My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[bilby]

Of course there is a physical reason for it to be there; literally EVERYTHING else we have ever studied turns out to have a physical basis; we would need an extraordinarily clear reason to believe that consciousness is the one exception to this rule.

The process of pain is physically there, but the experience of it is not needed. In other words, there shouldn't be a first person experience. That really does imply something else.

If "a process of pain that exists", and "experiencing that process" are fundamentally different, then you would be able to point me to that fundamental difference. But you can't.

It is only something that you can understand for yourself. It can't be pointed to because it isn't physical.

So it is your religious belief.

If that's all it is, then there is nothing to discuss. It is futile to attempt to change an irrational belief via reasoned argument.

You say that the experience of it is not needed; but you offer nothing to support this assertion. It is quite possible that the experience is 'needed' in the sense of being evolutionarily advantageous; and even if it was no longer evolutionarily advantageous, that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist - there are plenty of examples of vestigial entities in biology.

 

[bilby]

The sensation of pain is related to the evolution of conscious representation of information, which enables far more complex behaviour to develop than simple plant reflex response, which have limited mobility and few ways in which they can respond to environmental stimuli, for example.

The term 'free will' doesn't add any useful insights into the nature of either system.

If pain isn't a non-causal deterrent, then we are incredibly lucky that pain is something we tend to avoid, and pleasure is something we pursue. It could have been that to be content is to constantly feel pain, and we only feel pleasure when we do something stupid like touch a stove. That is a very convenient coincidence, don't you think?

As a sufferer of chronic back pain, I have to disagree. It is extremely inconvenient to be in pain but unable to take any effective action to remove myself from its source.

 

[ryan]

The perception of pain is the motivator to avoid whatever causes pain, unless the reward is perceived to be greater than the pain that's likely to be experienced. Just as the sensation of pleasure is a reward, the motivator to seek the things that bring pleasure and satisfaction

Well this seems like you are suggesting that we are basing our decisions on something other than what our place in the clock is forced to do anyways.

 

[ryan]

The process of pain is physically there, but the experience of it is not needed. In other words, there shouldn't be a first person experience. That really does imply something else.

If "a process of pain that exists", and "experiencing that process" are fundamentally different, then you would be able to point me to that fundamental difference. But you can't.

It is only something that you can understand for yourself. It can't be pointed to because it isn't physical.

So it is your religious belief.

Yes, but I live with the evidence every minute of every day. I am more certain that I experience sensations as you are certain that you experience back pain. That is my prediction that I am sure is true.

 

[ryan]

If pain isn't a non-causal deterrent, then we are incredibly lucky that pain is something we tend to avoid, and pleasure is something we pursue. It could have been that to be content is to constantly feel pain, and we only feel pleasure when we do something stupid like touch a stove. That is a very convenient coincidence, don't you think?

As a sufferer of chronic back pain, I have to disagree. It is extremely inconvenient to be in pain but unable to take any effective action to remove myself from its source.

I have it too. It's probably evolution telling us to get off of our asses.

 

[DBT]

If pain isn't a non-causal deterrent, then we are incredibly lucky that pain is something we tend to avoid, and pleasure is something we pursue. It could have been that to be content is to constantly feel pain, and we only feel pleasure when we do something stupid like touch a stove. That is a very convenient coincidence, don't you think?

As a sufferer of chronic back pain, I have to disagree. It is extremely inconvenient to be in pain but unable to take any effective action to remove myself from its source.

Of course, this is not a matter of choice.

 

[bilby]

The process of pain is physically there, but the experience of it is not needed. In other words, there shouldn't be a first person experience. That really does imply something else.

If "a process of pain that exists", and "experiencing that process" are fundamentally different, then you would be able to point me to that fundamental difference. But you can't.

It is only something that you can understand for yourself. It can't be pointed to because it isn't physical.

So it is your religious belief.

Yes, but I live with the evidence every minute of every day.

That's what they all say.

And don't imagine that I am suggesting that people don't experience sensations. I just don't accept that as evidence that sensations or consciousness are non-physical.

