wierd thought i think proves relighan

[thatgothgirluknow]

so ive been thinking lately science says that energy can not be created nor destroyered but only change forms so then if we die where does that energy go it cant just disapear

[Gamma Male]

What energy? The energy our body uses to function? That energy comes from food. You don't eat when you're dead.

[Ethe14]

We decompose into the ground, and that energy goes into the ground. Besides to get energy we need food, we don't eat when were dead.

[Harry Smith]

that doesn't prove god's existence in any way

[Gigablue]

so ive been thinking lately science says that energy can not be created nor destroyered but only change forms so then if we die where does that energy go it cant just disapear

Define energy. In science, there is a very precise definition of energy. Based on how you worded your statement, it doesn't sound like you know what that definition is. It is impossible to have a conversation without first defining the relevant terms. I would like to hear exactly what you mean by 'energy'.

[JamesSuperBoy]

so ive been thinking lately science says that energy can not be created nor destroyered but only change forms so then if we die where does that energy go it cant just disapear

Guess you meant religion? do you define that as different from faith

[abc983055235235231a]

As many people here have said, your "energy" is a result of the food you consume. If you stop eating, you die. There's 0 energy in the system.

[Typhlosion]

What? One, you can not prove religion, only a specific one or theism.

Two, that energy is your dead body, food for any living thing in the earth you are buried in. In a coffin? Decomposition by bacteria a fungus, mostly. Ashes? Fuel for the fire.

The only point you could have is considering the soul\consciousness. But a non-scientific view would be required to assert that the soul/consciousness is something beyond neural activity.

[Miserabilia]

"wierd thought i think proves relighan"
What?

Our bodies live and burn our food to make us move, when we die our whole metabolistic process stops and all the matter we are made of will probably be eaten by other creatures.

[phuckphace]

yeah there's a huge difference between spiritual energy and kinetic/radiant/mechanical energy, you've got them mixed up.

[ksdnfkfr]

Don't be so depressing you guys. When we die we fertilize pretty flowers that maintain the ecosystem and keep butterflies and nibbling bunnies happy.
:sun: http://forums.govteen.com/images/smilies/animals_bunny2.gif http://forums.govteen.com/images/smilies/new_butterfly.gif

[Etcetera]

i highly doubt something as simple as a thought is going to be able to prove religion.

[Miserabilia]

Don't be so depressing you guys. When we die we fertilize pretty flowers that maintain the ecosystem and keep butterflies and nibbling bunnies happy.
:sun: image (http://forums.govteen.com/images/smilies/animals_bunny2.gif) image (http://forums.govteen.com/images/smilies/new_butterfly.gif)

daw I love that
human corpse flowers :'D

[Aajj333]

Havnt you ever watched the Lion King? Its the circle of life.

[Sir Suomi]

Havnt you ever watched the Lion King? Its the circle of life.

"AND IT MOVES US ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL" Ah, good memories.

But in all seriousness, OP, you're way off. True, the Law of the Conservation of Matter does state that energy cannot be created/destroyed and can only be transferred. But when you die, the energy, that your body formally used to operate your daily organic function, simply transfers away into the decomposition period, which means now instead of energy being stored in your proteins, lipids, etc, are now stored in the minerals and material that is left over from your decomposed body.

[EddietheZombie]

I think I can explain this better than the OP. Science says that our body runs on electricity, right? So were does that go? In order for the energy to go somewhere when you die there should be a small electro magnetic pulse, a small scale of what happens when a nuclear bomb goes off. But, as far as I know, no such thing happens. So where does it go? The OP should have put "Weird thought that may prove people have souls."

[radsniper]

Don't be so depressing you guys. When we die we fertilize pretty flowers that maintain the ecosystem and keep butterflies and nibbling bunnies happy.
:sun: image (http://forums.govteen.com/images/smilies/animals_bunny2.gif) image (http://forums.govteen.com/images/smilies/new_butterfly.gif)

love this and you a bit confusing on this matter

[Miserabilia]

I think I can explain this better than the OP. Science says that our body runs on electricity, right? So were does that go? In order for the energy to go somewhere when you die there should be a small electro magnetic pulse, a small scale of what happens when a nuclear bomb goes off. But, as far as I know, no such thing happens. So where does it go? The OP should have put "Weird thought that may prove people have souls."

