We came to the conclusion that there is no soul, because it has nowhere to hide in the body. Michael Rothschild responds to all those who argue against this unequivocal statement of science
In various conversations here on the site, we have been asked more than once whether consciousness is a physical thing. My argument in these conversations was that everything we know indicates that this is the case. Many tried to represent the opposite opinion - most of them by personal attacks against me and some by reasoning from different reasons. Of the conversations I had on the subject, the most interesting was with Eddie. This conversation seems to have ended Following my response to this.
In this response I showed that when you want to define consciousness in a non-physical way - when you take into account all those properties of the brain that are known to be physical - it turns out that there is nothing left that can be attributed to it.
After I wrote the response, I asked myself if the features I proposed as possible parts of consciousness are not one big miss in the sense that they may not fit the concept of consciousness correctly and that basing this concept on them equally rules out the possibility of consciousness being physical.
The features I focused the discussion on were:
- זיכרון
- Characteristics
- mental abilities
- sensory input
- Decision Making
The question I asked myself was if it was even correct to associate these qualities with consciousness and the basis of the question was the fact that I also use the word consciousness and in doing so I do not specifically mean any of these qualities but something else. I felt the need to give myself an account of the question of what is the other thing that justifies the use of a special word beyond the above five expressions.
I didn't hang a lot of hopes on this self-research because many thoughts of the great and the good have already been shattered in the face of the challenge of defining consciousness, but in the end it seems to me that I understood something, and that something is the reason for writing these things.
I would like to make it clear in advance: this is not the result of an organized scientific study, but certain conclusions that I have reached in the process of introspection and which I offer as a possible theory only.
What I realized is that as much as I try to trace what is happening in my mind, consciousness is indeed based on the aforementioned mental abilities (and similar ones), but what makes it unique is actually the focus of attention.
At one moment she is focused on the pain caused by the hard chair I am sitting on, at another moment she is focused on the conclusion that this pain is due to the fact that a lot of sports activity reduces the amount of natural cushioning that could have protected me from this pain and in the next moment she is already busy with the fact that this script can be used in the current article to demonstrate focus attention.
Some of the studies that track brain activity check which areas are active at any given moment by measuring the blood supply to the various brain areas. In my opinion, there is room for thinking that the active areas at any moment are the ones that represent consciousness. This is the reason why I chose to crown the article with a quote from Deuteronomy, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX.
If I'm right then the author of the book hit around the target. Around - but not exactly: I think the attention is not necessarily given to areas that "work harder" but to those that "shout louder".
This description corresponds to the experience that the puzzle solvers among us are familiar with - that of solving puzzles without realizing it: you hear the riddle, think about it a bit consciously, and if the solution doesn't immediately jump out - you "file" it to think about it later. Many times "the solution pops up" without us being aware that we thought about the problem and announces itself "I found it!" This is how he comes to consciousness.
A similar and more common experience is our attempt to remember something (for example the name of a person from our past). When we don't remember immediately, a process of unconscious search is started and suddenly we remember and information that was unconscious a moment before becomes conscious. It also means that there is a lot of overlap between the areas of the brain used by the conscious and those used by the subconscious because the subconscious becomes conscious when it is excited.
Dispersion of consciousness in many changing brain areas is actually something that is quite necessary in light of the fact that we can be aware - sometimes simultaneously and sometimes over time - of many parts of our being. The picture that appears before my eyes is of parallel activity of different areas of the brain and of attention focused on the most sensitive areas.
The attention I'm talking about is partly a learned thing. This will be evidenced by the processes of "biological feedback" (or in Hebrew - biofeedback) in which a person learns to "listen" to parts of his mind that he is usually unaware of and even activate them proactively.
A natural question to ask is what gives it all the sense of unity. This feeling, together with the fact that one can deliberately decide to concentrate (and as mentioned, even improve function through biological feedback) raise the possibility that there is a special nervous system in the brain designed to connect the different areas and create these feelings and abilities.
I draw reinforcement for this conclusion from what happens to people whose corpus callosum is cut (the corpus callosum is the bundle of nerves that connects the two hemispheres of the brain. Cutting the corpus callosum is a surgical operation that was undertaken in the past more than nowadays in cases of severe epilepsy to prevent the spread of the electrical disturbance from one hemisphere to the other) . Under normal conditions, a person feels like a single being for everything and anything, but when the corpus callosum is severed, it is possible to demonstrate the fact that, like the brain, his personality is also separated in some ways into two (which may even fight each other for primacy).
As a fan of puns I will add one more thing: the image of "the blood is the soul" fits well with the phrase "attention". The blood flow is indeed the output of the heart, but if you look at it in the general context, it is the heart's attention to sustaining the processes of life.
I'll stop with these puns before I turn into a baby doll.
For a previous article by Michael Rothschild on the subject: How are you doing.
101 תגובות
On the mechanism that constricts blood flow in the brain:
https://neurosciencenews.com/calcium-brain-blood-flow-18963/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuYrnOVmfk
You can also just blow like you and Roy
You can also talk without grinding anyone
The discussion only makes sense if people are willing to invest and go far according to the links. Otherwise it's just blowing and grinding water
A few comments on the discussion and I didn't go to the links far far away
One, try to see the relationship - person / computer, soul / person, again all the comments about consciousness and physics stand.
Then you will see that the souls (from experience) can move in time in both directions and thus it is possible to talk about the next world, and the necessity of a person without a soul in the next world.
There is another effect on the statistics for how the world began, the reason, and the chance of life on the ball when time can play back and forth.
In addition, I would like to make another comment that they talked about God length and breadth, it is possible in a universe other than dimensions to play on a scale as well
In short, have a nice day, with respect to blowing water
Roy:
It is clear to me that you did not understand this, so I have to explain to you: I wrote my response so that they would pay attention to it. In general, I think people should pay attention to everything I write, so I avoid writing nonsense.
The situation is probably different for you.
Note Rothschild's response - the words speak for themselves.
I wonder what is hidden behind the character of the beautiful soul to him
Roy - like all religious addicts, does not understand anything and in particular does not understand what a serious conversation is
Rothschild, like all atheists of any kind, incites the debate, when he is proved how wrong he is.
It's a waste of your time - you can't have a serious conversation with him
An existing one:
You should also watch the following links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk
An existing one:
Since you do not explain what consciousness is - there is no way to argue with you.
In fact - you say nothing.
If you agree with a point then I gave detailed answers to all his words.
To Michael:
A point posed the central problem. Consciousness is abstract and cannot be explained with material scientific tools (by the way, the Greek philosophers also insisted on this matter, a point that hangs the difficulty in contemporary knowledge. There is no need for this, of course).
When your hope is fulfilled and awareness will be explained in physical terms, the existence of a creator will also be explained in physical terms along the way, and you and I will go out in a chemical dance of joy out of biological belief.
And now seriously, God is more likely to be physical than consciousness. We have never met God, and the assumption that he is not physical is the result of philosophical proofs. (Yes, I know you don't believe him..)
On the other hand, we know our consciousness and know very well that it has neither length nor width nor mass nor any other definition of matter. Consciousness is the image of God in us. And in the question: "The harbingers of God's hand".
(I do not mean that consciousness forces the existence of a creator, but it negates the central reservation)
The amazing thing is that the really big questions never get complicated. And when an answer seems to be given, the same question pops back up.
