Hi there guys hope everyone's weekend is going great. I was just thinking about a interesting new 21st analogy for brain/mind/consciousness.I still like the radio and tv analogies as well but I think this one is more up to date. This is different then the Materialist computer analogy that the brain is hardware and the mind is software and that consciousness is just some grand illusion of the brain. In this analogy all three are important, the brain is hardware and also software, mind/consciousness is the internet. This would explain why Neuroscientists can take pictures from the brain and see images like going into the computer and seeing images from the internet like google. Of course the internet did not originate from the computer instead the internet is access through a router/modem and the originator comes network towers. Those network towers in this analogy are from the other dimensions/ that are connection to this modem/router which is the soul made up of a different type of matter. The brain is merely a interface for the mind and consciousness in this view.
One of the biggest problems with Physicalism is that it tries everything to one substance. We know that the brain exist, that the mind exist and that consciousness exist. These are three things, not one. First you say that consciousness is just a grand illusion somehow generated by the brain and that the mind is just what the brain does. Nice and easy story there but it doesn't mean its true.
Showing posts with label Physicalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Physicalism. Show all posts
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Questions Physicalists have a very hard time answering
There are numerous questions physicalists have a hard time answering. One of them is the fact that I can easily imagine life without consciousness. That would definitely signal a strong scientific confidence that Physicalism is right.However, we don't have that we have subjectivity an inner life that at least humans possess. What evolutionary advantage is there in having conscious beings instead of zombie like humans?. Another is the fact that I can easily imagine the earth being just a tad closer to the sun. If that was the case life would not exist. It would be too hot on earth. Let's put aside the overwhelming evidence for psi and for an afterlife to the side for a moment. Physicalist's claim that consciousness ends when physical life ends when the brain stops. However, consciousness is subjective in nature. How can subjective have an ending. Be that a temporary ending or a permanent ending like Physicalist's insist it must. Well, I just wanted to share these questions with you. I have been thinking about them for a long time now. Physicalists never have any proper answers to these questions. Though many of them seem to be very certain of their positions. They never have any doubt in their convictions. So what about Idealism?. Well, it seems to suffer the same problem that Physicalism does and that is assuming everything is reduced down to one single substance. Instead of matter/energy being primary, we have consciousness as primary. Substance Dualism seems to be the best answer as it doesn't make reality be simple. After all, reality isn't so simple. As new discoveries like Quantum Physics are teaching us.
On a side note, the weather here has been downright awful, with constant rain and more coming too.
On a side note, the weather here has been downright awful, with constant rain and more coming too.
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Casual Closure Argument Of The Physical Universe
I think it's important to mention an common argument by materialist's the casual closure of the physical universe . Quantum physicist Henry Stapp rebuts this by saying that both Dennett’s book Freedom Evolves and Searle’s book Mind are based on the premises of classical—not quantum—physics.
Stapp pointed out that both of these thinkers assume the causal closure of the physical, by which is meant that the physical world at all times is completely determined for all times by the physical laws. At any given moment, the physical world (e.g., the locations and velocities of all particles) is thus closed off from "external" causal influence. The result of this classical view is that any so-called mental or volitional input is viewed as essentially redundant, or unnecessary. Stapp emphasized that the physics of the 20th century, quantum mechanics, has departed in dramatic and significant ways from the ideas of classical physics. Stapp mentioned briefly some of the faulty reasoning that is apparent in Searle’s book. For example, he noted that by the end of Searle’s argument, he does not even reconcile the basic points and premises that he started the book with—and this is coming from one of America’s leading philosophers! Stapp said that the main point Searle ends with is that the familiar Cartesian concepts most philosophers employ must be revised because they are causing so much conceptual confusion. Overall, Stapp highlighted the strange fact that two of the most prominent philosophers today, Dennett and Searle, are still acting as if they were largely ignorant of the fundamental facts of quantum theory. Stapp’s view, by contrast, maintains that orthodox quantum theory leads naturally to the view that consciousness is efficacious in the physical world. Mind does indeed influence matter. Thus, the physical world cannot be causally closed-off from mind.
Stapp pointed out that both of these thinkers assume the causal closure of the physical, by which is meant that the physical world at all times is completely determined for all times by the physical laws. At any given moment, the physical world (e.g., the locations and velocities of all particles) is thus closed off from "external" causal influence. The result of this classical view is that any so-called mental or volitional input is viewed as essentially redundant, or unnecessary. Stapp emphasized that the physics of the 20th century, quantum mechanics, has departed in dramatic and significant ways from the ideas of classical physics. Stapp mentioned briefly some of the faulty reasoning that is apparent in Searle’s book. For example, he noted that by the end of Searle’s argument, he does not even reconcile the basic points and premises that he started the book with—and this is coming from one of America’s leading philosophers! Stapp said that the main point Searle ends with is that the familiar Cartesian concepts most philosophers employ must be revised because they are causing so much conceptual confusion. Overall, Stapp highlighted the strange fact that two of the most prominent philosophers today, Dennett and Searle, are still acting as if they were largely ignorant of the fundamental facts of quantum theory. Stapp’s view, by contrast, maintains that orthodox quantum theory leads naturally to the view that consciousness is efficacious in the physical world. Mind does indeed influence matter. Thus, the physical world cannot be causally closed-off from mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)