SkepticalOne

Mental illness may be like a damaged radio receiving a perfectly good signal. The signal itself hasn't necessarily disappeared; the damaged receiver introduces static, distortion, and interference, so the resulting sound no longer accurately reflects the original broadcast

If a radio is damaged, the classical channel doesn't suddenly become heavy metal. The channel doesn't become English AND Spanish.

When the brain suffers severe damage, an individual's personality can completely change. The difference between responsible, polite, even tempered, and impulsive, profane, and volatile is more than just static. This is the difference of descriptions for Phineus Gage before and after a 3.5 foot rod was blown through his frontal lobe.

Individuals with a severed corpus callosum often have dual consciousness. Split brain patient known as Paul S famously had one side of his brain wanting to be a draftsman, and the other an automobile racer. Dr. V.S. Ramachandran described another patient where one hemisphere was a theist and the other an atheist.

This isnt symptoms of faulty receiver. These cases (and many others like them) demonstrate consciousness is emergent properties of a physical brain.

If we say "this seems unlikely to have a material cause, thus the cause is probably nonmaterial,"

A. But why would we say that other than ignorance? If we knew it wasn't contigent on material, then we wouldn't need to qualify our language in such a way. It seems like a non-material category will ultimately be based on ignorance or incredulity.

It's "could be anything except matter, which this doesn't appear to have the properties of."

See A

Yeah, substance dualism is the ideology we're discussing, right? I'm saying Mary's room supports it.

I obviously misunderstood you. Apologies.

My AI assistant assures me AI has not achieved consciousness... that humans know of.

But if what we call physical stuff almost always only causes x, and we see something that isn't x, it makes sense to attribute it to some other category of thing.

Ignorance doesn't justify creating new categories out of whole cloth. I mean, this is literally an argument from ignorance.

Meanwhile non material stuff isn't super strictly defined, it can literally be anything that's not material, like God or the Force.

Something that 'could be anything' is really just philosophical playdough. It might be fun to play with, but at the end of the day nothing structural has been built. It doesn't explain anything...it's just a placeholder for 'I don't know.'

We can do experiments on matter and have scenarios like Mary's room that make it seem unintuitive matter could be the sole starting point of consciousness.

Did I misunderstand your point? Mary's room is a substance dualist argument, right?

You're building a logical conclusion on the unstable foundation of an unsubstantiated claim.

This subject is relevant to your NDE/afterlife argumentation. If the mind is a byproduct of material, then 'out of body' is nothing of the sort, and an afterlife absent a physical body is non-sensical.

You want things to be more than they probably are.

I'm not sure what makes you think that. I simply want to describes reality as it actually is. Other than what some words mean, I dont think you and I have any serious disagreement on this subject.

Has AI achieved consciousness?

I realize I still owe you that explanation of “evidence” that consciousness is not produced by brain, I will try to get focused and start to work on that tonight.

Yes, I think that would be the most helpful. From the dualist perspective, what is the mind made of? Where does it reside? How does it work with the material brain?

I think it is also important to point out the objections you attempt to turn back on monism dont hit quite like you want. Monism doesn't define mind as something independent of material. There is no immaterial substance. Anything 'immaterial' is contigent on material. So an 'immaterial' mind is emergent from material. It's not hard to understand how something that is an extension of material can affect material. It is unclear how something completely untethered to material made up of not-material can interact with it though. I hope you will tackle this interaction problem head-on.

Sorry, friend, you're not making any sense to me. I've provided the dictionary definition showing "mind" is a noun. "Sight" is also a noun. Unless you are talking metaphorically or something, I cant make sense of what you're saying.

And "mind" is a verb, not a noun...It is a process, rather than something that processes, therefore it does not reside.

1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc..

Link

Sure

But AI does function outside the brain.

AI does not function in the absence of hardware...

I read the important parts and skimmed the less important parts.

34,000 character proxy argument?

No thanks. I'll pass. 😉

I have to agree with Sidewalker on this - not all religions support an afterlife.

As I understand it, substance dualists argue the mind is non-material. They separate everything into two distinct categories: material and non-material thinking substance. One of the biggest questions about this is how something non-material can affect material.

To better conceptualize the criticism, imagine trying to pour a glass of whiskey for yourself with only your mind. No matter how hard you imagine, dream, hope, or wish you will not be any closer to your objective.

If the mind is non-material, then the material can certainly affect it. Let's skip over how, but your non-material mind somehow activates your material muscles to pour and consume a drink the old fashioned way (manual manipulation of a physical whiskey bottle, physical glass with your physicial body) and your mental world will certainly be dramatically and undeniably impacted.

So how is it the physical world can affect the mental if the mind is not somehow attached to material?

When responding, please do your best to provide a concise, personally created response. Copy paste responses of someone (or something else's) words will be ignored.

I wonder who you are directing 34,000 characters at? I doubt even you have read all that.

Because consciousness is attached to organisms that are the product of other organisms successfully living long enough to reproduce. The organisms that didnt care didnt yield as many offspring to carry on their indifference.

Why doesn't a lifeless object like a rock doesn't care about existence and living beings like us care for it ?

Well, rocks are lifeless, lack consciousness of any kind, and experience nothing. Is that really the comparison you were going for?

why do humans need to avoid misery

It is typically a sign something isnt going right.

What % of astronauts have been women in history?

About 20% - all who have outperformed virtually the entire global population—both men and women—to earn their spots. That includes our esteemed OP.

Slacker.

"Extreme" would be intense loyalty to a perceived in-group that trumps facts, truth, and basic decency toward people in perceived out-group. It is tribalism to a toxic level.

I'm not sure what your point is. If the government shut down YouTube to stop citizens commentary related to this administration is the issue merely 'access' or is there something much more fundamental being taken away?

My position is that revoking credentials in retaliation for releasing unflattering stories is an infringement of the Freedom of the Press of First Amendment, and removing credentials without notice or a chance to respond runs against Due Process of the 5th Amendment.

We all have tribalistic tendencies, and to an extent this is helpful. It is the extreme tribalism where the benefit goes off the rails.

The Constitutional Right to a speech venue either exists or it does not.

Who has argued for a 'Constitutional right to a speech venue'? Whether there is such a right (there isnt) is not what this dispute is over. The issue is the potential quashing of freedom of the press and due process (which are enumerated rights) by the US Government. Those rights are not contingent on some imaginary right to access government briefings.

Shoresy wrote:

What is "it" meant to be in that sentence? The Constitution?

post #35

I am asking for clarification. Do you want to be understood?

As in Sherrill where there was a due process issue, yet no access was ultimately granted to Sherrill on any Constitutional ground. Has anything changed since that case?

This was covered in post #30. Sherrill did not have credentials removed. The only similarity between that case and this is that the administration bypassed due process.

RemyBrown wrote:

They have PTs.

Tribalism is an actual primate tendency. I'd argue extreme tribalism has done more to harm humanity than any sexual position.

Heading out for a day, but I'll find the time to show you why consciousness is not a function of brain soon.

I look forward to it.

And it still is an either-or condition. Does it, or does it not exist?

What is "it" meant to be in that sentence? The Constitution?

Before you attempt to defend whatever it is you're arguing, let us keep in mind the media outlets in question now have their credentials (temporarily) restored with the judge noting the administration likely trampled due process.

There's no disingenuous way to frame an issue of a constitutional right to a speech venue.

Maybe its just me, but conflating the press room at the White house as the 'presidents home' seems a smidge disingenuous.