For example, where does existence come from? developed in an evolutionary process. A century of religious hysteria has passed over the replacement of divinity with science. Then suddenly the clergy notice, wait, that didn't answer the question at all, so where did evolution begin? the big Bang. Hysteria again. And again the question returns, so how did it start? And so science always says, just wait a few more years and we will have an answer for everything. But that's the beauty of philosophical questions, they can only be answered with philosophical tools. And there the laboratory has no advantage. So science drowns the masses in complex theories and endless books and guarantees that the answer is inside, and by the time the hoax is discovered there are already new theories.
Thus in the question of how it is possible that such a complex world was created by chance. At first evolution claimed to answer this question. Then its researchers themselves saw how improbable life is on Earth (and also because of other problems, such as the physical constants that are not subject to natural selection). So they came up with the funny claim about the billions of stars that each of them has a life experience and only our star was lucky. (By the way, even this was not probabilistically enough, so Stephen Hawking considered creating parallel universes). Apart from the lie in this claim which is obvious to any honest person. After all, it was possible to claim this even two thousand years ago, and without evolution! This is a claim with philosophical rather than scientific pretensions.
And the question does not change or waver, how is it possible that such a complex and synchronized system was created by chance.
And so in the existence of consciousness. They try to confuse with Freud's psychoanalysis, then with X-rays of the brain and the question always comes back in the same form. How abstract consciousness is created from what appears to be matter.
God forbid I have no criticism of scientists who discovered and are discovering the world. The criticism is of those scientists who cynically exploit the public's ignorance, only to proudly report that they have replaced God.
I wonder what happens to the soul of a man who received a blood transfusion from a woman or one can go further
And ask: What happens to the soul of a Jew who received a blood transfusion from a Gentile???
Hagai:
I answered you the way I did because I knew in advance that there was no chance of having a serious conversation with you.
That's why I don't really care what you think.
I repeat: you didn't understand what I said (or you did and you were hiding it well in order to strike back just like that).
In fact - according to your statements, it seems that you did not even understand the topic of the discussion!
I guess you didn't bother to read the highlighted article at the end of this article where questions of the type you are trying to attribute to this article are discussed, but why would you read it - it doesn't serve your agenda.
Indeed it turns out - what you don't understand is that His Highness is not without mistakes either.
I read the article again and my conclusion is the same - you claim that the processes of consciousness and thinking can be explained in a physical way, therefore there is no need for the existence of a soul.
As I tried to explain to you, there is no contradiction here - the processes of thinking and consciousness take place in the brain and the soul has other roles, which people like you are not interested in and therefore it remains useless.
If you still haven't understood what I mean, I think the chances of us having an intelligent discussion without getting carried away by what you call "personal attacks" are zero. I must point out from my impression of reading the comments that your part in lowering the discussion to this level is no less than that of your commenter.
All the best.
Hagai:
The "understanding" you express in your last comment is also incorrect.
It turns out that it is possible to "understand" even wrong things.
There was no need to re-explain what was written in the article. Can just read it and see it doesn't say what you claim it says.
Even if someone tells me that he "understood" that one plus one equals three, I won't bother to explain to him exactly where he went wrong because I am not capable of simulating stupid thoughts in my mind.
Since you did not explain to me what my mistake was, I understand that you summarized all of your scholarly articles in one sentence.
Hagai:
It's good that you started with the sentence "if I understand your argument"
You don't understand my point.
Michael,
If I understand your claim, in short, it is "there is no soul because I have not found a use for it".
First - this is an arrogant claim (as some scientists do) - there are, for example, a number of organs in the human body that we have not found a use for, but you cannot deny their existence because they are material and you see them. Your claim can be a maximum - "You cannot prove to me with scientific/material/intellectual tools that there is a soul".
Your attempt to present the current scientific knowledge in neuroscience as proving that the actions of consciousness are physical is also exaggerated. Galanus was also sure that the food turns into blood and is absorbed by the organs and if he had taken your approach he would have scoffed if someone had told him that the blood contains antibodies and bacteria claiming that he could explain diseases even without needing the existence of such creatures.
The Torah does recognize a situation in which the soul becomes redundant and useless. A person can degenerate his spiritual/soul side and turn himself into a mere physical creation, in whose death all existence disappears. This state is called "Kert" and the Sages say to the one who is in it that "he has no part in the world to come", it is not a punishment but simply his soul dies and after his body dies the person is consumed and disappears from the world. Compared to such a person there are people who have developed the spiritual side of their lives and about them It is said that they "saw their world" meaning already in our physical world their body was a care for the soul and their lives were managed in a completely spiritual way.
That's why you can't prove anything because your claims are true only towards yourself. Most of humanity since time immemorial has believed and experienced the existence of the soul. You can of course explain these experiences in evolutionary terms just like you can explain everything that way and that's because you received a scientific education and therefore if you see a stone falling it seems simpler to you to explain that all 2 bodies in the universe attract each other (or alternatively that the stone simply continued in a straight line from rest) than the simple explanation that there is G-d and he decided that she falls.
You have been educated to have such a strong conditioning against the existence of spiritual beings - such as God or the soul, that you are ready to accept any physical/scientific explanation, however complicated and strange it may be, provided that you do not need God to exist.
The humanistic scientific education you received is what led us to the terrible situation where millions of fetuses are killed because their whole crime was that their mother was not fit to raise them. I am comforted by the fact that the believers of the religion of humanism are decreasing, and in the end there will be nothing left of you but an esoteric sect without influence (but it will probably have a few websites).
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3622176,00.html
One of the mitzvahs was to slaughter a person who wanted to eat the flesh of a live animal and a fowl, and then eat it: as it is said, "And you shall sacrifice your cattle and your meat" (Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMX), and it was said to the firstborn Baal Maum, "But when he eats the deer and the deer - yes, you shall eat us" (Deuteronomy XNUMX XNUMX) - Have you learned how to swim like an animal for slaughter; And about the chicken, he says "Whoever hunts an animal or a fowl, which will be eaten - and spills its blood, and covers it with dirt" (Leviticus XNUMX:XNUMX), teaches that the shedding of the blood of the fowl is the same as the shedding of the blood of the animal.
b And it is forbidden to eat from the slaughtered animal, as long as it is convulsing. And the food from her before her soul leaves - passes without doing, and after all it is "you shall not eat, on the blood" (Leviticus XNUMX:XNUMX); and is not damaged. And it is permissible to cut from her after slaughter before she dies, and they are salted well and washed well well, and left until she dies; And then we will eat.
Joseph:
I wonder how moral our holy Torah is.
There are tribes in Africa that draw the blood of cows and drink it without killing them.
It is much more humane than what the Jews do and it leaves the soul itself to the cow and not the blood that symbolizes it.
The prohibition of eating the blood - because the blood is the soul
"The reason for the prohibition of eating blood is more difficult to understand than the prohibition based on a constitution... Why did the Torah prohibit eating blood? What is the connection between the blood and the soul? Why was the blood chosen to represent the soul?
The prohibition of eating blood is mentioned in the Torah several times. In the passage "Vikrah" the prohibition is defined as a constitution that has no point: "A universal constitution for your generations in all your colonies you shall not eat any milk or blood (XNUMX:XNUMX). On the other hand, in the passage "After death" the Torah gives reason for the prohibition of eating blood: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for the blood is in the soul to make atonement (XNUMX:XNUMX) and further on: "For the soul of all flesh is its blood He said to the children of Israel, "You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the soul of all flesh, whose blood is the blood of all those who eat it, shall be cut off" (XNUMX:XNUMX).
