Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Because we perceive our consciousness through use of our brain. If brain function is affected in some way, obviously our perception of consciousness is affected. It's not a matter of interrupting thought, it's a matter of interrupting the *brain*.

With enough practice, one can turn off all conscious thought in meditation. Does that mean one is no longer conscious, or no longer has consciousness?

You just proved my point. The act of perceiving one's consciousness is actually being conscious. Consciousness is really just a complex perception. Thank you.
Jake

yguy · 05-22-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
Not a shred eh? I told you, drugs that disable neurotransmitters, thus disabling thought, can disable consciousness. That is evidence that is proven. So tell me how I am wrong on this.

You have not shown that the drugs disable consciousness BY disabling thought. They could be disabling either or both independently of each other.

Quote:

You agree that thought originates from the brain right? If consciousness is something controlled by a soul, how does interrupting thought affect it?

First of all, consciousness it not always control by the soul with which it is associated - that's what hypnosis is about. As for interrupting thought, that can happen without consciousness being interrupted. This is apparent if one merely sits quietly and observes one's own thought stream. If you try this, you will find yourself falling back in to the thought stream in short order, but it demonstrates that consciousness can observe thought; i.e., consciousness is the subject of which thought is the object.

Quote:

This has direct bearing on the issue. You asked how he could block realization with thinking. I told you.

No, I asked how - if one can block realization with thinking - realization can be the product of thinking.

Quote:

We have our sense of free will, which is enough for me. Ultimately we have no control, but to us we do.

So we have free will because we think we do, even if we really don't?

Quote:

And our choices can be influenced, so a murderer has no excuse.

How does the conclusion follow from the premise? Seems to me it would make more sense to say that since our choices can be influenced, a murderer has an excuse.

Quote:

The point of the court system is to protect society, not to judge someone as evil.

What does the court system protect society from if not evil as expressed through criminal acts? How could we rightly take away anyone's freedom without having judged them as irresponsible, which is equivalent to evil? Sure, no judge is going to state officially that the purpose of jurisprudence is to protect society from evil, but that is what it amounts to, semantics aside.

Quote:

Read a law book.

Which one?

Quote:

I am not going to dig around for a link as I am in the process of moving. The data I have given you is easily accessible, the drug example for instance. Also, any biology book should answer your questions.

Thanks for nothing. That's like me telling you, were you ask me about some point of theology, to go read the Bible.

Quote:

Again, read a biology book or take some drugs, either one will support my claims.

I only recently found out that you are a teenager. That goes a long way towards explaining such condescending insolence. Trust me, young man - it doesn't affect me in the least.

Quote:

I have demonstrated FULLY how consciousness is subordinate to thinking, please re-read my other posts.

You're not even close to having demonstrated any such thing.

Quote:

It seems you care, as you continue to post. This last statement seems an admittance of defeat.

It could only be defeat if I had accepted the challenge to prove the existence of a soul. I continue to post because of the consciousness issue.

yguy · 05-22-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Maybe it's not - why should it be? I'm quite happy to believe that many animals do have conciousness - though of course I don't know.

Another human being can embarass you with a look. Animals can't do that.

Hawkingfan · 05-22-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aradia
Lack of evidence does not make something false.

There is no proof to your assertion/definition of "soul" being a form of energy. Using Occam's razor, it is reasonable to say it is not a form of energy.

Quote:

Perhaps at a later date, when we are more technologically advanced and have more knowledge, we could detect a soul. In the present, thought, we may either not yet have the ability to detect it, or we've detected it but attributed its qualities to something else.[/B]

The technology is already here. Everything in this universe is some form of matter (mass or energy) and gives off electromagnetic radiation that we can detect. We can detect every bit of mass and energy in your body, in the atmosphere, on the earth, and in many cases deep space.

Keith Russell · 05-22-2003, 02:20 PM

Aradia said:
Lack of evidence does not make something false. Perhaps at a later date, when we are more technologically advanced and have more knowledge, we could detect a soul.

Keith:
To be rational, beliefs must be based on evidence. Lack of evidence makes the claim (that 'souls' exist) arbitrary.

It is irrational to believe even that we could detect a soul, sans evidence.

K

Keith Russell · 05-22-2003, 02:23 PM

JakeJohnson said:
You just proved my point. The act of perceiving one's consciousness is actually being conscious. Consciousness is really just a complex perception.

Keith: I disagree. Consciousness is the process of organizing, analyzing, and integrating perceptions into a usable, functioning whole.

Consciousness is not perception, any more than the skin is an organ of cognition.

K

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
Actually, the thinker does arise from the thoughts. The thoughts of a very primitive animal are limited to "see red, run" or "see object, eat" This is because they lack the neural capacity to link thoughts together to form a complex thought. Humans can see an object, see a color, see it move, and then they can link this with other thoughts to make sense of it. There is no need for a soul anywhere in the picture.
Jake

Irrelevant. The post wasn't directed to you, it was directed to someone else regarding the assumption of a soul's existence.

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
You just proved my point. The act of perceiving one's consciousness is actually being conscious. Consciousness is really just a complex perception. Thank you.
Jake

Yes, I did, and you're welcome. FWIW, I think the others arguing this point went about it entirely the wrong fashion. *shrug*

SimplyAtheistic · 05-22-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
I disagree. Consciousness is the process of organizing, analyzing, and integrating perceptions into a usable, functioning whole.

Consciousness is not perception, any more than the skin is an organ of cognition.

Well, I stated that the act of perceiving was a conscious act. And to me perceiving something includes analyzing,organizing, and integrating. I agree with you about consciousness, and thats what I meant by perceiving.
Jake

Aradia · 05-22-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
There is no proof to your assertion/definition of "soul" being a form of energy. Using Occam's razor, it is reasonable to say it is not a form of energy.

The technology is already here. Everything in this universe is some form of matter (mass or energy) and gives off electromagnetic radiation that we can detect. We can detect every bit of mass and energy in your body, in the atmosphere, on the earth, and in many cases deep space.

Oh, whew. I was worried we couldn't directly detect dark energy. I'm glad we now are able to. Where can I find a reference to this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2003, 02:20 PM	#65
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Aradia said: Lack of evidence does not make something false. Perhaps at a later date, when we are more technologically advanced and have more knowledge, we could detect a soul. Keith: To be rational, beliefs must be based on evidence. Lack of evidence makes the claim (that 'souls' exist) arbitrary. It is irrational to believe even that we could detect a soul, sans evidence. K

05-22-2003, 02:23 PM	#66
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	JakeJohnson said: You just proved my point. The act of perceiving one's consciousness is actually being conscious. Consciousness is really just a complex perception. Keith: I disagree. Consciousness is the process of organizing, analyzing, and integrating perceptions into a usable, functioning whole. Consciousness is not perception, any more than the skin is an organ of cognition. K

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.