"Professing themselves to be wise..."

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I didn't know that. It was not at all clear in your original post. Many theists I find are not interested in the truth, they are interested in what benefits them. You will often hear a person say 'I could not believe in a God who ....' or something to that effect.
Your original post appears to be saying you want a very particular thing to believe in ...[text shortened]... aim he did, but was really a conman whose motives I must now explain. That just does not add up.

No, I didn't know that. It was not at all clear in your original post. Many theists I find are not interested in the truth, they are interested in what benefits them. You will often hear a person say 'I could not believe in a God who ....' or something to that effect.

I don't believe that you cannot detect the difference between the New Testament which is historical and verified archeologically and Lord of the Rings fantasy fiction with no historical connection.

It still came off like a rather sarcastic and cheap crack.
Moving on.

Your original post appears to be saying you want a very particular thing to believe in - which is simply not how truth works. If you want the truth you have to accept it whether you like it or not.

I don't know what that has to do with Lord of the Rings.

I am neither drunk nor stoned. Of course one can compare two documents, and I never said they were 'comparable' if that is the tense you intend. I said the Lord of the Rings was more entertaining as a story.
Do you disagree?

Never read it.

But I think you missed the point. I was merely asking for clarification as to what you really wanted. If you really want to go into a side discussion as to which document is more entertaining,

I don't. Don't spend too much time of face saving here.

Skipping down to more related comments:

...

I don't think I referred to anything you have written me in this thread as nonsense.
I apologize, I misunderstood you. I have gone back and reread your post and I see I too it in the wrong way.

The video did use the word nonsense toward the end. But I didn't.
Apology accepted.

1.) Does the mind or soul weigh anything? Can you express the weight of either in terms of grams ?
No. And I wouldn't expect to, the mind isn't a physical object any more than the meaning in this post is (and it can't be weighed either).

I think your reply to my question of storage of human memory being "in theory" possible, conceals a reluctance to realistically recognize the mind as being some non-spatial abstract entity.

I think the better answer would have been "No" rather than "in theory - yes." [paraphrased]

2.) While we can dye the brain red or blue, the mind, or particular thoughts cannot be dyed. I may imagine the color brown, but that does not mean that my brain is therefore the color brown.

Nor can you dye the word 'particular' brown. You could write it in a brown font but that wouldn't change its meaning in any way.

No, is the correct answer. And I think to the question about the storage of memories in a beaker or test tube, the answer should not be "in theory" yes, but No.

I included the mind as part of the soul. Doesn't it appear that the brain and the soul (including the mind) are not the same thing ?

As I have said, many times, they are not the same thing, but one is wholly dependant on the other until we find a way of copying the information to somewhere else.

Yes, you did say they were not the same thing.
So you think your memory of your 18th birthday is information that one day can be copied onto some storage medium.

I wonder, if it really bothers you that some things are beyond man's scientific know-how to be able to do. I wonder if human limitation you find as an unacceptable premise.

So your love, your imagination, your choice of what to do today, your memories, your beliefs are all coded somewhere ? Where ?

You do agree that there is a lack of identity between these psychological and physical properties ?
Yes.

4.) Thoughts cannot be located in space. Is your memory of your 18th birthday nearer to your left ear or nearer to your right ear ?

I don't actually have such a memory, but if I did, I wouldn't know where it is stored, but it could be located, just as a computer program could be located.

I feel the assumption of Scientism is justified. This is a kind of faith you have in the invincibility of technology. And it underscores for me why you come to Spirituality to espouse these items of your faith.

Basically, "This replaces God" I think is your motivation.
Science has buried God and replaces God.
I think this, I think, you hold as True Spirituality.

Well, no doubt man has been able to do a lot.
Extrapolation of that matter ad infinitum I question.

There is not only the matter of CAN we do this or that.
There is the ethical question of SHOULD we do this or that.

We have a horrendous time already with computer hackers.
Can you imagine when hackers start to mess around with the "incoded" human soul ?

I think your Technocracy will mean a nightmarish negative utopia.
I don't doubt that people are working on such technology as we speak.
But for a long time they also tried to turn metal into gold.
That was called "science" for a long time.

I believe, all it would take is an MRI whilst I recall the memory although I don't know how accurate this is. But are you talking about where it is stored, or the location of the abstract information?

MRI shows some correlation between mental states and brain states.
Correlation there does not mean equation.

And I think you are imagining a technology that will locate in the brain some electrical activity, monkey with it, maybe substract it, and foolishly claim that they have taken out your love, or removed your memory, or eliminated your imagination.

That is your brain activity MINUS some portion, they will will equate to subtracting out various soulish activities.

The next step would be to put that somewhere. Then someone will claim that they have taken twhitehead's love for his country, for example, and removed it.