The reason for the ban on eating the blood is more difficult to understand than the ban on the basis of a constitution.
This connection between blood and the soul is mentioned in the book of Genesis: "Every creeping thing that lives shall be for you to eat...but flesh with its soul and its blood you shall not eat" (XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX). And also in the book of Deuteronomy: "Only strong is the blood that cannot be eaten, because the blood is the soul. The soul will not eat with the flesh" (XNUMX:XNUMX).
Why did the Torah forbid eating blood? What is the connection between the blood and the soul? Why was blood chosen to represent the soul?
The Maimonides in Morah Nabukim (XNUMX, XNUMX) explains the reason for the prohibition by saying that worshipers of idolatry used to eat the blood, because they saw it as food for demons. The Torah forbade the eating of blood in order to distance the Israelites from a custom that mentions idolatry. Rambam learns this from the similarity of the verses on the prohibition of eating blood: "And I gave my face to the soul that eats the blood" (XNUMX:XNUMX), and the one who gives of his seed to your father: "And I gave my face to that man" (XNUMX:XNUMX). There is no other case in the Torah that has a warning in this language.
The Ramban considers the concept of soul, brought in connection with the prohibition of eating blood, to be the answer. After the flood it was allowed to eat animal meat - the physical part of it. In order not to reach an extreme degree of cruelty, he was forbidden to eat blood - the "liquid of life" defined here as the soul: "because the blood is the soul".
This still does not explain why the physical blood was chosen to represent the spiritual soul and what is the connection between them?
A physical substance is characterized by physical properties: color, shape, specific gravity, etc., composition and chemical activity and in some cases biological activity. It is impossible to characterize a spiritual concept with these tools.
The blood meets the criteria of a material substance, the soul meets the criteria of a spiritual concept.
Even a spiritual concept such as a thought can be explained as an electrochemical and biochemical activity in the brain cells, similar to the activity of the electrons inside the silicon cells in a computer.
The spiritual qualities of the human soul are related to the heart. A noble soul is defined as one who has a good heart, a pure heart, a compassionate heart, etc. Opposite qualities define a low spirit. Heart and soul are bound together by man's love for his God: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul..."
The heart is responsible for the movement of blood to all parts of the body. The blood contains the oxygen, the food components and the energy to build the cells in the living body.. Excretions from the cells are transported through the blood to the organs that take these excrements out of the body.
The heart plays a physical role along with a spiritual dimension. Thus the blood derived from it fulfills a physical function and serves as a spiritual value - "because the blood is the soul".
About a person who has committed a crime, it is said: "The soul will sin." The physical organs are not responsible for committing the crime, his spiritual soul is responsible for it. Therefore, the blood that expresses the soul will come and atone for the sinful soul: "For the blood is in the soul and will atone"
Eating meat was allowed due to the need for animal protein to sustain life. "The liquid of life" - the blood of the beast was upgraded to a spiritual level
And it is an expression of the animal soul. We do not need this soul to sustain life. Therefore, it must be conducted with spiritual standards.
The prohibition of eating the blood - because the blood is the soul is an expression of our truly spiritual attitude towards the soul of the animal.
Capricorn:
I just saw the link you sent.
magnificent!
Thanks.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/awakeness-area-in-the-brain-1609093/#comment-249762
Prof. Shelly Kagan teaches a course on death at Yale University, in which he goes over the philosophical reasons (in his opinion) for the non-existence of the soul/mind. The course has been uploaded to the web as a video and can be viewed at
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/content/class-sessions
Kagan is a kind lecturer, and you don't fall asleep during his lectures!
If I may have a word...
I read some of the discussions here and the problem with the consciousness thing starts and stems from a much more serious problem!
For lack of a physical explanation, the mind of the time assumes.
There is no plausible physical explanation for the unidirectionality of time (knowing entropy,
Knows symmetry breaking in the weak force, knows big bang and is still not satisfied). Of course not
For our feelings about being flowing, all the more so a plausible physical explanation that can explain
Creating a sense of an observer (consciousness) at a very specific point in time which "progresses" continuously in the direction
one at a time.
That is:
The first problem of consciousness/cognition is trying to explain that it exists at a certain point in time
and not in others (in her past and in her future) and that she is progressing (or that she is progressing) in a way
Continuity towards the future.
It is hard for me to believe that it is possible at this moment to give a reasonable physical explanation why right now my consciousness "is"
In a room in my house in front of the computer in 2009 and not in 2020 or in any other time-space to which
I will come one day.
In short, until we solve or slightly expand our knowledge about time
The debate is fruitless and worthless and it is better to concentrate and talk about the mind itself without pretensions
Unnecessary and ridiculous...
Good Day
Michael,
have fun!
point and also Michael,
It seems that some concepts involved in the discussion went for a walk: consciousness, mind, illusion and all the terms of their physical existence we (humans) gave unique names: weather, temperature, living beings, etc. It is not possible to have a serious discussion without agreement on the terms used in it: we will define the terms (and the entire Hebrew language...) and we can continue!
In my opinion:
The brain is the biological (physical) organ found inside the skull of animals (including humans).
Consciousness is the collection of thoughts to which we humans (and apparently some animals) can relate. From this it can be assumed that consciousness is something abstract, intangible, although highly influential: a conscious thought, one that is in the mind, often (not for everyone...) leads to action (for example, war, creation, etc.), and is therefore very influential.
An illusion in this sense (as opposed to an optical illusion) is (first of all!) a mistaken thought about the existence of something: I think that something exists when it does not exist. Since consciousness is made up of thoughts (which are abstract), it cannot be an illusion, unless one person's own about someone else's consciousness. Since each person has some thoughts of which he is aware (no matter how silly they may be), each person (in the waking state) has consciousness.
Regarding language: consciousness can, although not necessarily, create language.
Previously, a photo of a baboon was published just before it was caught in the teeth of a tiger. There is no doubt about the existence of the consciousness of this baboon, who could not speak Hebrew (and probably any other language).
for everyone:
In a few hours I'm going on a jeep trip in Georgia.
The trip will last 8 days, so if everything goes well, I will continue to bother you from August 22nd.
Lali (copter) and the like.
This is your chance to send without getting an answer!
point:
I do not accept your arguments and recently we saw that Ramachandran does not accept them either.
I did not use the word "consciousness" as a proof of the existence of consciousness, but as an example of its influence on behavior.
Since the experience of consciousness is personal - I have no proof that even you feel consciousness. In claiming that people have consciousness we rely on their reports and behavior. You might as well claim no pain. If you do this I will invite you to a personal meeting where we will be "on the fire" (I will watch and you will sit on the fire).
The claim regarding the connection to the development of language is superficial and contradicts the fact that only a blind person would not notice that even animals without language have consciousness.
If you claim that language creates consciousness as a by-product you are welcome to prove it.
I think this is not true. More than that - it's just ridiculous. I remind you that you are the one who associates the qualia with the subject of consciousness, so I invite you to explain to me how language creates the feeling of "red".
Copter:
The truth is that in your very response here you demonstrated that you too have a place to write your day-to-day reflections.
People are invited to see what my day-to-day musings are about and what yours are about.
