfactory answer for you, since humanity really doesn't understand these things very well.

Suffice it to say that at the very least, the function of the brain is involved in awareness/consciousness and to assume that there is more than that is to violate Occam's Razor as well as to appeal to ignorance (i.e. I don't understandhow the functions of the brain can account for the mind, therefore they cannot...)

Clearly, when a system fails, it no longer functiona, and the function no longer exists. This is true of the circulatory system, and it is true of the brain as well. That is why the mind appears to cease at death; if there were additional non-brain components it would nto need to do so. But guess what the empirical evidence shows? Yep, consciousness quits at death.

(Note this is complete brain death I'm speaking of here, not some namby-pamby "his heart stopped but we revived him" NDE type death...)

Hope that helps,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Kharakov

Can you prove that empirical evidence shows that consciousness ends at death? (imo no)

How does lack of responsiveness on the part of the body indicate that the consciousness no longer exists?

Can using empirical evidence even prove that consciousness ever ends? (imo no)

Theophage

Text posted by Kharakov is in bold:

Can you prove that empirical evidence shows...

Silly person, you cannot "prove" anything empirically. There is only evidence. And yes, the perponderance of evidence shows that there is no consciousness after death.


How does lack of responsiveness on the part of the body indicate that the consciousness no longer exists?

How does lack of responsiveness on the part of a toy truck indicate that the toy truck is not conscious?

I am constantly amazed by those who would sacrifice simple common sense so that they may keep clinging to their beliefs. Here's a hint: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

tronvillain

Filip Sandor:
When you give an actual quote I'll give you a little more credit.

Kharakov

Silly person- I said "can you prove that empirical evidence shows..."


</strong>

It's probably my brother pretending to be a duck, like he did when we were kids . We have defined certain sensory inputs as a duck- the duck is a duck because we have agreed that the word duck is associated with our own specific sensations of a duck.

You still did not show that the toy truck is not conscious. I believe that neither you or I know whether the toy truck is conscious or not. Whether or not it is useful to our purposes to believe that a toy truck is conscious or not is an entirely different thing.

You cannot determine whether something is conscious or not because of its apparent responses to the environment.

You cannot determine whether or not something is conscious empirically.

You cannot show whether or not something is conscious empirically.

tronvillain

So, do you consider the rest of us conscious? If you do, it's hard to see how you've used anything but expirical evidence to reach that conclusion.

Theophage

Kharakov,

I understand what you're saying here, but I find it to be trivial at best, and misleading at worst.

We agree that you canot be 100% sure of anything outside of ourselves, but contrary to the way you seem to be using the word, "know" does not imply 100% certainty of a statement. We "know" many facts and things even though we cannot be 100% sure that they are true.

In the case of the toy truck, I would agree that it could posess consciousness of some sort, and I cannot be 100% perfectly sure that it does not. But the fact is that human knowledge is based upon reason, that is to say what is more likely to be true or false than not. Given the empirical evidence, toy trucks are not likely to posess consciousness, and I am thus justified in saying that they do not.

What evidence, you ask? On the one hand, toy trucks do not exhibit any of the responses or behaviors that other things known to be conscious exhibit. In fact, they do exibit the behaviors that we associate with non-conscoius entities. On the other hand, the idea that they are conscious has no evidence at all. Tell me, which way, then, does the evidence lie here?

Similarily, the conclusion that dead people don't posess consciousness is also warranted by the evidence. CouldI be wrong? Sure, but that is implied in any statment, since we both agree that we cannot be 100% sure about anything. It seems to me that your protests here are simply useless.

It should be noted, however, that just because we cannot be 100% sure of X, that does not mean that X and ~X are on the same epistemological footing. One is clearly more likely to be true than the other. I hope the equality of the two isn't what you were implying...

Kharakov

I'd be pretty damn lonely if I didn't .

Kharakov

Theophage-

What you have said sounds good, and I certainly agree with the fact that we cannot be 100% sure about anything .

But...

I disagree with your statement that there is any empirical evidence that toy trucks do not possess consciousness.

I don't think a conscious object has to communicate with or display behaviour detectable by objects besides itself in order to be conscious. You know the old zombie argument, or computer in a box, etc. Those things would provide all of the empirical evidence you want that something is enough like you that it appears to have the same conscious capabilities as you- but you cannot tell if something is conscious just because of the behaviours it displays. This applies to objects that do not display the same behaviours as you.

I think it is entirely unreasonable to make such a broad assumption about reality- that only objects that display characteristics / behaviours similar to your own have consciousness.

We can play a semantic game with this such as redefining consciousness as something that must ibe percievable by us. If we define consciousness as such- you would be correct that empirical evidence would show (not with 100% certainty) that a toy truck is not conscious.

Do you propose that something has to make its consciousness known by other beings in order to be conscious?

Otherwise there is absolutely no way that empirical evidence shows anything at all about the consciousness of an object.

Gotta go to Father's Bday bash!!! Bye

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]</p>