Coercive miracles?

[Bradski]

Define it as you will.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with your explanation as far as it goes but it doesn’t go far enough. You describe what the brain does but not where the mind comes in. Is the mind just the brain in action or is there an aspect you haven’t mentioned? I don’t believe the brain knows it’s a brain or understands what it’s doing! That’s where the mind is indispensable …
Very well. It is the next logical step. Let me quote your previous way of putting it.

Do you believe all our thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions are produced by neural impulses? Is the mind simply the activity of the brain?Now this is the meat of the problem. And, yes it is a question worthy of pursuing.
First, I will contend that the question is incorrectly formed. Our thoughts (etc.) are NOT produced by the neural impulses. They are the two sides of the same coin. Let me try an analogy. You see a canvas with some colored blobs on it. It is called a “picture”. It is incorrect to ask if the picture is “produced” by the colored blobs of paint. The picture IS the colored blobs of paint. Without the colored blobs there would be no “picture”. If the blobs would be different, the picture would not be the same. The blobs are the equivalent of the physical states of the neurons. The picture is the equivalent of the “thought”. Neither one “produces” the other.

So thoughts and neural impulses have co-existed since the origin of sentient life? Neither preceded the other?

Let’s look from another angle. Our skin has a lot of receptors, some of which react to “heat”, others react to “cold”, some react to “pressure”, etc… When the receptors receive a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from the environment, we experience “pain”. The same pain can be experienced by directly exciting the proper part of the brain. In other words, “pain” is NOT produced by the electrical impulses in the neurons - pain IS the electrical state of the neurons. And the same applies to pleasure.

Then it should be possible to measure the intensity of pain and pleasure with a multimeter?

Now these are relatively simple - they all belong to the sub-conscious part of the brain. Choices and decisions are the next part to examine. These occur - at least partially - in the conscious. Let take a soccer player who is about to perform a penalty kick (the Bundesliga or the Premier League are about to start ). The player evaluates the situation. His sub-conscious mind recalls all the details he knows bout the goalie, what his possible preferences might be, and a myriad other details. The player is not aware of this very complex process, it just happens “below the surface”. Then the result “emerges” from the sub-conscious and the player makes a conscious decision, how to kick the ball, where should the ball be directed, how strong the kick should be… and a lot of other details. The funny thing is that most of these decisions do NOT happen in the conscious area.

I don’t have any precise information, but I suspect that at the most… a fraction of the data processing happens in the conscious part, the overwhelming majority happens in the sub-conscious.

Has consciousness always existed? If not how did it originate?

So what is the “I”? What we call “I” is the total data-processing happening in the brain. I need to emphasize it again. The “I” is NOT produced by the electrical impulses. The “I” IS the electrical impulses AND what they represent. It is a very scary thought that a minor intrusion of a scalpel - to sever the connection of the frontal lobe - will get rid of the “I”, the personality. The person will change into a vegetative state - because part of the data-processing is removed or inhibited. And that Alzheimer disease will not just “erase” the memory of the patient, it will also erase the sub-conscious… the patient’s mind will literally forget how to regulate the heart, the lungs, how to control the abdominal muscles.

So “we” are nothing more than collections of electrical impulses? How do they process themselves?

I think “know” is far too feeble if we were in the presence of God. We would be overcome with such awe and wonder we would be incapable of forgetting the experience - like St Paul who was transformed from a ruthless persecutor of the Christians to a dedicated Apostle who sacrificed his life for his Saviour. It would be the outstanding event of our life on earth which would make us incapable of deliberately doing anything we believe is wrong. But as you don’t believe in God it is just a theoretical exercise you cannot understand because it doesn’t fit in with your scheme of things. It is like trying to describe beautiful music to a person born deaf or an artistic masterpiece to a person born blind. It is beyond your range of possibilities even though your basic argument is that everything is possible…

In this case we are like two blind people who argue about color. Neither of us can speak with any authority about “what would happen”. I will stick to the description of the Bible, which can be taken either literally or allegorically. In it God freely mingles with humans and yet those people retain their freedom to act according to their preferences, even if they “know” what God would request them to do. They perform acts that God forbids them to do… So I have at least some foundation for the argument - and that foundation comes from YOUR side of the fence. Do you have something that is not sheer speculation?