Michael regarding comment 66 I have answered all these issues in my previous comments in this article and in previous articles. The reader will decide.
And regarding response 67, regarding evolution we have already discussed this in the past, and I gave several answers to this:
1) That the development of language enabled or required consciousness as a Lui phenomenon. This does not mean that consciousness affects.
2) We have no evidence that all humans have consciousness, and even if they did, there is no evidence that consciousness must be useful (although it is reasonable to think so, it cannot be used as evidence for other things that are less likely).
Regarding the very use of the word consciousness as evidence for the existence of consciousness, I already answered you in a previous article, and in this article see for example response 58 where I talk about exactly that.
It seems to me that this discussion can be closed, just water milling.
It's fun for you to have a place to write and post your day-to-day musings
And you still haven't told me which Ramachandran book you were talking about
point:
Besides, there is no doubt that consciousness is the cause of many things.
Without it there would be no learning, no language and no personal responsibility.
It is also a result of evolution and would not have become the common domain if it had not had an effect contributing to survival.
You have already seen that even if you (unjustifiably) disapprove of all the above - you will not be able to disapprove, since the mere utterance of the word consciousness is an effect of consciousness on reality.
point:
I'm sorry, but you are also trying to pour new content into the word "illusion" that differs from the accepted meaning.
An illusion that is a question of herself? It is already starting to resemble the religious definitions of God who created himself. A definition based on self-reference is not a definition at all and is a sure recipe for contradictions in the arguments based on it.
That way you can't have a conversation.
For every person from the settlement, the weather exists, and the fact that it is made up of particles does not make it non-existent.
If you go back to your usual claim that nothing exists then let's stop having this discussion too because its point doesn't exist either.
The answer lies in the empty spaces between the DNA helices.
1) Michael, all concepts are ultimately our invention. There is no weather in nature, but if we nevertheless agree that current physics does represent reality in some sense, then in nature there are only particles and forces. Everything else is our hallucinations (no temperature, no weather, no living beings, and in general no complex things and certainly not consciousnesses).
2) The illusion of consciousness is not special, all the illusions we know occur in our consciousness, and consciousness is also an illusion of itself. And when you think about it then you realize that precisely if consciousness was an illusion of something that is not an illusion then a problem would really arise as to how this could happen.
3) I say that I do not know what consciousness is, i.e. how it happens, the only thing I claim about it is that it is not the cause of anything, only a result, unlike all the other things in the world which are a result of the past and a cause of the future. Consciousness is "created" and "disappears" every moment anew. Apparently we cannot understand things that are only a result, the limit of our universe.
Birbir:
Thank you for giving further proof of the correctness of my words.
Hugin, what you are doing is harassment which as you know is a criminal offense. After they asked you to stop, and I even called specifically, and you promised that you would stop, you continue to try to bypass your block. In the end I will let someone who specializes in dealing with criminals do it.
The truth is, you're nothing more than a neighborhood macho.
No big deal, it will pass with age - or not.
point:
You are mixing several things that should not be mixed.
After all, I also claim that consciousness occurs in the brain and therefore there is nothing in it that is not found in the brain (just as there is nothing in the weather that is not found in the earth and its atmosphere and this does not make the weather an illusion).
I repeat and point out the internal contradiction in your words.
You don't present even a trace of dealing with it (with other issues you at least try to deal with it. Your arguments in dealing with this are wrong in my opinion, but at least you put forward arguments. You don't say anything about this issue).
If consciousness is an illusion - whose is it?
Hugin, one of the important functions of consciousness is to recognize when nonsense is being said.
Michael, I have already answered you on this matter with several examples that show that it does not follow that consciousness affects reality.
If we have already mentioned in another thread the book Illusions of the Brain, he gives an example of someone who is made to laugh by applying electrical voltage to the brain, and when asked why he laughed, he rationally explains that it was as if something outside made him laugh.
The same thing about talking about consciousness, when the mouth says "consciousness" the brain makes the mouth say it, and thus the mind "intends to say" one thing (the brain ends up "knowing" everything that consciousness knows), but when the experience of speech reaches consciousness (more or less At the same time), you experience 2 unreal things: 1) that you caused the speech. 2) that the word consciousness indicates the experience of consciousness (as opposed to what the mind "intended to say").
These two types of mistakes are the source of all our illusions as humans.
To the serious point: do your words on the website also have added value? Or is it probably just another passing hallucination, lacking intrinsic value?
point:
I cannot conclude that.
Maybe you can but then, in my opinion, you are wrong.
The truth is that there are two mistakes in your words.
One is that even if something is scientifically worthless it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is an illusion. The only interpretation that this claim has (the claim of the lack of scientific value) is that you cannot talk about something like this with others and demand that they understand it.
The second is that the claim of the existence of consciousness has testable facts that support it and I have already pointed out some of them to you.
Michael, from this last point that you raised to the height of introspection, you can conclude that consciousness is a hallucination (illusion..) like any other hallucination that is the private property of the one who hallucinates it.
And another addition to Yossi:
One of your sentences really pissed me off.
You wrote: "It is not possible for me to write an article for example 'from personal observation I came to the conclusion that the Earth is in the center.' "
This is supposed to be a reference to the words about introspection as a tool for discovering reality, but it is simply an act of fraud (perhaps unintentional but still such).
First of all - I wrote that I believe in the ability of introspection when it is combined with logic - while your example is based on a combination with lack of logic.
Introspection is meant to find out things that happen in our soul inside and not things that happen in the outside world.
Your example is illogical in that it claims to use introspection in places that are completely outside its scope.
To learn more about this type of error, you are welcome to read my comments as part of the discussion under the following article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/toward-infinity-0703081/
Response 14 that I gave Yehuda regarding "overgeneralization" is particularly relevant, but I think you should read both the article and all the responses - among other things for the purposes of getting to know your interlocutor.
Besides - the power of introspection is in the discovery itself, but the report must refer to facts that will be available to the reader and my introspection is not like that.
To talk about the fact that I introspectively came to the conclusion that the earth is in the center without supporting the conclusion with facts that the reader can check for himself is scientifically worthless and this description also does not correctly reflect my words.
Birbir:
There is not a single word of truth in your words.
Why did I even bother to answer you?
Because you are a "flowering guest" whose entire response - all of your responses, including the last one, are nothing more than an unbridled and baseless attack.
Say now:
"Unlike you - I only engage in bridle attacks."
Beyond that - the lack of logic in your words is even more evident when you say that a person deserves credit for being willing to put his words to criticism and therefore you do not refer to his words at all (which he was ready to criticize) but to his body.
you made me laugh
We will remind everyone that 'there is an essential difference between the work of the philosopher and that of the scientist. One result of this difference is that in the philosopher's study you will not find a trash can.
: )
Yossi, the study of consciousness is not science at all. And all the philosophy and reams of pages written on the subject did not add any new knowledge or development, only personal points of view of each of the writers, some (and I think most) wrote nonsense on the subject because they lacked a scientific basis of how to analyze things in the world. Therefore there is really no need (beyond the point) to read what one or the other thought. Everyone knows this subject of consciousness very personally and is equal to every possessor of consciousness (who is possessor of consciousness is a separate issue), there is no advantage for an analytical philosopher or a neuropsychologist.
If you thought about it deeply, you would understand that all the professional terms you would so much like to hear, are the source of all the misunderstandings and troubles in these matters and in general in all the "arguments".