Well, our bodies don't "run on electricity", it runs on our metablosim.
We do use electricity for commnication between different parts of the body, though;
so where does that go?
Well first of all, a death (natural death) isn't instant; a dying body dies very slowly, and the energy isn't just gone at once.

The electricity in our bodies is created by our cells, from chemicals like fats and sugars with chemical reactions.
That energy can easily return the other way around, no energy is lost; all is converted, even electrical energy.

[Remora]

The reason you die is because you have no energy left or your organs malfunction.
If your organs malfunction, your energy is quickly converted into warmth (from chemical).

[Landbuscus97]

Not that it proves religion, but it is thought provoking, thinking about the amount of food we consume, and all the activities we do. Our brains are said to consume 20 watts of a natural form of electricity, so how do we obtain the power necessary to fuel our brains and our bodies without consuming our own weight in food?

[Kahn]

Here's a thought I have no inclination to pursue, but I thought I'd throw out there; what if OP was refering to the body as a capsule for the soul, and she considered that, when the flesh is dead, the soul has no physical form to harbor it? For example, perhaps that "energy" she is speaking of is consciousness. Our consciousness, that medium that helps us make sense of physical reality, is left without its body after death. What happens to that consciousness, that "being," that soul? Could that be what she was asking, rather than "what happens to the raw materials that keeps us alive once we die?"

[Miserabilia]

Here's a thought I have no inclination to pursue, but I thought I'd throw out there; what if OP was refering to the body as a capsule for the soul, and she considered that, when the flesh is dead, the soul has no physical form to harbor it? For example, perhaps that "energy" she is speaking of is consciousness. Our consciousness, that medium that helps us make sense of physical reality, is left without its body after death. What happens to that consciousness, that "being," that soul? Could that be what she was asking, rather than "what happens to the raw materials that keeps us alive once we die?"

- There is no evidence to suggest the existence of the soul
- Consciousness is caused by interaction in the brain between neural cells

Our mind is a part of our body, in our brains, no matter how much we hate to think that. When we die the brain dies with is, including all activity that causes consciousness

[Kahn]

- There is no evidence to suggest the existence of the soul
- Consciousness is caused by interaction in the brain between neural cells

Our mind is a part of our body, in our brains, no matter how much we hate to think that. When we die the brain dies with is, including all activity that causes consciousness

So it's fair to presume you're in agreement with the idea that consciousness can be explained mechanistically?

[Miserabilia]

So it's fair to presume you're in agreement with the idea that consciousness can be explained mechanistically?

I beleive that the cause of the consciousnes we as a conscious being experience can be epxplained perfectly mechanicly, but that our consciousnes itsel fdoesn't exist in our universe, only non-physical, but nonexistent/non-influencual, as in we are just an observer.

[Kahn]

I beleive that the cause of the consciousnes we as a conscious being experience can be epxplained perfectly mechanicly, but that our consciousnes itsel fdoesn't exist in our universe, only non-physical, but nonexistent/non-influencual, as in we are just an observer.

Where, then, does consciousness exist? And what does it consist of? You can't really be telling me that, something with a mechanical function in our physical world (problem solving, self awareness, reasoning, etc.) doesn't exist in the same way planets or air or matter does, respectively. If that is the case, what is existence?

If consciousness can be explained mechanistically, can you break down the parts of that essence called consciousness for someone unaware of the science? Furthermore, can you prove the existence of consciousness, without the use of metaphysical pretext or baseless assumptions?

[LuciferSam]

Where, then, does consciousness exist? And what does it consist of? You can't really be telling me that, something with a mechanical function in our physical world (problem solving, self awareness, reasoning, etc.) doesn't exist in the same way planets or air or matter does, respectively. If that is the case, what is existence?