This Brave New World technocracy is not that appetizing to me.
Number 1 I don't think they can DO what they propose and self deception may run rampant.
Number 2 money making is an obession. And man does not always consider if man SHOULD do something even if he COULD do it.

Where MONEY and GREED and Lust for power rule your dream of soul munipulation computer style is a nightmare scenario. If you have children, I don't think you'd want them born into such a world.

We can hardly keep hackers out of our PCs now. Can you imagine power hungry hackers tinkering with human SOULS ?

Some worship of technology as the replacement of Spirituality is disconcerting.

Thoughts occupy some non-spatial realm. Do you agree ?

Does the meaning of this post occupy some non-spatial realm?
Are you unable to locate this post in space and time?
Where is 2+2?

Pixels, dots, are located in physical space.
The thought carrying out 2 + 2 is abstract.

Do you think there are ones and zeros which comprise your love for your mother, for example ?

Do you believe there are something LIKE a coded system which is your appreciation for a pretty sunset ?

If such technology existed to store and manipulate human consciousness with instruments, no doubt, the first thing man would do is create either better slaves or better soldiers.

Oh, I forgot, probably better women would be high on the list also.

I am cutting it short here. But I think your brute faith in technology is extrapolated without limit in a dangerous way.

The first issue is CAN we do what you propose ?
The second is SHOULD we do it just because we CAN ?

Would you like to offer yourself as the first experimental guinea pig for the storage retrieval and transfer of your consciousness ? Or do you just hope it will take place for "the other" guy someday?

Originally posted by sonship
I don't believe that you cannot detect the difference between the New Testament which is historical and verified archeologically and Lord of the Rings fantasy fiction with no historical connection.

And I don't believe you understood what I wrote. I never said I could not detect the difference. In fact, it was the difference that I was relying on to make my point.

It still came off like a rather sarcastic and cheap crack.
Well it wasn't intended that way, but I realise that it is hard to get a point across the way you want in short posts on an internet forum.

I don't know what that has to do with Lord of the Rings.
I wanted to know whether you wanted something entertaining regardless of how true it might be - hence my example of the Lord of the Rings that is entertaining but not true, or you wanted something true - which then begs the question as to why you require it to be entertaining, as the truth does not conform to our desires, it just is.

Never read it.
I highly recommend it if you have the time and enjoy a bit of high quality fiction. It is on my list of favourite books of all time.

I think your reply to my question of storage of human memory being "in theory" possible, conceals a reluctance to realistically recognize the mind as being some non-spatial abstract entity.
Why? All information is both spatial abstract entities and storable. This post is both spatially abstract (it has somehow communicated between you and I accross the world through time and space) and storable. And it has been stored in multiple places.

I think the better answer would have been "No" rather than "in theory - yes."
Well then give me some sort of reasoning as to why you think that is the better answer. Do you think the meaning in this post cannot be stored?
Do you think that if you got alzheimers, you would not loose your memory due to the loss of storage in your brain?

No, is the correct answer. And I think to the question about the storage of memories in a beaker or test tube, the answer should not be "in theory" yes, but No.
As above, support this with reasoning.

So you think your memory of your 18th birthday is information that one day can be copied onto some storage medium.
I do think that memories could, with the right technology that we don't currently have, be copied to another storage medium, yes.
(I don't have memories of my 18th birthday)

I wonder, if it really bothers you that some things are beyond man's scientific know-how to be able to do.
Not particularly. I would like for man to figure out how to do more, but I think some things will always be beyond our know how. In fact I could think of many things that will almost certainly always be beyond mans capability.

I wonder if human limitation you find as an unacceptable premise.
No, not at all.

So your love, your imagination, your choice of what to do today, your memories, your beliefs are all coded somewhere ? Where ?
In the brain.

I feel the assumption of Scientism is justified.
I am not sure if Scientism is an accurate description of me. I do think that the term is unnecessary and that you are using it to try and portray me as something I am not.

This is a kind of faith you have in the invincibility of technology.
Where have I said anything about the invincibility of technology? I think you are reading more into what I say than I actually say.

And it underscores for me why you come to Spirituality to espouse these items of your faith.
Sorry, there is no faith involved whatsoever. You are just making that up to try and make me look religious so you can claim that you and I are no different. At no point have I given you reason to believe that I have faith, or that I am espousing items of my faith in this forum.

Basically, "This replaces God" I think is your motivation.
Science has buried God and replaces God.
I think this, I think, you hold as True Spirituality.
You are mistaken.

I think your Technocracy will mean a nightmarish negative utopia.
My technocracy? Where are you getting this stuff? I think you are seriously misunderstanding what I have said in this thread. I have not at any point said I support modifying the brain, or developing such technology, or misusing it in any way. Nor have I been involved in developing any such technology. So why would it be mine?