By the way, Yossi:
Since you did not read the context, I find it appropriate to refer you to one of the links that appeared in this context.
spoken In an interview conducted by London and Kirschenbaum with Professor Haim Sompolinsky - Physicist and neuroscientist who heads the Center for Neural Computing at the Hebrew University.
When I wrote that it will become clear to us that decision-making is a physical process, I was based in part on this interview (but not only - Libet's studies were also in the background and they were also mentioned in the same discussion).
I find it appropriate to bring this link especially for several reasons.
One is that it's just interesting.
The second is that the interviewed professor also did not see fit to wrap his words in the collection of words invented by all kinds of people to describe their misunderstanding.
The third is that from the moment he finished talking about the findings, the professor was dragged along by Yaron London into statements that in my view are truly scandalous on the topic of determinism.
It is amazing how a physicist and neuroscientist attributes *more* determinism to the brain than exists in physics (since even in physics there is no absolute determinism due to quantum theory).
In the discussion I'm talking about, the meaning of the various experiments is discussed a lot.
I did not find it appropriate to point out the professor's mistakes in that discussion because none of the other participants based themselves on these mistakes to justify other mistakes, but since you show a tendency to refer me to "sources of authority" on the subject, I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that there really are no sources of authority here.
Joseph:
Your words are simply the result of your continuing to ignore the context.
All these issues were discussed during the same discussion that I repeat and refer you to.
I did not intend to provide a historical overview here.
Michael, my words are not on a personal level and I'm sorry if you understood them that way. My words are at a completely professional level as someone who deals in the field. (7 years of writing a doctorate in the field of consciousness) and this is a wide and stormy field that few are aware of the extent of the literature in this field. As in biology or chemistry there is a set of concepts and basic conceptual distinctions, so the discussion in this field is based on some central moves through which they approach discussing the various issues in this topic. This is not at all in what you wrote. For example, what is physicalism?, what is a functional position? What are the different types of dualism? What is the role of explanation in science? And many more points for thought that dictate a certain form of discourse in clarifying various issues in the field. This mapping is interesting to discuss the proper depth. And again, there is nothing personal. good week
Joseph:
I have read the words of many of those you mentioned and also Ramachandran's books.
Unlike you, I am a great believer in the power of introspection and logical thought, and I have also had the opportunity to talk with professionals in various fields and see that what I arrive at this way copes well with the conclusions reached in other ways.
A striking example of this is the content of the "The First Word" articles, most of which were written in response to Dawkins' book - To Unravel the Bow.
I sent Dawkins my conclusions as a response and he was convinced that I was right and he was wrong.
I have the correspondence.
My words here are part of a conversation that has been going on here for a long time and you have contributed nothing to this conversation.
As part of this conversation, the article "What is a soul?" appears.
You can read in the comments to this article the much weaker conclusions that people have reached in the same field even though all the facts that were in front of them were also in front of them.
Part of the sleight of hand of the professionals on this issue is expressed in the link I added there (I don't have time to search in which response) to an article by Schermer who - like all the others - had to content himself with hand waving and examples of disproved test cases and was unable to insist that we have evidence that the whole issue does not stand in the reality test.
An article that is also related to the conversation is the "meta beauty" articles.
You will be surprised - but I also talked about its content with Hanoch Gutfreund, with Idan Segev, and with quite a number of artists.
Everyone accepted my conclusions to a large extent, and this after a discussion on the subject expressed other opinions.
I also have these correspondences.
As mentioned, all this is joined by a long conversation in which many things were said and you choose to join it only at this point and ignore the whole context.
In short - I know the field quite well and here I allowed myself to talk about something I'm a little less sure about - something like a conclusion in the process of brewing - simply to encourage a conversation about the subject and in no way to encourage a conversation about me.
To Mr. Michael Rothschild. When dealing with physics, chemistry, astronomy or mathematics there are professionals and there is a professional discourse. Those involved in the field are obliged to know the field in its entirety before they draft an article that meets professional standards. For some reason, when one begins to deal with the mind one begins with a barbara which is not based on neuro-physiological studies or on a complex philosophical discourse and branch that exists in the field. The study of consciousness is a professional field for everything with a professional discourse and a professional system of concepts. It is not possible for me to write an article for example 'from personal observation I came to the conclusion that the earth is in the center'. It may be exciting but it lacks any scientific value and is not serious and that is more or less the nature of your article. I recommend reading major writers in the field from Daniel Dent and Paul Churchland, Fred Drechka, Chalmers, Hilary Putnam, Jerry Fodor and many others. It is possible and necessary to approach this field in a more professional and appropriate manner. And it is not about giving grades but a basic request for professional articles based on professional literature as every field whether biology or nanotechnology does. Good Day
Michael, you are right.
I will never understand a man who is busy
All the time in unbridled attacks.
I will not refer to the article itself because, unlike you,
I think that when one tries to write an article,
He deserves basic credit for trying and being prepared
stand up to criticism and all this is said without referring to the content itself.
bye soul
By the way, Birbir:
I didn't forget to answer you. I just saw who you are and realized that there's no way you'd know what I'm talking about in an article intended for those with a mind.
point:
Let's start with Sipa. Since you do not define what the rest is, it is not possible to refer to the automatic derivation of the rest from the unfounded assumption at the beginning of your words.
My personal feeling is that this (as in many of your responses) is deliberate obfuscation, but you are welcome to refute this feeling by saying something definite.
In relation to Risha - it, as I mentioned, is not based - not even if these correlations are familiar to you.
I am willing to risk a certain parable, while disclaiming in advance that it is a parable and not the phenomenon itself, and therefore I ask that you do not exaggerate in drawing it beyond the realm where it is suitable as a parable.
Let's look at the temperature thing.
Once upon a time - many years ago - this is what it was. People knew nothing - neither about molecules nor about radiation, but they knew what temperature was.
They knew what kind of feeling it causes in them, what phenomena it causes (such as "dehydration" of water) and even knew how it can be changed in a desired direction.
But - since "once upon a time many years ago" many years have passed, as expected, during which we learned, among other things, that the temperature of a substance is *the same* as the average kinetic energy of the particles that make it up and the temperature of radiation is *the same* along its wavelength.
Note - I'm not talking here about the qualia of heat - it's a phenomenon in the field of analogy - I'm talking about the normal physical meaning of temperature - the same phenomenon that causes water to evaporate (not dry), the same phenomenon that can be increased by fire and reduced by wetting and wind.
Or come and look at something else.
The force of gravity, for example. what is? No one knows for sure!
There are things we know for sure that we are not (Le Sage's teachings, for example, have been disproved) but what is yes? There are only guesses.
One of them (general relativity) claims that oblivion is basically the same as distortion in space.
In other words - these "correlations" are what we always do and what prevents you from accepting the specific correlation of consciousness is simply chauvinism.
We know these correlations very well. You don't have to say them.
I read Dennett and his friends a long time ago, there is no satisfactory explanation, only clever attempts and nothing else.
In short, from a rational point of view, it would not be correct to claim that the sensation of blue is something that exists and is identical to something else that exists (the particular stimulus), identity between A and B means that A is identical in all its properties to B, and not only do we have no identity in all properties, it seems that there is no identity in any feature between blue, to a neurological process.
And everything else follows automatically.
point:
It should be expanded a little because there are some things here that I do know (and you too).