If consciousness can be explained mechanistically, can you break down the parts of that essence called consciousness for someone unaware of the science? Furthermore, can you prove the existence of consciousness, without the use of metaphysical pretext or baseless assumptions?

Consciousness is caused by neurons. We are being bombarded with stimulae which are picked up by our receptors and converted into signals which we are capable of experiencing in some way. Thinking, analysis and emotion is caused by this too. It is all chemicals and electricity flying around between our cells that cause physiological reactions in a response to outside actions.

HOWEVER:
I do not believe that consciousness, or at least the components that make it up, ends with death. Even mechanical constructs have to go somewhere after they can no longer work, either by corrosion or disassembly into parts. There cannot be simply nothing as that is (somewhat ironically) not something that can truly exist. If something exists, you can break it down into infinitely small particles but it will never truly go away.

I know you said no metaphysics, but as a Taoist, the way I look at things is that the consciousness, soul or whatever you choose to call it gets recycled back into the universe with everything else: the body breaks down into particles and goes back to the Earth while the consciousness breaks down and vanishes back into the Ether of the Universe. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess, but it is simply part of the natural cycle in which nothing new is made and nothing ever fades completely into non-existence.

[Kahn]

Consciousness is caused by neurons. We are being bombarded with stimulae which are picked up by our receptors and converted into signals which we are capable of experiencing in some way. Thinking, analysis and emotion is caused by this too. It is all chemicals and electricity flying around between our cells that cause physiological reactions in a response to outside actions.

HOWEVER:
I do not believe that consciousness, or at least the components that make it up, ends with death. Even mechanical constructs have to go somewhere after they can no longer work, either by corrosion or disassembly into parts. There cannot be simply nothing as that is (somewhat ironically) not something that can truly exist. If something exists, you can break it down into infinitely small particles but it will never truly go away.

I know you said no metaphysics, but as a Taoist, the way I look at things is that the consciousness, soul or whatever you choose to call it gets recycled back into the universe with everything else: the body breaks down into particles and goes back to the Earth while the consciousness breaks down and vanishes back into the Ether of the Universe. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess, but it is simply part of the natural cycle in which nothing new is made and nothing ever fades completely into non-existence.

You will find no disagreement here, my friend. You're theory on consciousness after death sounds extremely socratic in nature; I like. Have you read Phaedos?

[LuciferSam]

You will find no disagreement here, my friend. You're theory on consciousness after death sounds extremely socratic in nature; I like. Have you read Phaedos?

I can't say that I have. I have a vague idea of Socratic philosophy, but I haven't read any of his works (or rather, Plato's transcription of his works) other than Republic.

[Miserabilia]

Where, then, does consciousness exist? And what does it consist of? You can't really be telling me that, something with a mechanical function in our physical world (problem solving, self awareness, reasoning, etc.) doesn't exist in the same way planets or air or matter does, respectively. If that is the case, what is existence?

If consciousness can be explained mechanistically, can you break down the parts of that essence called consciousness for someone unaware of the science? Furthermore, can you prove the existence of consciousness, without the use of metaphysical pretext or baseless assumptions?

I'm talking about two different kinds of consciousness here. One exists physicly, the other does not exist physicly (or not at all(?))

The basic one is mechanical in our brain, that allows our brain a sense of self recognitiotn (The mirror test) and self awareness (Thought process, conscious thought).

But we ARE conscious of it all, not as in "I know that i am" but as in you can SEE and OBSERVE the world, not only physicaly, but you as a VIEWER can see the world shown to you by your brain; know what I mean?

For example, there's no such thing as colour; and what is the sound of sound? These things are just different kinds of structures, yet in our eyes COLOURS and SOUNDS all exist;
we may even hear and see everything differently; but we'll never be able to know because for exammple, try describing what blue looks like;
you'll just say things that ARE blue, and YOUR blue may be different from another's blue;

You can IMAGINE something in your mind right now with your brain, which you can see in front of you; however no such thing as what you are imagining exists; not even in your brain, only as a set of mechanical reactions; yet your conscious self sees it displayed.