Don’t you think it is sheer speculation that unassisted electrical impulses have become capable of processing themselves, understanding themselves, controlling themselves and becoming persons who have free will and a right to life? Can you explain the mechanisms which caused their transformation and cite scientific evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So thoughts and neural impulses have co-existed since the origin of sentient life? Neither preceded the other?

Ever since the brain developed. There is no such thing as “thinking” without the “hardware”. There are simpler constructs of neural networks in insects, for example. They already “know” everything they need to know. They are not capable of learning, and they don’t need to. Nevertheless they are capable of very complex behavior. Bees for example have an intricate “dance language”. The explorers go back to the hive, and describe the direction and distance to a newly discovered area, rich with flowers. And the complexity of a termite mound is mind-boggling. Definitely worth to read up on it.

Then it should be possible to measure the intensity of pain and pleasure with a multimeter?

Not that simple. We are talking about electro-chemical interactions among the millions of neurons. But, theoretically it could be possible, just like it IS possible to introduce some chemicals and/or mild electrical current into the proper part of the brain and induce the pleasure/pain feeling. Technically it would be very difficult, because of the density of the brain and because everybody’s brain is different.

However, the following experiment has been performed many times:

Electrodes were implanted into the brain of rats, and they could activate them by pressing down on a pedal. When the electrodes “excited” the pain center, the rats only pushed down the pedal once and then stopped. When the pleasure center was “activated”, the rats kept on pushing that pedal until they collapsed from sheer exhaustion. So the electro-chemical nature of pleasure and pain has been established beyond ANY doubt… not just beyond any reasonable doubt. Exciting other parts of the brain evoke anger or specific thoughts and feelings. Sending some specific chemical molecules there will have similar effects. It is not a coincidence that some materials are called “mind-altering” drugs.

Obviously we barely scratched the surface of the brain (pun intended ) but we already know quite a lot about it. Not I, of course, but the neuro-physicists.

Has consciousness always existed? If not how did it originate?

Consciousness requires the existence of the “grey cells”. The other question would be a violation of the ban on evolution, even if I would know the specifics, which I don’t. I doubt that anyone knows the exact technical details. We don’t know how some primitive light-sensitive cells grew into “eyes”. But these technical details are not important.

So “we” are nothing more than collections of electrical impulses? How do they process themselves?

The phrase “nothing more” is condescending. I think it is pretty awesome. The “how” is beyond my level of knowledge. The details would be very complicated I am sure.

Don’t you think it is sheer speculation that unassisted electrical impulses have become capable of processing themselves, understanding themselves, controlling themselves and becoming persons who have free will and a right to life? Can you explain the mechanisms which caused their transformation and cite scientific evidence to support your hypothesis?

You are again stepping into the banned territory of evolution. The scientific evidence for the brain-mind complex is beyond dispute. Millions of experiments established the evidence. And there is no evidence at all for some “immaterial soul”. Not even a coherent definition of what that “soul” might be. Not to mention what kind of interface would there be between the physical brain and its activity on one hand, and the immaterial “soul” on the other.

I know that you like to bring up the “blind Goddess of chance” and it is always uttered in a condescending and derogatory matter. I suggest that you look at a Galton board and see how undirected, random movements will produce a perfect “normal curve”. Or you can calculate the value of π (pi) by using Monte-Carlo methods, for example by randomly dropping a pin on pool-table.

Never underestimate the power of random forces.

 

[tonyrey]

So thoughts and neural impulses have co-existed since the origin of sentient life? Neither preceded the other?

But “we” don’t exist and there is no mind, just a horde of neural impulses which are incapable of learning and don’t know what they’re doing…

Then it should be possible to measure the intensity of pain and pleasure with a multimeter?