Radiations of certain wavelengths are absorbed by the eye and translated into electrical signals that pass through the nerves.
This process is completely physical and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.
At a certain point they create in the brain a certain set of nerve excitation that we know that always when it is formed the person reports that he sees "blue".
Dennett, for example, claims that there is no need for an explanation beyond this point and that this state of excitement is the feeling of blue.
In the absence of a better explanation, I tend to agree with him, but if someone offers a better explanation, I'd be happy to adopt it.
point:
And all I said was that I didn't know and that I didn't say that I knew in the article either.
Michael, in general, I asked you to explain briefly how in your opinion there might be a connection between the experience of the color blue, particles and force fields. After all, these two things are not related at all.
ladies and gentlemen:
I debated a lot about whether I should publish the things because it was clear to me in advance that some religious professionals and some people who specialize in protesting my words without having anything to say themselves would attack them without trying to understand them.
I decided in the affirmative because I thought there would also be people who would understand them.
The sentence that my father added at the beginning of the words did not help.
I did not come to give an answer to anyone.
I have already presented the answers and in fact the refutations of all kinds of other opinions here in a special article - How are you doing; And they are in different reactions.
My intention here was to present a certain line of thought that, in my opinion, is the only way to find the answer to the question "What is consciousness?"
Now for the more detailed responses.
Hugin:
Hurry hurry….
If you say something meaningful I will answer you.
In my experience this is unlikely to happen.
Haim Shechter (in his various shows - including MM):
You too - if you have something to say - why are you ashamed to do so and say nothing?
It doesn't surprise me that he was with you.
Point (2):
I feel like I'm on repeat.
There are several options.
In my opinion, the claim you often make about consciousness being an illusion is a self-contradictory claim and I have already explained this many times. If it is an illusion - who is it for?
The claim that consciousness originates in the mind separate from the body is at odds with the facts revealed in reality, as I have shown in this article.
Beyond this contradiction with the facts, the psycho-physical problem you refer to exists even more strongly in her.
Therefore, in my opinion, only the option of an existing and physical consciousness remains.
So what do you do when there is only one direction left that has a chance?
Looking further in this direction!
That's what I'm trying to do. no more.
I did not pretend to answer all the questions about consciousness and I wrote this explicitly.
Does the fact that you can raise a question I didn't answer contradict my point?
You should have known better!
Alex:
I very much agree with your claim about the invention of all the answers we are able to find within the physical world, but I disagree with the laxity of the hands you suggest.
Stopping the search for the answer has never yielded an answer.
I tried to show people how it is possible to take another step in understanding consciousness without pretending to understand it completely.
The question of whether we will ever find the full answer lies in the realm of prophecy which I do not deal with.
Elisha:
You suggest that we leave the existence of the soul independent of the body as a possibility.
Why do you expect me to do that if it contradicts the facts?
Do you have an answer to the blatant contradictions that this claim contradicts reality?
I use the word "I" precisely because I disagree with a point. Consciousness, in my opinion, exists and I call my consciousness "I". What is? forbidden?
On the other hand, since I realized that its existence as an independent entity contradicts the facts, I try to understand it within the framework of reality.
By the way, what do you think happens when the corpus callosum is harvested? Is another soul created?
Joseph:
are you embarrassed
What can I do about it?
You probably haven't been following the discussions here.
Otherwise you would probably give a lecture here with all the professional phrases you quote and explain to people what is really true.
Instead you settle for baseless killing.
Does the fact that something has already been said before make it untrue or irrelevant in your opinion?
Know that the phrase "they said it before" was also used by someone before you.
If you have something to contribute to the discussion, you are welcome to do so, but if you just want to give marks, you are welcome to continue to comment on what you wrote.
Hi..after this fascinating article..that I completely agree with Mr. Rothschild..
I have one problem.
You do make a list of "all the things that consciousness is responsible for".
But to this day most branches of science - from science - from anomalous phenomena!!!
If ever..since the beginning of humanity, there has only been one person who knew how to read minds or move things with just a look..proves that there is something in the universe that physics (mainly)..is unable to explain...
And all the physics books need to be rewritten... because she messed something up..
And the rest of the sciences (in my opinion) are based on physics... so...
It could be that everything we know so far..is not exactly certain....
🙂 Have a good week..
Hi..after this fascinating article..that I completely agree with Mr. Rothschild..
I have one problem.
You do make a list of "all the things that consciousness is responsible for".
But to this day most branches of science - from science - from anomalous phenomena!!!
If ever..since the beginning of humanity, there has only been one person who knew how to read minds or move things with just a look..proves that there is something in the universe that physics (mainly)..is unable to explain...
And all the physics books need to be rewritten... because she messed something up..
And the rest of the sciences (in my opinion) are based on physics... so...
It could be that everything we know so far..is not exactly certain....
🙂 Have a good week..
For a moment I thought I was entering a spiritual site,
Until I read the comments that brought me back to reality...
Michael,
The discussion between us, which I mentioned at the beginning of your article - is not over.
I have a lot to answer you.
Lately I've been so busy (it's a 'seasonal' thing), that I haven't found time for it - and I couldn't dismiss your last comment casually. It is clear to me that the approach should be serious, since our discussion was serious and should be.
It is easy for a fool to recognize his own kind more easily than to understand the wisdom of others.
Take comfort, a point speaks for itself. This is not the first time he has expressed himself this way.
See your warning: contagious stupidity like any wave of influence dominates certain times and situations. It is especially difficult to see how, unfortunately, quite a few of those with zero genius potential are also required to adapt to the environment they are invited to. The need is a primal need for some kind of belonging, the main thing is not to be left alone in the peaks..
Apparently, the time has come for us to understand our "God" as well... poor thing, he has descended into femininity and oblivion and the main thing is that his descendants should not say that he is haughty, merciless and compassionate, you can say that he is the one who has become a dark mass..
Oops, I got infected :)
Why criticism, most people are stupid...
Regarding response 12, point:
You gave your opinion:
Do you think we are stupid creatures who have not matured mentally? So what does that make you?
Now my opinion:
I think you are conceited, arrogant and unimportant.
They have no right and no knowledge and experience to pass such criticism.
Elisha, you are just caught up in semantics: essentially, language is built around the thinking of the human mind and not the other way around. In language, 'I' means exactly all of me, that is, my mind (the organ you are not ready to accept its meaning), my body, and everything that includes me with the thoughts, intentions, feelings, etc., there is no point in separating 'I', my body, my mind and my Do you know what else can be invented that maybe if someone succeeds it might prove that there is no possibility of denying its existence! There is a physical body, part of which is the brain, within which chemical and electrical interactions take place, those that contain an amount greater than some critical threshold appear in our consciousness! Nothing more. According to the principle of Occam's razor - there is no need for more than that, not the scattering of a little perfume, not incense or prayer, just this little bit to be our consciousness. Any other superstition - it has no place! The reference of your mind-thought to the shadow of reality that you can perceive with your senses is all you have. The rest of the phenomena in reality - you may be able to learn from reading the data of external devices. Your consciousness is where your impressions of reality are and it depends on the momentary emphasis.
Yigal G.,
Another thing. The statement "I" is a declaration of myself and not a declaration of a point of view. From every possible logical point of view, the use of the third person regarding yourself is more logical and simpler than the use of the first person. There is nothing simpler than for each person to say about himself, say, "Gustav is hungry" instead of saying "I am hungry" - and yet everyone uses the first person.