[xxdrakeTxx]

are we talking about the energy that is are soul as some would call it if so than yes this does prove religion not nessisarly christianity . now in what i practice we use this energy for diffrent things . everyone has energy from food pain and thought . and going by the fact energy isnt destroyed only changes then your energy will leave the body . the energy that is your soul isnt attached to your flesh as the bones and muscle are your essance energy or chi is capable to leave the body or able to be changed through thought . while your body gets decomposed your energy can go anywhere if your religious hevan or hell .

[maddogmj77]

Disproving science DOESN'T prove religion. Besides, you didn't disprove science anyways, look at the other posts.

[abc983055235235231a]

Guys, the appearance of things like colours and sounds, and the notion of the self as a conscious observer, does not mean that we have a soul or some sort of spiritual energy or whatever. Even if you can't describe what blue is, that doesn't mean that blue is not a result of psychological processes. Even if we can perform introspection, and examine our thoughts, this does not mean that the self isn't the brain.

[darthearth]

Guys, the appearance of things like colours and sounds, and the notion of the self as a conscious observer, does not mean that we have a soul or some sort of spiritual energy or whatever. Even if you can't describe what blue is, that doesn't mean that blue is not a result of psychological processes. Even if we can perform introspection, and examine our thoughts, this does not mean that the self isn't the brain.

Maybe you can inform me about what physical material inside the brain (either molecules or electric fields) is capable of perceiving things (like a blue sky). Please explain exactly how such particles or electric fields can perceive things too, thanks. If you can't, then an immaterial spirit is the only reasonable alternative.

Consciousness is caused by neurons. We are being bombarded with stimulae which are picked up by our receptors and converted into signals which we are capable of experiencing in some way. ......

This is the problem isn't it? The "in some way" phrase. The fact is that physical material can't experience or perceive (just think about it and it's obvious), which necessitates something non-physical to be what we actually are, at our root.

[abc983055235235231a]

Maybe you can inform me about what physical material inside the brain (either molecules or electric fields) is capable of perceiving things (like a blue sky). Please explain exactly how such particles or electric fields can perceive things too, thanks. If you can't, then an immaterial spirit is the only reasonable alternative.

I don't have to give you a complete mechanistic account of that perception in order to say that it is reducible to a physical brain state. We accepted the truth of evolution long before we had a truly accurate account of how evolution works (in fact, we still don't have a totally complete picture, yet it does not make it any less true). And, really, if an immaterial spirit is the only reasonably alternative, then, by that same standard you hold me to, you have to tell me exactly how an immaterial spirit is able to perceive those things.

[darthearth]

I don't have to give you a complete mechanistic account of that perception in order to say that it is reducible to a physical brain state.

Why not? You make the claim that material particles and electric fields can perceive and intuitively particles and electric fields cannot perceive. You need to show how it can happen given that there is no apparent way for it to happen. In fact, perception lies completely outside of the very definitions of particles and fields, so you have quite a task.

We accepted the truth of evolution long before we had a truly accurate account of how evolution works (in fact, we still don't have a totally complete picture, yet it does not make it any less true).

Such definitive statements. It has not been shown at all how we as conscious complex creatures arose from non-life in detail, just a general process of mutation and natural selection some think might (or even should) work (after the abiogenesis problem is solved, which it may never be). And maybe it will. But just perhaps, the devil will be in the details. A devil that may even eventually sink the ship. We'll wait and see now won't we? Calling anything definitive truth at this point is rather premature, but it does appear we were created through a process of evolution. The question for me is how much intelligent guiding it required. Science continues but right now I think it had to be significantly guided. However if science can ever demonstrate non-intelligently guided evolution from non-life to conscious us I will accept that (however I think it very unlikely science will ever be able to).

And, really, if an immaterial spirit is the only reasonably alternative, then, by that same standard you hold me to, you have to tell me exactly how an immaterial spirit is able to perceive those things.

Not really, the difference is that we know what the material is and can consider the material in relation to the question of how it could perceive, we do not know however what the immaterial is, and therefore cannot consider how it perceives.