 

[DBT]

The perception of pain is the motivator to avoid whatever causes pain, unless the reward is perceived to be greater than the pain that's likely to be experienced. Just as the sensation of pleasure is a reward, the motivator to seek the things that bring pleasure and satisfaction

Well this seems like you are suggesting that we are basing our decisions on something other than what our place in the clock is forced to do anyways.

No. Decision making means the system is gathering information and selecting options based on given sets of criteria...that is the [highly complex] clock. The human brain is a mind bogglingly complex mechanism, self programming, intelligent and intuitive, but the term 'free will' adds nothing in terms of information for how it works, or the behaviour it produces

 

[ryan]

Well this seems like you are suggesting that we are basing our decisions on something other than what our place in the clock is forced to do anyways.

No. Decision making means the system is gathering information and selecting options based on given sets of criteria...that is the [highly complex] clock. The human brain is a mind bogglingly complex mechanism, self programming, intelligent and intuitive, but the term 'free will' adds nothing in terms of information for how it works, or the behaviour it produces

By "clock", I meant a system with no freedom whatsoever. The clock ticks whether it feels pain or not; your argument seems to imply that we do too.

As a sufferer of chronic back pain, I have to disagree. It is extremely inconvenient to be in pain but unable to take any effective action to remove myself from its source.

Of course, this is not a matter of choice.

If you genuinely believe this, then it doesn't help your argument to use sensational experiences as a mechanism for evolution.

 

[ryan]

And don't imagine that I am suggesting that people don't experience sensations. I just don't accept that as evidence that sensations or consciousness are non-physical.

I will leave on these two notes. We would have to be another person to observe their experience the way they do, and that is not logically possible to do that. And it is not even a physical issue because we can have a complete physical understanding of their processes and still miss out on their experience.

 

[DBT]

By "clock", I meant a system with no freedom whatsoever. The clock ticks whether it feels pain or not; your argument seems to imply that we do too.

Inherited DNA is not a matter of choice, neural architecture is not a matter of choice, the action of the environment upon the system is not a matter of choice...so what exactly is the nature of this freedom you refer to?

If you genuinely believe this, then it doesn't help your argument to use sensational experiences as a mechanism for evolution.

My reference was to the events that the brain cannot control, alter, choose or reject; degenerative diseases (whether environmental caused or genetic predisposition), accidents, assaults, robberies, etc. etc...all of the events and things that are beyond the scope of the brain to alter.

 

[fromderinside]

... The human brain is a mind bogglingly complex mechanism, self programming, intelligent and intuitive, but the term 'free will' adds nothing in terms of information for how it works, or the behaviour it produces

Gotta operationalize the bolded one if you're going to prevail against the wiley Ryan. No sense trying to defend self. Can't be done.

 

[ryan]

Yeah DBT, why don't you "operationalize" it?

Fromderinside, you seem pretty wishy-washy about all of this. Is it possible that there is a non-physical bug in you too?

 

[Juma]

and that is not logically possible to do that

Your obsession with trying to prove empirical questions with logic is rather obscene.

 

[DBT]

Yeah DBT, why don't you "operationalize" it?

Fromderinside, you seem pretty wishy-washy about all of this. Is it possible that there is a non-physical bug in you too?

I don't even know what "operationalize" means in this context. Nor do I know what this so called ''non physical'' is supposed to be, or how non physical, non material is supposed to interact with or effect changes to physical/material structures and physical/material processes.

 

[ryan]

I am dying to know an honest answer as to why everyone is so sure that they are right yet willing to put in so much time.

It is too easy and obvious to make a joke here. So please, for the sake of creativity and originality don't.

 

[DBT]

I am dying to know an honest answer as to why everyone is so sure that they are right yet willing to put in so much time.

It is too easy and obvious to make a joke here. So please, for the sake of creativity and originality don't.

Maybe we like to argue? Or just discuss things? Or, perhaps, addressing common logical difficulties, unfounded assumptions and fallacies may feel satisfying in some inexplicable way?

 

[beero1000]

My bet is on survivorship bias.

 

[fromderinside]

Naw. Its teacher impulse.

and a one and a two and a .....

 

[Kharakov]

I am dying to know an honest answer as to why everyone is so sure that they are right yet willing to put in so much time.

It's not that anyone is sure that they are right. We're just all sure that you are wrong.