By the way, monkeys for example are not able to grasp this "point of view" in any way. Chimpanzees who learned to speak with the help of a vocabulary could in no way deviate from referring to themselves in the third person ("Greta wants peanuts"). That is, monkeys, even very intelligent, are not able to grasp what any child, even a profoundly retarded one, is able to grasp at the age of two or three. I wonder why.
What is more interesting in my opinion is: what leads to independent thinking (that does not depend on external factors)?
That is, when you think about something, it will not necessarily be as a result of external stimuli, but you can choose what to think about so that it is more than just connecting different parts of the brain because there is something that leads to a decision to think about a certain thing, as a result of which the different parts of the brain work in a continuous effort to feed the thinking on the subject ?
Yigal c.
No, I didn't actually mean the brain in the sense of "consciousness" but the physical brain. But in any case, by saying "I have consciousness" you didn't solve any problem, you just moved it from the physical plane to an abstract plane. The problem remains the same. Can you say "my mind thinks" and mean something that makes any logical sense?
I'm trying to emphasize the essential point. You can't say of anything that it "thinks" when you mean by that *you* think. That is - in reality (at least the literal one) nothing can think for you, including the brain or consciousness. In the end, I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that you exist, think and feel when, according to your view, it is the molecules of the right lobe that think whether it is worth going to the show, the receptors in the synapses feel that the show is probably worth it, the motor nerves move the legs and bring all the baggage you call "my body" " To the play, and in the end the molecules of the left lobe, with the help of the appropriate neurotransmitter, conclude that the play is actually fine but the play is not something.
The question is just why *you* are in this whole story.
It doesn't matter if we call it a soul and say it's consciousness, or say it's a candy from space that was planted in us by the Spaghetti Monster's uncle's ex, and when we die it returns to the infinite coffee that created the universe: still that doesn't provide us with any answer.
The only advantage it has over a physical explanation is that you can discard everything without recognition and be free from responsibility or explanation, because it is a "spiritual" thing = we have no perception of it, it has no definition and you can say anything about it.
And that's what makes the difference between a serious person who investigates objectively, and a clown who purposely rants about unspecified things to escape responsibility.
Whoever doesn't like what I'm saying, then let him prove me wrong! And for starters:
Please define for me what a soul is unequivocally, and don't change the definition every half minute. Then we can continue the discussion. (I don't expect an answer, it will be too difficult for you...)
And by the way, it's better to go to the twists and turns of the brilliant mind of Gauss (good soil): creation year 1777 = a good and fine vintage:)
Maybe dealing with souls is not so appropriate for a serious scientific and technological website. Just like a week ago, an article was published here about the block, in the context of demons and spirits. These are issues that amount to wars with windmills and superstitions.
Probably a thousand years from now when we fly to distant stars (I'm optimistic), there will be those who will believe in this kind of nonsense.
Wouldn't it be better to publish an article about some innovative discovery, development or research?
Elisha,
When a person says 'I' he declares a point of view. The fact that no other point of view exists for him does not negate or contradict the existence of this point of view. For thousands of years the only possible point of view for humanity regarding the universe was the earth and it did not contradict or deny its existence. A person can refer to his lungs, liver, nose, eyes as well as his mind without being outside his body, and on the other hand express his thoughts, feelings, etc. and thereby express his inner self. I assume that by the term 'mind' you meant the term 'consciousness' (since that is what we are dealing with).
Well, just as a person can relate to his feelings, thoughts, feelings and intentions without destroying his logical world, so he can relate to his consciousness. This is similar to software, which is also virtual and its activity is based on two-way physical processes, and despite this there is a possibility (besides Microsoft's blue screens...) that it will issue an error message about itself or announce that it is doing something.
The way of speaking that exists today does not contradict the possibility of treating the subject as an external object because there are terms in the language that allow this. Does the speaker refer to himself logically and objectively? That is another question and it depends on the character and other qualities of the speaker. A person can also say "I, or my mind, thinks" both because the language allows this and the purpose of the statement has been achieved (everyone has received the correct communicative meaning in the matter) and also because the way we are structured allows us this dual point of view (which is one!): also We think logically (some of us...) and also feel (again, not all...).
The use of the word 'I' is not a common form of expression, but a faithful reflection of the way we perceive (subjectively) our environment and the way we relate, analyze and understand (objectively) it.
Hence, there is no "gross lie" here and there is also no need to invent a new language: 'I think (I have consciousness), which means I exist (I live)!
And in light of all the things said here, there is no need to assume the independent existence of the soul, and of course it is not an open question.
It is possible that the "soul" is not logical at all, but the "consciousness", which is the "intelligence" attributed to it: is genius.
But of course it does not exist at all in the ink and the "writer's light", not tangible, not practical and not matter-of-fact!
The opening of the article is puzzling and therefore it is objectionable to read the rest of the nonsense later.
Lmm.. and Haim Schechter is with you in your humble protest.
To the point, I really read, but I gave up trying to understand what you are trying to say, because you seem to be asserting one thing and the opposite.
If you agree with my arguments, then that's fine with me.
If anyone else disagrees, I'm here. 🙂
Alex, you are once again commenting on things you don't read, read what I wrote again and try to ask with an introduction...
Elisha, your claim against Michael is not a claim at all, and even on the contrary, from the logical process you started you should come to the conclusion that the soul is the same as the brain.
To the point, consciousness is just a word. You try to cut it off from the roots and give it its own existence.
In your opinion, if the consciousness plows inside the brain, which is a dark and closed area from the rest of the world (usually), then consciousness is disconnected from the physical world, and is in its own world?
Alex,
From your response to my words I understand that you did not understand what I said or what I intended to say.
I claim exactly the opposite of what you understood, in my opinion artificial intelligence is certainly possible (there are almost 7 billion such intelligences).
Consciousness is not a phenomenon, as I cannot probe your consciousness. In physics, the phenomena are common to everyone and this is exactly what distinguishes physics from hallucination (which belongs to hallucination only).
You should read my words again, and there is no need to write so much to ask or make it difficult. It is possible in 2 lines.
To the point, your mistake is that you think that consciousness is a magical phenomenon, because you cannot understand it, because it is very complex, therefore there is no connection between the result: consciousness, and the cause: matter and its organization that creates it.
From your point of view, creating a royal intelligence will never be possible, because it is impossible for us to create from matter only, a product that has consciousness. In my opinion artificial intelligence will indeed be produced eventually. Developments in the field of hardware will eventually lead to the computer's ability to run awareness, learning ability and understanding of abstract ideas. But this does not mean that artificial intelligence will understand everything. She may not even understand how she is built herself. As in our case. that we have no idea what is happening in our body, until we study, research and test. In the end, it's all a matter of complexity, and different levels of complexity.
Another example of the inseparable connection between matter and thought are the various living creatures. There are races of monkeys, dolphins, elephants that can demonstrate different abilities of intelligence, they are the most prominent.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628983/?pg=1#SMARTESTanimals_science
Consciousness is a complex phenomenon, the optimal end product of which is easy to see in humans, but other living beings exhibit abilities similar to ours often less well. Therefore it would be incorrect to say that all animals lack a certain consciousness. What is certain is that not all animals and living creatures have consciousness. I would say that bacteria have no consciousness. They are too simple. But where exactly does this magic of consciousness creation take place, in which living creature does the line cross, at what evolutionary stage does it happen? Did he take seriously the fact that in the evolutionary sequence a miracle occurs at a certain point? I don't think so.