It is a dichotomy, either the material perceives or something non-material perceives. If the material cannot perceive, that leaves the only other option, the immaterial. So, considering the material and if it is able to perceive settles the question. Does it not?

[abc983055235235231a]

Why not? You make the claim that material particles and electric fields can perceive and intuitively particles and electric fields cannot perceive. You need to show how it can happen given that there is no apparent way for it to happen. In fact, perception lies completely outside of the very definitions of particles and fields, so you have quite a task.
Particles and electric fields also cannot think, speak, or remember things. Should we also conclude that thinking, speaking, and memory are not functions of the brain?


Such definitive statements. It has not been shown at all how we as conscious complex creatures arose from non-life in detail, just a general process of mutation and natural selection some think might (or even should) work (after the abiogenesis problem is solved, which it may never be). And maybe it will. But just perhaps, the devil will be in the details. A devil that may even eventually sink the ship. We'll wait and see now won't we? Calling anything definitive truth at this point is rather premature, but it does appear we were created through a process of evolution. The question for me is how much intelligent guiding it required. Science continues but right now I think it had to be significantly guided. However if science can ever demonstrate non-intelligently guided evolution from non-life to conscious us I will accept that (however I think it very unlikely science will ever be able to).
There are no completely definitive truths in science.
The very nature of evolution is that it is unguided. It's a self-governing system. If it is intelligently guided, it actually ceases to be evolution.


Not really, the difference is that we know what the material is and can consider the material in relation to the question of how it could perceive, we do not know however what the immaterial is, and therefore cannot consider how it perceives.

It is a dichotomy, either the material perceives or something non-material perceives. If the material cannot perceive, that leaves the only other option, the immaterial. So, considering the material and if it is able to perceive settles the question. Does it not?
Well no, it's not that simple. You have to give reason for even believing there is a non-material to begin with, and then you do have to then give an account of how the immaterial generates perception (or, at the very least, an account of how immaterial things are able to interact with material things--particularly how your immaterial spirit interacts with your material brain). But, like I said, all of that is contingent on a reason for positing the existence of immaterial entities to begin with.

[darthearth]

Particles and electric fields also cannot think, speak, or remember things. Should we also conclude that thinking, speaking, and memory are not functions of the brain?

There is a difference between thinking, speaking and accessing memory and perceiving thoughts, sayings, and memories. Computers can do all three you mentioned but they can't perceive anything.


There are no completely definitive truths in science.
The very nature of evolution is that it is unguided. It's a self-governing system. If it is intelligently guided, it actually ceases to be evolution.

I don't think so. If the entire cosmos is directed such that we arise by its natural laws, I would call that evolution. If intelligent guidance was necessary it would manifest itself as non-random mutations or copying errors and especially fortunate and opportune environments. It would still be evolution from a common ancestor, which is the whole of evolution (remember abiogenesis isn't even considered part of evolution).


Well no, it's not that simple. You have to give reason for even believing there is a non-material to begin with, and then you do have to then give an account of how the immaterial generates perception (or, at the very least, an account of how immaterial things are able to interact with material things--particularly how your immaterial spirit interacts with your material brain). But, like I said, all of that is contingent on a reason for positing the existence of immaterial entities to begin with.

A reason to believe in the non-material is phenomenal awareness, because the material has no way to be phenomenally aware in and of itself. A force field is simply defined by F=ma, where is consciousness in that definition? In reality, there is no real "material" anyway, we actually don't know what the heck things are, all we know is that we perceive things and create mathematical constructs to describe what we perceive. On that level, this whole argument is silly. Mass is nothing more than energy packets. What is a force field except energy packets accelerating? What are energy packets except force fields in motion (photons) through either time (rest mass) or space? The fact is we don't really know anything about the fundamental nature of reality. Remember anything "solid" you see is nothing more than a trick, there is no substance except the force field. When you press against a wall it is nothing more than the electric field of the electrons in your hand repelling the electric field of the electrons in the wall. Nothing solid at all. In reality the entirety of the physical is nothing more than a force field. May the force be with you! HaHa (wasn't that clever? :yes:)

[Miserabilia]

Guys, the appearance of things like colours and sounds, and the notion of the self as a conscious observer, does not mean that we have a soul or some sort of spiritual energy or whatever. Even if you can't describe what blue is, that doesn't mean that blue is not a result of psychological processes. Even if we can perform introspection, and examine our thoughts, this does not mean that the self isn't the brain.