Not that simple. We are talking about electro-chemical interactions among the millions of neurons. But, theoretically it could be possible, just like it IS possible to introduce some chemicals and/or mild electrical current into the proper part of the brain and induce the pleasure/pain feeling. Technically it would be very difficult, because of the density of the brain and because everybody’s brain is different.

However, the following experiment has been performed many times:

Electrodes were implanted into the brain of rats, and they could activate them by pressing down on a pedal. When the electrodes “excited” the pain center, the rats only pushed down the pedal once and then stopped. When the pleasure center was “activated”, the rats kept on pushing that pedal until they collapsed from sheer exhaustion. So the electro-chemical nature of pleasure and pain has been established beyond ANY doubt… not just beyond any reasonable doubt. Exciting other parts of the brain evoke anger or specific thoughts and feelings. Sending some specific chemical molecules there will have similar effects. It is not a coincidence that some materials are called “mind-altering” drugs.

Obviously we barely scratched the surface of the brain (pun intended ) but we already know quite a lot about it. Not I, of course, but the neuro-physicists.

So in theory the neuro-physicists will eventually be able to explain themselves? It seems a rather circular argument. Maybe a vicious circle!

Has consciousness always existed? If not how did it originate?

Consciousness requires the existence of the “grey cells”. The other question would be a violation of the ban on evolution, even if I would know the specifics, which I don’t. I doubt that anyone knows the exact technical details. We don’t know how some primitive light-sensitive cells grew into “eyes”. But these technical details are not important.

There’s no need to bring evolution into it. “originate” is the key word. Did consciousness come from things which lack consciousness?

So “we” are nothing more than collections of electrical impulses? How do they process themselves?

The phrase “nothing more” is condescending. I think it is pretty awesome. The “how” is beyond my level of knowledge. The details would be very complicated I am sure.

In your scheme of things “nothing more” is a statement of fact. If an explanation is beyond our level of knowledge we need a consensus by all the specialists in the subject - and even they are not infallible. Are there any Nobel prize-winners who have explained how persons are equivalent to electrical impulses?

Don’t you think it is sheer speculation that unassisted electrical impulses have become capable of processing themselves, understanding themselves, controlling themselves and becoming persons who have free will and a right to life? Can you explain the mechanisms which caused their transformation and cite scientific evidence to support your hypothesis?

You are again stepping into the banned territory of evolution. The scientific evidence for the brain-mind complex is beyond dispute. Millions of experiments established the evidence. And there is no evidence at all for some “immaterial soul”. Not even a coherent definition of what that “soul” might be. Not to mention what kind of interface would there be between the physical brain and its activity on one hand, and the immaterial “soul” on the other.

Why is there a distinction between mind and brain if there is no difference between them?

I know that you like to bring up the “blind Goddess of chance” and it is always uttered in a condescending and derogatory matter. I suggest that you look at a Galton board and see how undirected, random movements will produce a perfect “normal curve”. Or you can calculate the value of π (pi) by using Monte-Carlo methods, for example by randomly dropping a pin on pool-table.

Never underestimate the power of random forces.

You overestimate the power of random forces to such an extent they have become the solution to** everything**. That is why they are correctly described as the “blind Goddess of chance”, They are god-like in their ability to create everything we value and consider most precious. They understand nothing but they give us the power to understand they understand nothing! It’s the greatest miracle I have ever come across. Life from the lifeless, thought from the thoughtless, value from the valueless, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless! There’s only one stage of absurdity that is lacking: everything from nothing. Do you believe that?

 

[Aloysium]

Neurophysics?
What nonsense!
Science gone over the edge into total absurdity.
Take a few fairly solid ideas, shake them up, rearrange them, and presto change-o, pseudoscience.
Yikes!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But “we” don’t exist and there is no mind, just a horde of neural impulses which are incapable of learning and don’t know what they’re doing…

Just like there is no picture on the wall, only a bunch of colored blobs and lines.

There’s no need to bring evolution into it. “originate” is the key word. Did consciousness come from things which lack consciousness?

How can a colored picture come from colorless atoms?