In my opinion my reasoning constitutes the triumph of matter over spirit, so I will end here.
Legal c.
R. My previous response to Michael.
Your sentence "From here we can perhaps conclude that we are aware of those chemical-electrical phenomena in the brain, in which the number of neurons (or synapses) participating exceeds some necessary threshold" illustrates exactly the point. "We are aware of the phenomena in the brain" - M.S.L.
Embarrassing article. It is worthwhile for the writer of these things (far from being an article) to read even a little of the vast material that exists in this area of discussion. What he calls 'attention' is not such a novel discovery. The philosopher Franz Brentano referred to this important aspect of consciousness known as 'intentionality'. Edmund Husserl wrote on the subject in the most profound way and in doing so founded the phenomenological approach. Contemporary philosopher John Searle refers to intentionality in quite a few books, etc.
The discussion between physicalism and dualism is a complex discussion with fascinating philosophical moves that are far from being resolved at such a low level of abstraction as shown in the written words. It is worth filtering out bad and unprofessional 'articles'.
To Michael
You contradict your claim every time you say "I". By saying "I learn to listen to my mind" (or "a person learns to listen to his mind") you are already taking "yourself" beyond the physical, because how can you treat your mind as an object, if it is, according to you, the subject? After all, there must be "someone" who is outside the brain to observe it. How can the mind be "yours" if you do not exist apart from it, or exist only as an illusion?
The problem is that it is literally impossible - and in any language - to find a way of speaking that will solve this problem. Even if we imagine in a theoretical process that thanks to some innovative technology a person was able to take his mind out of his head, perform various operations on it (transferring electric currents, chemical changes, etc.) and feel the result of these operations - even then the physical brain would always remain "there" and you You were always "here". The actions always remain in the realm of the third person (object) and their result - anxiety, pleasure, anticipation, etc. - always remains in the first person (subject). You will never be able to say (knowingly) "My mind is thinking". You can only say "I think, and about my mind I have no knowledge, due to the fact that I speak of it in the third person; He may think and we may not."
It is true that it can be argued here that the use of the word "I" is nothing more than a common form of expression, etc. But then, assuming that we use almost every sentence in a false statement (since "I" does not really exist), and in accordance with your honest and well-known tendency to speak only the truth, try to find a wording method that will eliminate this gross lie once and for all. I bet you you won't. (The sentence "I do not exist, but it only seems to me that I exist because of the physical activity of my brain" will not of course solve the problem, as you surely know as a mathematician.)
In light of these circumstances (and others), it is appropriate to at least leave the question of the independent existence of the soul as an open question.
Answer to 5:
I don't believe in demons and ghosts. More precisely, I believe that people who believe these things are just stupid creatures who have not matured mentally.
and to the point itself,
1) The world of physics we know is very defined and explains in an amazing way all the things we see in experiments, this world consists of particles and forces.
2) The forces cause interactions that result in changes in the position and speed of the particles, or in changing the identity of particles from one to another.
3) Nature does not create new things. What exists is only the elemental particles and forces, nothing that is not elemental particles or force can be created. There is no such thing as "creating" in nature.
4) No physical equation or description of nature mentions any property of "blue color" therefore "blue color" is not a physical thing.
I think the things are clear and anyone who thinks a little will understand that there is no connection between consciousness and particles.
Nature does not create new things
First, this is not an argument, but a discussion. Second, even if the attempt has lost its way, why not try to get it back there. Thirdly, there is no room for thoughts about the "spirit" if only for the simple reason that there must be no connection between the thing called "spirit" and consciousness and therefore there is no need to involve the debate about the existence of the spirit in this discussion.
In its dictionary definition, (and I am removing those things that require additional definition and do not belong to this discussion, such as "spiritual"), consciousness is the collection of experiences and thoughts of which we are aware. I am aware (!) that there is a certain problem with the word 'awareness', but there is nevertheless a certain clarification of the concept.
Some associate consciousness with the concept of 'cognition', which is very close (if not identical) to 'awareness'.
In my opinion, consciousness is a brain phenomenon that manifests itself in the awareness of experiences (which allows us to refer to them) and thoughts and it arises from the quantity, which has a certain criticality, of the neurons (and perhaps more of the synapses - the connections between them). From this we can perhaps conclude that we are aware of those chemical-electrical phenomena in the brain, in which the number of neurons (or synapses) participating exceeds some necessary threshold.
Therefore, consciousness resides, apparently, in those brain processes that share at a certain moment a critical quantity of at least this much, and therefore there is a possibility of the simultaneous existence of more than one such process.
This is a futile debate.
This world is a world of particles, forces and laws, which we are trying to understand. (Simply...)
None of the debaters can give an example of something that is outside this framework.
If we invent a word, we invent meanings and interpretations for it, no matter how strong we want it to be, we will not be able to get it out of this world.
And in general the physical world tends to swallow our world, because that is its purpose, for that we need it. The existence of any new phenomenon that is discovered will be immediately embedded in the framework of the physical world, at most it will expand it.
In my opinion, the thought experiment you are conducting has simply lost its way, and has become writing for the sake of writing, argument for the sake of argument.
So go on, please…
Haim Schechter,
In short, you can tell stories, even fascinating ones, but no more.
This is not enough to take it seriously, much more solid evidence is needed.
David:
explanation?
Look, I know a lot of spiritual people that I can bring you examples from experiences they have gone through, that there is a soul, actually why go far I can bring you examples from myself... but I don't want to go into detail here, this is not the place.
Thanks,
Haim Schechter
Haim Schechter:
Arguing is easy, can you also provide a logical answer and explanation to your words?
Hello Michael,
I think you need to learn more to write articles or any other writing.
The soul is not physical but spiritual. The fact that people today are material and materialistic does not make you right.
Thanks,
Haim Schechter
In what way does an immaterial "soul" better explain our self-consciousness than the explanation of electrical chemical activity in the physical brain? What great advantage does this invisible soul have over physical matter as an explanation for the creation of consciousness?
Or in short - why can something that is not matter create consciousness, and matter cannot?
Detail, explain and explain logically.
Really confusing eggs ………………
Nonsense in tomato and carrot juice
Egg confusions
in brief,
There are several options:
1) Consciousness exists and is physical
2) Consciousness does not exist
3) Consciousness exists and is not physical
You try to argue 1, but unstrained thought will lead you to realize that this is a ridiculous possibility, given all our scientific knowledge today.
On the other hand, from my discussion with you in the past, you expressed the unequivocal opinion that consciousness exists, so you are left to choose option 3. In fact, it turns out that you believe in the same soul that you wanted to deny.
Hi Michael, a more appropriate verse for matters of soul and consciousness is the Genesis account: "He that sheds man's blood in man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made man," or another verse, "And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
For our purposes:
It seems that you have not gotten to the end of the problems in identifying between consciousness and the physical world being studied.
When I say consciousness I mean something very definite in our experience, and this is what is called qualia. Instead of analyzing brain activity studies that ultimately point to correlation (rather than causation), please come up with a plausible explanation of how the experience of the color blue can be linked to the physical world (forces and particles). All other talk is just evasion.