Oh no , I completely aggree;
blue and self consciousness and introspection can all be explained mechanicaly;
but my point is that the colour blue exist in my mind as something that looks like something; I can't describe what blue looks like to me, because it's just a process in my brain.
But to me as an observer blue does look like something, but it has no influence on the actualy world. So I don't beleive in a soul, just that anything... well... "imaginairy" exists in a different way, nothing spiritual, just that whatever anything looks like to us may be unique to each person.

[abc983055235235231a]

There is a difference between thinking, speaking and accessing memory and perceiving thoughts, sayings, and memories. Computers can do all three you mentioned but they can't perceive anything.

Well, my laptop can't think, nor can it speak, not does it possess memory (note that storage on a hard drive is not the same thing as human-esque memory). The only computers that are (arguably) capable of performing these functions are artificial intelligence systems. I really don't see why we should believe, without evidence, that such systems are incapable of perception. 70 years ago, people may well have said "computers can do mathematical calculations, but they can't think, or speak, or remember, or perceive things". And now, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that this sort of thinking was misguided. There is nothing magical about language, thought, or memory. They are complex process, yes; they are difficult to understand, yes; but science gives us the tools to analyze them. There is nothing magical about perception. It is a complex process, but it is one which can be scientifically analyzed, and it is something that we will eventually be able to give to a sophisticated artificial system.

Like I said, particles and fields are incapable of thought, yet their complex arrangement in a human brain affords the whole--the brain--that function. And it is that exact same thing that affords us perception.


I don't think so. If the entire cosmos is directed such that we arise by its natural laws, I would call that evolution. If intelligent guidance was necessary it would manifest itself as non-random mutations or copying errors and especially fortunate and opportune environments. It would still be evolution from a common ancestor, which is the whole of evolution (remember abiogenesis isn't even considered part of evolution).
All reproduction comes from common ancestry. Here's an example: Your dog gives birth to an identical dog. That dog gives birth to another identical dog. That dog gives birth to another identical dog, etc. That obviously is going to give us no species variation or organism variation, but it is still a very possible way reproduction could occur. The whole point of evolution is that you have a systematic relationship between constraints which cause variation to occur. Specifically, we have a relationship between those conditions which increase variation (random mutation, genetic combination, etc), and those conditions which reduce variation (natural selection). What's more, this relationship can be mathematically represented. If you have any intervention in that system, it ceases to be self-regulatory in the way that such a relationship inherently must be, and it consequently ceases to be evolution.



A reason to believe in the non-material is phenomenal awareness, because the material has no way to be phenomenally aware in and of itself. A force field is simply defined by F=ma, were is consciousness in that definition? In reality, there is no real "material" anyway, we actually don't know what the heck things are, all we know is that we perceive things and create mathematical constructs to describe what we perceive. On that level, this whole argument is silly. Mass is nothing more than energy packets. What is a force field except energy packets accelerating? What are energy packets except force fields in motion (photons) through either time (rest mass) or space? The fact is we don't really know anything about the fundamental nature of reality. Remember anything "solid" you see is nothing more than a trick, there is no substance except the force field. When you press against a wall it is nothing more than the electric field of the electrons in your hand repelling the electric field of the electrons in the wall. Nothing solid at all. In reality the entirety of the physical is nothing more than a force field. May the force be with you! HaHa (wasn't that clever? :yes:)
All you are saying is: (1) matter cannot be phenomenologically aware of itself, therefore we must have immaterial spirits. And you support this by saying: (2) matter cannot be phenomenologically aware of itself. What I have been saying this whole time, however, is that matter can be phenomenologically aware of itself. And we have evidence of this: you are phenomenologically aware of yourself, and you are material. You have absolutely no reason for saying that matter cannot be phenomenologically aware. The only reason you have given for that is "computers can't perceive", but I'm not sure why current limitations of computer technology would suggest anything about existence of non-material substances. Like I said, matter cannot think, speak, or remember. We, however, can do all of these things, and we can do them because of the complex arrangement of matter into brains. Likewise, this complex arrangement of matter is capable of perception, which is why we can perceive things.