Why is there a distinction between mind and brain if there is no difference between them?

Why is there a distinction between the legs and walking?

 

[icamhif]

You seem to think that free will is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Our freedom is already seriously limited. No matter how hard we try “to will” to cause harm to someone on the other side of the globe, we are unable to bring it to fruition - due to the physical impossibility. No matter how hard we try to save people trapped in a mine, we are unable to help them, because we lack the ability.

So there are already limits to our freedom. Why is it a problem to eliminate some options (doing bad things) and give us some more options (doing good things)?

This is just an age-old slippery slope fallacy. I (and everyone else) would be perfectly happy if all the violent actions would be eliminated. And let the rest happen. By the way, there would be no need to resort to a personal intervention. There is much better, subtle way to achieve this. Simply create people without the desire to cause harm and pain to others. Good, benevolent behavior would be the “default” norm.

Just curious, though: how much evil acts must be prevented in order to convince you that God (assuming He exists) is a good God?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Just curious, though: how much evil acts must be prevented in order to convince you that God (assuming He exists) is a good God?

First a definition of “necessary evil”. Some seemingly negative event that actually leads to a “greater” good. To be more precise: “the existence of that negative event is logically necessary to achieve that good, which not only compensates for the negative event, but also gives an even more desirable result”. Moreover, the amount of the negative event cannot be lessened without preventing that greater good - God’s omnipotence notwithstanding.

So now the answer:

All the unnecessary evils - provided that such evils exist. Let me anticipate your next logical question: “how can we, from our limited perspective declare that some evil was unnecessary?” The first answer is: we use the duck principle: “whatever looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck - is very probably a duck”. But we are not infallible, so we may be in error. In this case God could come and explain why our perception was incorrect, and why is something that looks like an unnecessary evil, is actually necessary.

And that would be it. The point is that I am not accustomed to accept answers like: “because I said so”. A logical and detailed explanation not only goes a long way, but it is the only method that convinces me.

 

[tonyrey]

But “we” don’t exist and there is no mind, just a horde of neural impulses which are incapable of learning and don’t know what they’re doing…

That is not an explanation.

So in theory the neuro-physicists will eventually be able to explain themselves? It seems a rather circular argument. Maybe a vicious circle!

No response. Circular arguments are worthless.

There’s no need to bring evolution into it. “originate” is the key word. Did consciousness come from things which lack consciousness?

How can a colored picture come from colorless atoms?

As you have pointed out, a question is not an answer to a question.

In your scheme of things “nothing more” is a statement of fact. If an explanation is beyond our level of knowledge we need a consensus by all the specialists in the subject - and even they are not infallible. Are there any Nobel prize-winners who have explained how persons are equivalent to electrical impulses?

No response. Obviously there aren’t any explanations and the hypothesis is worthless.

Why is there a distinction between mind and brain if there is no difference between them?

Why is there a distinction between the legs and walking?

As you have pointed out, a question is not an answer to a question.

You overestimate the power of random forces to such an extent they have become the solution to** everything**. That is why they are correctly described as the “blind Goddess of chance”, They are god-like in their ability to create everything we value and consider most precious. They understand nothing but they give us the power to understand they understand nothing! It’s the greatest miracle I have ever come across. Life from the lifeless, thought from the thoughtless, value from the valueless, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless! There’s only one stage of absurdity that is lacking: everything from nothing. Do you believe that?

No response. Silence implies assent, confusion or unwillingness to commit oneself.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That is not an explanation.

Only to those who not comprehend the significance of it. But I will not explain it. I had enough of this.

 

[tonyrey]

Only to those who not comprehend the significance of it. But I will not explain it. I had enough of this.

I’m not surprised. “When the going gets tough, the tough get going” can be misinterpreted! You don’t observe your principle that “A logical and detailed explanation not only goes a long way, but it is the only method that convinces me”.

 

[tonyrey]

… The point is that I am not accustomed to accept answers like: “because I said so”. A logical and detailed explanation not only goes a long way, but it is the only method that convinces me.