MRI shows some correlation between mental states and brain states.
Correlation there does not mean equation.
MRI shows brain activity to some degree. I think it would therefore tell us which part of our brain is involved when retrieving a given memory, and thus the approximate location of where it is stored. I believe that experiments along these lines have been done, but I don't have any references at present and am relying on what I recall reading many years ago.

And I think you are imagining a technology that will locate in the brain some electrical activity, monkey with it, maybe substract it, and foolishly claim that they have taken out your love, or removed your memory, or eliminated your imagination.
Most studies on this topic do not actually involved modifying the brain deliberately as there are not a lot of volunteers who want their brains monkeyed with.
However, studies of people who have suffered brain damage of some sort make it clear that brain damage can affect memory, imagination and love.

This Brave New World technocracy is not that appetizing to me.
Nor to me. But that is not what we are discussing is it? We are not deciding whether or not to vote for a government policy, or whether or not to allow certain experiments, we are discussing the findings of experiments that have already been done, and what the implications are.

Where MONEY and GREED and Lust for power rule your dream of soul munipulation computer style is a nightmare scenario.
Once again, stop attributing things to me I have not said.

Pixels, dots, are located in physical space.
The thought carrying out 2 + 2 is abstract.
But a computer can carry out 2+2 and get 4 can it not? Does the processor that carries that out have a physical location in space?

Do you think there are ones and zeros which comprise your love for your mother, for example ?
Yes - although it is analogue not digital.

Do you believe there are something LIKE a coded system which is your appreciation for a pretty sunset ?
Yes.

If such technology existed to store and manipulate human consciousness with instruments, no doubt, the first thing man would do is create either better slaves or better soldiers.
Quite possibly, but again, I fail to see the relevance here. Are you saying that because something may be misused by the army it is not true? Is nuclear power also not true because it is so scary?

I am cutting it short here. But I think your brute faith in technology is extrapolated without limit in a dangerous way.
Once again, attributing to me something I haven't expressed.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Seems so. 2000+ year old Zombie Christ and everlasting life for humans...they are roughly in the same plausibility ballpark, alongside all sorts of other wildly implausible ideas.

Do you find it implausible that there is life after death because you have not died and then been raised back to life? Literally!

That, to my way of thinking, is the only plausible reason not to believe.

But then, if one categorically denies the existences of life after death on any other basis one is thinking with a closed mind.

This is not about myths and fables. We're not comparing apples with oranges. We're talking about life after death, and not just any life, but life as it really is. From the perspective of this life the door appears to be closed to the reality of life after death. Death sheds no light on life. Death is a black hole.

There is a window through which we can get a glimpse of the light of the truth of life eternal. It can't be seen with the physical senses, although they play a role. That window is faith. Not blind faith. God isn't asking anyone to believe in nothing. Evidence is in abundance when life is viewed through the eye of faith.

Life after death is an unknown for those who fail to see through the window of faith. Proof is found in the act of faith, just as one accepts the idea that there is no proof by the act of faith in not believing in something unseen. Have you seen what exists after death? No, but by faith you believe there is nothing there. That is blind faith!

Originally posted by josephw
Death sheds no light on life.

I disagree. Death gives rise to religions that "offer" access to "life after death" as part of their tenets of faith, and no one can deny that religious beliefs create a lot of "light" in the lives of many millions of people.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I don't believe you understood what I wrote. I never said I could not detect the difference. In fact, it was the difference that I was relying on to make my point.

[b]It still came off like a rather sarcastic and cheap crack.
Well it wasn't intended that way, but I realise that it is hard to get a point across the way you want in short posts o ...[text shortened]... out limit in a dangerous way. [/b]
Once again, attributing to me something I haven't expressed.[/b]

And I don't believe you understood what I wrote. I never said I could not detect the difference. In fact, it was the difference that I was relying on to make my point.

I think that you have a property dualiam concept of soul and body. I have a substance dualiam view which is biblical. Or "the Mind - Depends -on - the Brain. I think it is Nonreductive Materialsm

Well it wasn't intended that way, but I realise that it is hard to get a point across the way you want in short posts on an internet forum.

I don't insist on short posts being rather verbose myself.

sonship:
I think your reply to my question of storage of human memory being "in theory" possible, conceals a reluctance to realistically recognize the mind as being some non-spatial abstract entity.

Why? All information is both spatial abstract entities and storable. This post is both spatially abstract (it has somehow communicated between you and I accross the world through time and space) and storable. And it has been stored in multiple places.

Consciousness is not storable.

Let's say we had a mechanical horse that we invented.
Let's say that like an IBM computer it creates a log of information about all the internal operations of that machine. Let's say that we know everthing about that mechanical horse. We turn it on and we know what it will do, where it will turn, how it will jump, etc. We know everything about the operation of the mechanical horse.