Science actually does tell us about the nature of reality. It doesn't tell us everything, but reality is big, and it's complicated. In fact, all those things that you are saying about energy and forces are all things that science has told us.


Oh no , I completely aggree;
blue and self consciousness and introspection can all be explained mechanicaly;
but my point is that the colour blue exist in my mind as something that looks like something; I can't describe what blue looks like to me, because it's just a process in my brain.
But to me as an observer blue does look like something, but it has no influence on the actualy world. So I don't beleive in a soul, just that anything... well... "imaginairy" exists in a different way, nothing spiritual, just that whatever anything looks like to us may be unique to each person.

It might be unique to each person, and it might not be. You're right that we can't describe it (except, of course, self-referentially), so we can't really be sure whether different people share the same perception, or if it differs. Some people would argue, though, that it does have an influence on the world. Like, arguably, you are motivated to act because of your perceptions.

[darthearth]

........ What I have been saying this whole time, however, is that matter can be phenomenologically aware of itself. And we have evidence of this: you are phenomenologically aware of yourself, and you are material. You have absolutely no reason for saying that matter cannot be phenomenologically aware. The only reason you have given for that is "computers can't perceive", but I'm not sure why current limitations of computer technology would suggest anything about existence of non-material substances. Like I said, matter cannot think, speak, or remember. We, however, can do all of these things, and we can do them because of the complex arrangement of matter into brains. Likewise, this complex arrangement of matter is capable of perception, which is why we can perceive things.


First I would point out that the perception I speak of is not an algorithm, complex dynamic arrangements can be calculating algorithms (for functions like thinking, memory, speaking and the like) but not perception. There is no computational aspect of the phenomenological awareness I speak of. If you think there is, we are not talking about the same thing.

So matter and forces which cannot be phenomenologically aware that happen to be arranged dynamically in some very specific way spontaneously become phenomenologically aware? And you say there is no magic to this? But even if this did happen it would be a non-physical aspect to the system now wouldn't it? So, we have the idea of non-physicality necessary anyway.

There is no reasonable way for this to come about. How can things that cannot be aware all of a sudden take on a system property of awareness just because of their arrangement amongst themselves? And on top of it all, all of this is supposed to come about through a non-intelligently guided atheistic evolution? You can keep it, I certainly don't want it. To me, it is a very grotesque stand point. Unreasonable to say the least.

[abc983055235235231a]

First I would point out that the perception I speak of is not an algorithm, complex dynamic arrangements can be calculating algorithms (for functions like thinking, memory, speaking and the like) but not perception. There is no computational aspect of the phenomenological awareness I speak of. If you think there is, we are not talking about the same thing.

So matter and forces which cannot be phenomenologically aware that happen to be arranged dynamically in some very specific way spontaneously become phenomenologically aware? And you say there is no magic to this? But even if this did happen it would be a non-physical aspect to the system now wouldn't it? So, we have the idea of non-physicality necessary anyway.

There is no reasonable way for this to come about. How can things that cannot be aware all of a sudden take on a system property of awareness just because of their arrangement amongst themselves? And on top of it all, all of this is supposed to come about through a non-intelligently guided atheistic evolution? You can keep it, I certainly don't want it. To me, it is a very grotesque stand point. Unreasonable to say the least.

It doesn't have to be computational in nature. But even if it was, I'm not sure why your feelings about phenomenological perception get to dictate what it consists in. I could say "my memories are all stored on hard drives in another universe, and they are sent to my brain via electrical signals, and that's why our memories aren't perfect" or "computers can't actually think; all they can do is follow algorithms, and, since that isn't what human thinking is, human thinking requires an immaterial soul". But saying those things doesn't make them true.

