SimplyAtheistic

I will assume the mind is the collective neuron pattern, representing an individual. And the brain is the structure that services the mind. The self's very existance relies on the pattern of neuron arrangement, so a change in that could affect its own universe, or more specifically, its emotions, desires, etc.. I hope this explains what I am getting at, please be more specific if it doesen't answer your question.
Jake

yguy

Think you could find it in your cold, cold heart to spare us any more argument by repitition?

Of course it does, if thought controls consciousnes, an assertion which you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for.

No, it only shows that consciousness and thought can be influenced by external stimuli. Kindly demonstrate how if follows from this that consciousness arises from thought.

That, of course, is absolutely non-responsive. You are merely stating obvious facts which have no bearing on the issue.

If that's the case, it appears there is no such thing as free will, and it is impossible to judge mass murderers as evil, for instance. You OK with that?

I have never claimed access to any compelling empirical data. You have, but have so far failed to produce even the merest hint of a specific scientific reference.

It's not mine, because I'm not a Bible literalist.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever, only your interpretation of what you say you have read.

You have yet to demonstrate how any of this implies that consciousness is subordinate to thinking.

Almost any hypothesis is plausible under cursory examination. That's how Art Bell got rich.

If I were interested in proving to you that there is such a thing as a soul, a test would certainly be in order. Things being what they are, I suggest you complain to someone who cares.

yguy

My soul is the core of my being. Isn't that helpful?

Actually, "having a soul" is something of a misnomer, like saying my arm has an arm. I AM a soul.

I see it as more of a planetary model, like moons (thoughts, emotions, sensory input) around Jupiter.

The soul can exist without consciousnes of external reality, at least. Whether it can be unconscious of its own existence I don't know.

yguy

That's not what I'm getting at. We can think about a conceptualization of consciousness, but we cannot directly observe it by thinking. We can do the reverse.

Link?

I didn't say I have a soul because I say I do, I said that my basis for knowing it is not a book, but direct knowledge.

How is that different from what animals have?

Aradia

Wow. Interesting. Jake, you should try to stop looking at everything as a computer. You know what they say about those whose only tool is a hammer...

soul: n. A form of energy. In a living, conscious entity, the soul is the illusion of "self", or ego. It is the thinker, separate from the thoughts.

Of course, as a buddhist, I don't actually believe in a self, so it stands to reason that I also don't believe in a soul.

However, as a computer programmer (Hi Jake), I realise that a computer is useless without somebody operating said computer. As someone finally pointed out, if the self is defined by neurosynaptic responses, one must ask what is the initial cause. If physics is the only law, then we are completely without choice, and you are unable to choose what you think. You cannot stop thinking about the colour red, and start thinking about the colour blue. It's either destined to happen, or it isn't. It is this inherent ability to *control* our own minds that is the crux of the problem (including the problem of AI).

The entire philosophical discussion comes down to one thing, and one thing only.

Do you believe in free will?

Thomas Ash

Well, to clarify my question, think of one neural event happening, thus creating (in some way) a mental event. Then think of, some time later, another mental event happening, in a different part of the same brain. This also creates a mental event. My question is: why do they have some connection, in that the person experiencing the second event is concious of being the same person who experienced the first, rather than being separate, self-contained mental experiences as two neural events in separate brains would cause?

Thomas Ash

Well here's an interesting exercise in analysis. Imagine a soul without any concious events going on - orbiting around it to use your quite good Jupiter analogy. What's left? If you can say nothing that is actually left, then a soul simply equeates to conciousness, which none of us really have a problem with.

Thomas Ash

Here you go - it's actually called The Relationship Between the Mind and the Brain.

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.

Thomas Ash

Well, how did you then? Could you run us through it?

Thomas Ash

"The thinker, separate from the thoughts" is actually quite a good definition of the soul, getting back to my original question (I feel, what with JakeJohnson and yguy's ongoing battle, the discussion has drifted from this somewhat.) Of course, ti still leaves us with something very difficult to get to grips with, and raises the question of how one unitary thinker arises for all these different thoughts just because they happen to arise in the same brain (though of course not all thoughts are conciously thought and experienced by this 'thinker'/'soul'...)

Any ideas or further thoughts?