And at the end of its operation we have a something like a disc which recorded all the operations of that machine.

Now lets say we have a real horse. And we also know all about that horse. We certainly know more about its internal organs and outward limbs than the horse knows. Let's say we know where that horse will go and when he will jump.

There is still one thing we can never know about that real horse. We can never know what it is like to BE that horse. We do not have that horse's consciousness.

You cannot store the consciousness of a living person.
You cannot retrieve and store the consciousness of any living thing.

Well then give me some sort of reasoning as to why you think that is the better answer. Do you think the meaning in this post cannot be stored?
Do you think that if you got alzheimers, you would not loose your memory due to the loss of storage in your brain?

I ask again then, WHO has stored the consciousness or the SOUL of a person ?

You see you have a impossible problem of storing THINKING. But it is worse than that. Consciousness not only involves thinking but the ability to THINK about THINKING itself.

So I think you would have to show you could store thoughts PLUS the activity of thinking ABOUT those thoughts as well. That is consciousness.

Some property dualists would argue that the physcial body possesses some non-physical properties. They argue that the mental or psychological is just another property of the physical body. This is Non-Reductive Materialsm. I think you are arguing that way.

But when we consult physics textbooks about what MATTER is, none of them say that there is something mental, or psychological, or subjective about MATTER.

Matter might be described as having properties of spatial location as well as bits and bytes or letters or hieroglyphics or other human designed codes. Those letters or electric switches, or what have you, have weight, texture, color, shape, size, density, mass or atomic or chemical composition.

But what will be missing from your physics textbooks in their discussion of matter is any property of consciousness . The assumption is made that matter and mind are different and we are left with a mystery as to how mind and consciousness arose from the material.

An MRI chart does not contain the consciousness. That is not the inner life of the person whose brain activity was being recorded.

sonship:

So you think your memory of your 18th birthday is information that one day can be copied onto some storage medium.

I do think that memories could, with the right technology that we don't currently have, be copied to another storage medium, yes.

I agree that it cannot be done.

That SOME technology can do so in the future, that is the stuff of Lord of the Rings at this point. As much as it may break our high tech hearts to admit it, there are some things that just may ever be beyond out ability to do.

I don't think such a reality diminishes us though.

(I don't have memories of my 18th birthday)

That could be a problem.

In principle you are proposing not only storage of memory but also storage of an anticipated expectation in the imagination. IE. You're proposing instruments that would be able to store your imagining of a birthday which has not even occured yet, say your dreaming of your 75th birthday.

sonship:
I wonder, if it really bothers you that some things are beyond man's scientific know-how to be able to do.

Not particularly. I would like for man to figure out how to do more, but I think some things will always be beyond our know how. In fact I could think of many things that will almost certainly always be beyond mans capability.

Probably so.
Figuring out the origin of consciousness may also be beyond man's capability without revelation from our Creator.

You see the origin of consciousness is not a bad a problem for the theists as it is for the total naturalist. In the context of a supremely self-aware Ultimate Being, in whose image we are made, our self awareness is understandable.

The naturalist, though, has to explain how consciousness emerged from non-conscious matter.

sonship:
So your love, your imagination, your choice of what to do today, your memories, your beliefs are all coded somewhere ? Where ?

In the brain.

I think they are in your soul. And Naturalist Colin McGinn writes:

"We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding of how this can be so. It strikes us as miraculous, eerie, even faintly comic."

[ The Problem of Consciousness, Colin McGinn, Oxford, Basil, Blackwell, 1990, pg1 )

Naturalist philosopher of mind Jerry Fodor expresses his perplexity as well:

"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea of how anything material could be conscious."

[ "The Big Idea: Can There Be a Science of the Mind?" Times Literary Supplement, July 3, 1992, pg.5 ]

Cont. latter.

Originally posted by sonship
Consciousness is not storable.

So you have said, but I am yet to see any actually argument or reasoning to support such a claim. You seem to merely rely on skepticism.

There is still one thing we can never know about that real horse. We can never know what it is like to BE that horse. We do not have that horse's consciousness.
You are making a serious error here. You seem to jump straight from our inability to experience a horse's consciousness to the conclusion that its consciousness cannot be stored. But it simply doesn't follow.

You cannot store the consciousness of a living person.
You cannot retrieve and store the consciousness of any living thing.
Well rather than repeating this over and over why not give some sort of reason why you think that is the case.
Is it:
1. The result of some logical argument you can present.
2. A personal conviction not based on a logical argument but mere skepticism or intuition.
3. A religious belief taken from your religions dogma.
4. Something else.

I ask again then, WHO has stored the consciousness or the SOUL of a person ?
You never give up on strawmen do you? Ask it 50 times if you like, the answer will be the same - nobody. And I never claimed otherwise.