Again, matter and forces which cannot think that happen to be arranged dynamically into some very specific way spontaneously become capable of thought. Matter and forces which cannot comprehend language that happen to be arranged dynamically into some very specific way spontaneously become capable of comprehending language.
None of this requires magic. None of this requires anything immaterial.

Evolution is actually a means by which complex things come into existence. And the wonderful thing about evolution is that it does this without the interference of any intelligent being. As I've said before, the very nature of evolution is such that it is self-regulating. This is a conceptual fact about evolution. We can also use hindsight to observe that evolution is lacking in foresight (which it would have, given an agent who wasn't just doing things at random).

To say it again, perception arises from certain complex arrangements of material things. The constituent elements do need t possess perception in order for the whole to possess perception. The matter from which the brain is composed cannot think, yet the whole--the brain--can.

[Miserabilia]

It might be unique to each person, and it might not be. You're right that we can't describe it (except, of course, self-referentially), so we can't really be sure whether different people share the same perception, or if it differs. Some people would argue, though, that it does have an influence on the world. Like, arguably, you are motivated to act because of your perceptions.

Yes, I've heard that before; the thing is though, that everything I've just thought out and everything I just wrote is done because of a mechniasm in my brain. So I do not argue that it has influence on the world, rather that it's a one way connection. I can't describe what something looks like to me because my brain itself doesn't even know

[LuciferSam]

This is the problem isn't it? The "in some way" phrase. The fact is that physical material can't experience or perceive (just think about it and it's obvious), which necessitates something non-physical to be what we actually are, at our root.

It isn't as simple as "physical material perceiving". Sure, there may be a gap in what we are able to understand, but what we do know is that senses are made up of electrical interactions in the brain that react to outside stimuli. Sight, for example, occurs when certain electromagnetic waves are reflected into our eyes, triggering a set of signals to the visual cortex, which results in the event of sight. We may not understand everything yet, but we're getting there, and the evidence is pointing more and more towards our senses being the results of physical matter reacting to things, not some sort of mystical "conscience" that lends us the ability to perceive things.

Metaphysical debate is no substitute for scientific inquiry.

[tovaris]

Go back to fisiks class dude.
Energie in a human body... Whel you get cold (thermal energie goes to the air) and you deconpose (energie locked inside molecules transformes)

[Miserabilia]

First I would point out that the perception I speak of is not an algorithm, complex dynamic arrangements can be calculating algorithms (for functions like thinking, memory, speaking and the like) but not perception. There is no computational aspect of the phenomenological awareness I speak of. If you think there is, we are not talking about the same thing.

So matter and forces which cannot be phenomenologically aware that happen to be arranged dynamically in some very specific way spontaneously become phenomenologically aware? And you say there is no magic to this? But even if this did happen it would be a non-physical aspect to the system now wouldn't it? So, we have the idea of non-physicality necessary anyway.

There is no reasonable way for this to come about. How can things that cannot be aware all of a sudden take on a system property of awareness just because of their arrangement amongst themselves? And on top of it all, all of this is supposed to come about through a non-intelligently guided atheistic evolution? You can keep it, I certainly don't want it. To me, it is a very grotesque stand point. Unreasonable to say the least.

I do see what you mean about a differnt type of perception.
The past year I've thought about this alot.

I conclude that all thoughts consciousness memory and perception are created for us in the brain, but the way we perceive things (The way colours look like, the way sound sounds, the way feelings feel, etc.) are not physical, but however, they rely completely on the brain, and can only receive input.

So matter and forces which cannot be phenomenologically aware that happen to be arranged dynamically in some very specific way spontaneously become phenomenologically aware?

You're saying it like the brain is a random thing that just spontaniously does things like p-awareness. It's a logical complex system.

non-intelligently guided atheistic evolution? You can keep it, I certainly don't want it. To me, it is a very grotesque stand point. Unreasonable to say the least.

Why unreasonable?