Yet you don’t practice what you preach…

 

[tonyrey]

Yet you don’t practice what you preach…

Correction : “practise”.

 

[Elizium23]

Define it as you will.

That’s a typically Modernist attitude.

 

[tonyrey]

But “we” don’t exist and there is no mind, just a horde of neural impulses which are incapable of learning and don’t know what they’re doing…

Just like there is no picture on the wall, only a bunch of colored blobs and lines.  That is not an explanation.Only to those who not comprehend the significance of it. But I will not explain it. I had enough of this.

1. Who are those who comprehend the significance of a bunch of colored blobs and lines?
2. What qualifications do they have to have?
3. What is your reason for refusing to explain it?
4. Why have you “had enough of this”? It gives everyone the impression you cannot justify your view that we are just a horde of neural impulses - or in Hume’s words “a bundle of perceptions”. What co-ordinates their activity and gives them insight?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, if you have knowledge you are robbed of your freedom of choice No, having knowledge simply makes your choices meaningful.

The poll is a false dilemma. It doesn’t specify what type of knowledge or how much knowledge. It is a vain attempt to evade the fact that certainty is compelling unless we are insane. Only a person who wants to die or is possessed - like a friend of mine - would walk along a railway track and be killed by a train. If knowledge were never coercive it wouldn’t be long before we’re all dead! The acid test of any theory is whether it works…

 

[St_Redemption]

Not everybody presented with miracles believes. Jesus confronted people like this in the NT. If you are blessed enough to be confronted with a miracle then you are that, blessed

 

[tonyrey]

Not everybody presented with miracles believes. Jesus confronted people like this in the NT. If you are blessed enough to be confronted with a miracle then you are that, blessed

There are miracles and miracles! If the sun disappeared forever and everyone in the world heard a voice saying “I exist” (in their own languages of course) only a lunatic wouldn’t realise something extraordinary is happening.

 

[tonyrey]

Not everybody presented with miracles believes. Jesus confronted people like this in the NT. If you are blessed enough to be confronted with a miracle then you are that, blessed

Indeed but it doesn’t follow that those who don’t believe are cursed. Their punishment is self-inflicted because they condemn themselves to live in the dark. They are to be pitied rather than detested…:sad_bye:

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see what you mean. Deny “what”? God’s existence? Obviously I would not deny that God exist. Deny what the apologists SAY about God? Of course I would deny it. If God would assert that the apologists correctly revealed his nature and his requirements about the acceptable behavior (no masturbation, etc…) then I would simply flip a “birdy” and say something that is not acceptable as a “charitable” expression.

It would seem to me that the logical inconsistency is yours and yours alone.

If God’s existence – omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent – turned out to be the case, then your response – “flip a birdy” – would seem not only illogical, but utterly and baselessly so. You are not omniscient nor omnibenevolent yet you would side with your current and obviously errant view of things over the final truth of the matter and the final truth about what is good. How is that logical? It just seems willfully ignorant of you, no?

Interesting that you bring up masturbation as if the right and freedom to pleasure oneself creates a sufficient and compelling reason to be uncharitable and obnoxious vis a vis what turns out to be, ultimately, the truth of the matter. Basically, your claim amounts to what you want simply trumps WHATEVER ultimately reality turns out to be merely because YOU want it. This strikes me as the blunt end of a treacherous ploy to enshrine one’s own will as the ultimate truth in place of any and all realities – WHATEVER they turn out to be – which may portend otherwise. There is NO CHANCE in your mind that YOU could be wrong.

You do know where Nietzsche ended up, correct? I would suppose that if he were essentially correct on the matter that he could have, as the crowds said of Jesus, “saved himself” FROM HIMSELF and his own demise. Yes, I am certain that when all reality marshals itself and stands in stark contrast to your masturbatory goals and requests an accounting of why you think YOUR pleasure should count as the most significant end of all existence – above any and all ends that omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence could possibly muster – you will stand tall and proud and “flip a birdy.” How very -]reasonable/-] petty that sounds in the light of day.