You see you have a impossible problem of storing THINKING.
So you say, but can you give any reasoning that would convince me, or are you just going to keep repeating it?

But when we consult physics textbooks about what MATTER is, none of them say that there is something mental, or psychological, or subjective about MATTER.
I think that you would find various theories about information storage in matter in some physics text books. I fact, I believe that one theory is that information is always conserved.

But what will be missing from your physics textbooks in their discussion of matter is any property of consciousness.
Which is really not surprising given that physics is the wrong subject to be looking for such things. You probably won't find very much on organic chemistry in physics books either, nor the history of the Romans.

The assumption is made that matter and mind are different and we are left with a mystery as to how mind and consciousness arose from the material.
The only mystery is why you are reading the wrong book. Your statement is like saying: I was reading a chemistry book, and was left with the mystery as to why the Romans conquered Gaul.

An MRI chart does not contain the consciousness. That is not the inner life of the person whose brain activity was being recorded.
No, it is not. And I never claimed it was, did I?

That could be a problem.
In principle you are proposing not only storage of memory but also storage of an anticipated expectation in the imagination. IE. You're proposing instruments that would be able to store your imagining of a birthday which has not even occured yet, say your dreaming of your 75th birthday.
And why is this a problem?

The naturalist, though, has to explain how consciousness emerged from non-conscious matter.
Actually, no. The naturalist doesn't have to explain anything. The naturalist seeks to discover things about the natural world, but as already discussed, some things may simply be beyond us. But this is not a failing of naturalism, and knowledge of everything is not a requirement of naturalists.

Naturalist philosopher of mind Jerry Fodor expresses his perplexity as well:
I have never really understood your habit of quoting vague references from people whose beliefs differ from yours anyway. None of your quotes really say anything much of interest on the topic and certainly don't get us any closer to answers. So why quote them? Do you just get a kick out of reading quotes from people who are perplexed?
I recall you doing something similar in our previous lengthy discussion about probability. You just kept on throwing in out of context irrelevant quotes seemingly with the message "here is someone with fancy credentials who made vague speculation that sounds something like what I am saying might be possible".

Originally posted by josephw
Do you find it implausible that there is life after death because you have not died and then been raised back to life? Literally!

That, to my way of thinking, is the only plausible reason not to believe.

But then, if one categorically denies the existences of life after death on any other basis one is thinking with a closed mind.

This is not about m ...[text shortened]... at exists after death? No, but by faith you believe there is nothing there. That is blind faith!

Do you find it implausible that there is life after death because you have not died and then been raised back to life? Literally!

That, to my way of thinking, is the only plausible reason not to believe.

But then, if one categorically denies the existences of life after death on any other basis one is thinking with a closed mind.

You clearly need to get a new way of thinking because that makes no sense on any level. The issue of plausibility has to do with whether or not, or to what degree, the proposition has the appearance of truth or fits in neatly with other propositions that we already accept, in relation to the body of evidence we have. The problem for you is that the proposition that there is life after death for us humans has virtually no appearance of truth and does not fit in neatly at all with the evidence we have and things we already accept as true, such as huge terrains of scientific endeavor. You are also incorrect that my stating that life after death for humans is wildly implausible counts as a categorical denial: on the contrary, it is not categorical since it is qualified in relation to the body of evidence we currently have. Plausibility in this sense is always open to refinement or revision, pursuant to new evidence. So, feel free to start presenting better evidence for life after death for humans, if your goal is to convince others of its plausibility.

The rest of the nonsense you remark on the subject of faith is just that: nonsense. Again, perhaps you have missed the memo, but plausibility is about appearance of truth, in relation to a fair, no-faith-required reading of the evidence. So, telling me that I need to put on special faith goggles in order to see that life after death appears true is just a self-defeating argument. It's like arguing that your sister is actually quite pretty but one needs some serious beer goggles in order to see that. Well, that's self-defeating because if one needs the beer goggles in order to have the appearance of beauty, then that means she is ugly in the sober light of day. Similarly, if I need faith goggles in order for life after death to appear true, then it fails to be plausible under a sober reading of the evidence. So it fails to be plausible.

Come to think of it, it's not such a bad analogy: your faith that makes death look plausibly beatable is like the drunken stupor that makes an ugly chick look inviting. Reminds me of the following George Bernard Shaw quote: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life."

Originally posted by twhitehead

You are making a serious error here. You seem to jump straight from our inability to experience a horse's consciousness to the conclusion that its consciousness cannot be stored. But it simply doesn't follow.

No. I said in the case of a machanical horse there might be some journal or log as is found in IBM computer.

How will you retrieve and store the consciousness of a real horse ?
An emotionally detached shrug is not enough for me.

sonship:
You cannot store the consciousness of a living person.
You cannot retrieve and store the consciousness of any living thing.

Well rather than repeating this over and over why not give some sort of reason why you think that is the case.

Rather you do some work and tell us how.

Is it:
1. The result of some logical argument you can present.
2. A personal conviction not based on a logical argument but mere skepticism or intuition.
3. A religious belief taken from your religions dogma.
4. Something else.

You do some of the heavy lifting and explain exactly how you are going to retrieve and store human consciousness.

If you cannot explain it then just say so.
I need more than a dispassionate wink that it can be done.

You never give up on strawmen do you? Ask it 50 times if you like, the answer will be the same - nobody. And I never claimed otherwise.

Then some skepticism is justified.
If you haven't a clue, then some skepticism is justified.

At present it is not a matter of what we hope one day someone will do. If you want to talk about hope, belief, then you're toward the wishful.

So far all I have from your attitude is really "We've done a lot of things. We should someday do this TOO."

Maybe.
Maybe never.

sonship:
You see you have a impossible problem of storing THINKING.

So you say, but can you give any reasoning that would convince me, or are you just going to keep repeating it?

You want to place all the burden of proof on me. Don't you ?

So say you. And you have not convinced me that storage of consciousness is possible.

sonship:
But when we consult physics textbooks about what MATTER is, none of them say that there is something mental, or psychological, or subjective about MATTER.

I think that you would find various theories about information storage in matter in some physics text books. I fact, I believe that one theory is that information is always conserved.

What about consciousness?
All the information in the Library of Congress is not conscious.

That is a living entity.

Explain how consciousness is stored rather than repeating questions "Why not?" to get me to shoulder the entire burden.

You cannot say that I have contributed no rational as to the problems of such.

sonsip:
But what will be missing from your physics textbooks in their discussion of matter is any property of consciousness.

Which is really not surprising given that physics is the wrong subject to be looking for such things.

It is in physics books we learn all about matter.

Are you proposing a non-material procedure and storage device?
Are you proposing non-material recording.
Are you imagining a reading and writing and re-writing the non-material?

You probably won't find very much on organic chemistry in physics books either, nor the history of the Romans.

You will not find biology. But you will find chemistry.
And you may expand the pool of texts to include molecular biology if you wish.

sonship:
The assumption is made that matter and mind are different and we are left with a mystery as to how mind and consciousness arose from the material.

The only mystery is why you are reading the wrong book. Your statement is like saying: I was reading a chemistry book, and was left with the mystery as to why the Romans conquered Gaul.

Why?

sonship:
An MRI chart does not contain the consciousness. That is not the inner life of the person whose brain activity was being recorded.

No, it is not. And I never claimed it was, did I?

Since everything I write practically you charge with being a strawman argument, I will just wait for you to explain in a clear and conclusive way not leaving gaping gaps to be filled in with peculiar questions towards me, as if I am being so unreasonable.

sonship:
That could be a problem.
In principle you are proposing not only storage of memory but also storage of an anticipated expectation in the imagination. IE. You're proposing instruments that would be able to store your imagining of a birthday which has not even occurred yet, say your dreaming of your 75th birthday.

And why is this a problem?

YOU are about to explain why it is not a problem.
Proceed.

sonship:
The naturalist, though, has to explain how consciousness emerged from non-conscious matter.

Actually, no. The naturalist doesn't have to explain anything.

I noticed that you seem to hope so.

The naturalist seeks to discover things about the natural world, but as already discussed, some things may simply be beyond us.

Some things are indeed beyond us but have been communicated to us, Christians hold, by revelation.

But YOU are going to bear some burden here to do some explaining about the storage of consciousness.

If you want to hear no more alleged strawman arguments then start detailing out your explanation rather than attempting to deflect all questions back on me. Take a few posts to do so.

But this is not a failing of naturalism, and knowledge of everything is not a requirement of naturalists.

And now it is my turn to say that I never said it was.

But in this realm of consciousness storage you imply that in theory it should be a synch. You imply that your knowledge reaches that scope.

So tell us of your knowledge of storage of consciousness.

Naturalist philosopher of mind Jerry Fodor expresses his perplexity as well:
I have never really understood your habit of quoting vague references from people whose beliefs differ from yours anyway. None of your quotes really say anything much of interest on the topic and certainly don't get us any closer to answers. So why quote them? Do you just get a kick out of reading quotes from people who are perplexed?

Proceed and stop staling please.
Storage of consciousness, storage of the human soul - HOW?

I recall you doing something similar in our previous lengthy discussion about probability. You just kept on throwing in out of context irrelevant quotes seemingly with the message "here is someone with fancy credentials who made vague speculation that sounds something like what I am saying might be possible".

I honestly think you should spend more time and energy on the issue.

Storage of the souls of people - "no problem mon" - Explain how.

Hurry up before everyone reading forgets what we are arguing about.

Originally posted by sonship


Storage of the souls of people - "no problem mon" - Explain how.

This is akin to the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Since neither souls nor angels exist both questions are a nonsense.

Originally posted by sonship
No. I said in the case of a machanical horse there might be some journal or log as is found in IBM computer.
How will you retrieve and store the consciousness of a real horse ?
An emotionally detached shrug is not enough for me.

Well too bad. I don't have the technology for storing the consciousness of a real horse so you will just have to live with the shrug. But my inability to do something does not prove it can't be done. Its not even a good argument that it can't be done.

Rather you do some work and tell us how.
Once again, I do not know how - but this doesn't mean it can't be done.

If you cannot explain it then just say so.
Been there, done that.
Now answer the question.

I need more than a dispassionate wink that it can be done.
Why? What is your reason for believing it can't be done until proven otherwise?

Then some skepticism is justified.
Yes, it probably is. But I still want to know if your belief is mere skepticism, or something more. Please answer my multiple choice question.

At present it is not a matter of what we hope one day someone will do. If you want to talk about hope, belief, then you're toward the wishful.
I did not say I hope it will one day be possible. I said I think it is possible that it will one day be possible. I said that I know of nothing that would rule it out.

So far all I have from your attitude is really "We've done a lot of things. We should someday do this TOO."
Nope, I never said 'should'. Stop reading motivation into what I say when it isn't there.

You want to place all the burden of proof on me. Don't you ?
If you are making an extraordinary claim, then yes, the burden of proof is on you.

And you have not convinced me that storage of consciousness is possible.
Yes, I realized that. But have I convinced you that you don't have a reasonable argument for the claim that it is not possible?

Explain how consciousness is stored rather than repeating questions "Why not?" to get me to shoulder the entire burden.
I do not know exactly how it is stored. But I have no good reason to believe it is not stored, and plenty of good reasons to believe that it is. But notice here that you have subtly changed the claim? Up until now, you have demanded that I store consciousness in something other than a brain, now you are switching this to asking how a brain stores consciousness. I think that this is at least partially answerable, but it is beyond the scope of a forum post. Maybe you could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

You cannot say that I have contributed no rational as to the problems of such.
Yes, I think I can. You keep saying 'there is a problem' and then failing to state the problem.

It is in physics books we learn all about matter.
No, you don't. Do you learn how a CPU works in a physics text book? Organic chemistry? Biology?
Be serious now, surely you know that physics text books cannot possibly cover everything about matter.

Are you proposing a non-material procedure and storage device?
No.
Do physics text books cover how paper works when storing the printed word? That is a material procedure and storage device, but you won't be seeing it discussed in your physics text book.

You will not find biology. But you will find chemistry.
Up to a point, yes.
Sociology is applied biology.
Biology is a applied chemistry.
Chemistry is applied physics.
Physics is applied maths.
Us mathematicians deal with stuff in its most abstract form.

And you may expand the pool of texts to include molecular biology if you wish.
Very nice of you. Why did you stop short of human biology or brain science? Why pick a book you know doesn't cover something, then say 'hey this isn't in my text book, therefore its impossible.'
Seriously, do you know how text books work? Do you realize that just because it isn't in the text book doesn't mean it doesn't exist? This must be one of your worst arguments ever.

Since everything I write practically you charge with being a strawman argument, I will just wait for you to explain in a clear and conclusive way not leaving gaping gaps to be filled in with peculiar questions towards me, as if I am being so unreasonable.

[b]YOU are about to explain why it is not a problem. Proceed.
How could I explain why something is not a problem before you explain how it is a problem? Why would it be a problem to store memories, desires, wishes and imagination? You have heard of books haven't you? They store some of these things quite well - although obviously not in the detail you require, but it proves the principle.
What exactly is the fundamental difference between a memory of an event and an imagined future event that you think creates a storage problem? Merely saying 'there is a problem' does not create a problem.

I noticed that you seem to hope so.
Its not a hope, its a fact.

But YOU are going to bear some burden here to do some explaining about the storage of consciousness.
No, actually, I am not.

If you want to hear no more alleged strawman arguments then start detailing out your explanation rather than attempting to deflect all questions back on me.
Once again, a strawman. I have not claimed to know how conciousness is, or can be stored, so why should I start detailing it? I deflect questions back on you, because you have made a claim - you claim that consciousness cannot be stored. And all I really want from you is to know why you think that is the case. See my multiple choice question earlier in my previous post.

Take a few posts to do so.
I will give you this much although I am under no obligation to do so:
A running computer program is different from computer program code. To store your computers 'life' you would need to store not only what is on its hard disk at any given time, but a full record of its inputs and outputs and what it did with them during the course of the day. What I am saying here is that there is a difference between static data stored over time, and dynamic data such as a computer program.
The brain is a running computer program far more complicated than today's current computers. Part of this complexity lies in the fact that it does multiprocessing. Each cell is a processor. This is quite different from personal computers which typically have about 4 main processors and a few assisting ones. The brain has hundreds of billions of cells.
But it remains the case that computer programs are stored in the computer whilst it is running and so is the consciousness stored in the brain whilst it is running.

To give another analogy, a hurricane is a vortex of winds. But the life of a particular hurricane includes where it went and what destruction it caused etc. So to write down the words 'Hurricane Katrina' doesn't mean you have stored a hurricane. Even writing down the position of every atom of Huricane Katrina on a given date and time, would not have stored the Huricane. You would need to write down the position of every atom throughout its lifetime to fully store it.
But was Huricane Katrina stored in physical atoms during its lifetime? I think yes. Do you think it wasn't? Do you think Huricane Katrina was not physical, but had a soul? Can you put Huricane Katrina in a test tube? If you can't have you proven it has a soul?

And now it is my turn to say that I never said it was.
But you implied it, by stating that naturalists must know something that you choose they must know. It follows that they must know everything in order to answer any random question you may come up with. Or do you have a specific reason why they should know one particular thing and not others?

But in this realm of consciousness storage you imply that in theory it should be a synch.
No, I do not.

You imply that your knowledge reaches that scope.
No, I do not.

Proceed and stop staling please.
Storage of consciousness, storage of the human soul - HOW?
I am not stalling, I am telling you over and over and over that I do not know how, nor have I claimed to know how. This is not stalling.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This is akin to the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Since neither souls nor angels exist both questions are a nonsense.

His definition of the soul (in this instance) is your thoughts and consciousness.

Originally posted by FMF
I disagree. Death gives rise to religions that "offer" access to "life after death" as part of their tenets of faith, and no one can deny that religious beliefs create a lot of "light" in the lives of many millions of people.

Now you're talking doctrine, and the only true doctrine is what comes from God. Many "religions" promise things that even you don't agree with. A lot of what passes for truth is made up by man.

If it is truth, it has to be God's truth, otherwise it's useless.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This is akin to the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Since neither souls nor angels exist both questions are a nonsense.

The answer as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is all of them. Singularly or simultaneously. 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello

Do you find it implausible that there is life after death because you have not died and then been raised back to life? Literally!

That, to my way of thinking, is the only plausible reason not to believe.

But then, if one categorically denies the existences of life after death on any other basis one is thinking with a closed mind.

Y ...[text shortened]... edulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life."[/i]

So you're going to go with science. Science that sees no God, only matter. Matter that your science says came from nothing.

Do you need faith to believe there is no God, or is science providing the evidence required for you to know there is no God?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you have said, but I am yet to see any actually argument or reasoning to support such a claim. You seem to merely rely on skepticism.

[b]There is still one thing we can never know about that real horse. We can never know what it is like to BE that horse. We do not have that horse's consciousness.
You are making a serious error here. You seem to ...[text shortened]... tials who made vague speculation that sounds something like what I am saying might be possible".[/b]

So you have said, but I am yet to see any actually argument or reasoning to support such a claim. You seem to merely rely on skepticism.

This sounds like an interesting switch in roles. You're the person of "faith" and I am the "skeptic."

You seem to jump straight from our inability to experience a horse's consciousness to the conclusion that its consciousness cannot be stored. But it simply doesn't follow.

You have something like "faith" that man will do it sometime.

People of faith can recognize other people of faith.

Your feeling about the matter is similar to my feeling about Christ raising everyone from the graves and tombs. I don't know how. But based on His life I have faith that He again will do so.

But you are the skeptic concerning most things in the New Testament.
In this thread the roles are reversed. You espouse your "faith" in Scientism (or Science) and I am the unbeliever, the skeptic (on a particular issue - soul storage).

Is it:
1. The result of some logical argument you can present.
2. A personal conviction not based on a logical argument but mere skepticism or intuition.
3. A religious belief taken from your religions dogma.
4. Something else.

Experience and human history. And your reluctance to indicate where it was done.

But you have "faith" it can be done someday. Okay. I'll accept your conviction of faith.

You never give up on strawmen do you? Ask it 50 times if you like, the answer will be the same - nobody. And I never claimed otherwise.

LOL. You never get tired of crying two things:

"I never said that."
"That's a strawman."

While you're passively waiting to point out strawmen, I am getting the information I want from other sources which are not afraid to set forth some ideas.

I have to stop here and help a kid with some homework.

Below there was no changing of storage criteria. That's paranoia sounding. Grey matter of the brain or other medium was all included.