Ok.
Yes.You define ‘consciousness’ uniquely, then.
So I think that the distinction is clear now.
Yes.
I already argue that something local cannot be causally related to something non-local. Just look around and give me an example. You cannot find one.
I think we have an example of what you’re looking for which makes the real issue a matter of explaining how it happens. I say this because mental causation is a good example of something non-local and/or nonphysical being able to affect a physical system (the brain). I’ve argued my case on another thread but in short my supporting evidence is the well-documented phenomena of neuroplasticity. Self-directed neuroplasticity involves using subjective or mental properties (desire, thoughts) to cause physical structural/functional changes in the brain.
What do you mean with non-local and non-physical?
Hmm. Other than mentioning the terms you want to use (‘awareness’, ‘consciousness’), I haven’t seen the definition of the distinction you’re trying to make. Have I missed it?
Aaaaand, now we’re back to the part of the discussion you didn’t want to explore.
Our thoughts and consciousness do have a location, where the person is. They of course doesn’t occupy any space nor have any mass because they are physical states. That is the property of all physical state. However I believe that consciousness is intrinsic property of matter so it is not a physical state.
Yes, but we can have only one God. A non-local entity as we discuss is omnipresent. We are not omnipresent therefore we cannot have a soul.Aaaaand, now we’re back to the part of the discussion you didn’t want to explore.
God is the example. God is non-local to the universe, but He is the creator and cause of its existence.
If our thoughts correspond with something we’re viewing externally, like looking at a tree in front of your house, then in some sense it has a location. However, when your thoughts and awareness are about something internally, like a mental image of a tree without having sensory perception of the tree, then that mental image is nonlocal and/or nonphysical. Scientists will not find a tree or a picture of a tree in your head. If they could find it, then finding it in the brain would mean it has a location, and being able to observe it would mean that it’s physical. To date, scientists can only observe our thoughts indirectly by viewing/decoding neural impulses. There is no empirically verifiable mechanism that shows how the physical brain leads to consciousness. Interestingly, materialists need this mechanism to support their conclusion that the mind is physical. In contrast, the view that that the mind is not physical or that it’s more than the brain is based on common experience, an experience that I believe scientists take for granted.
Did you mean to say “do” instead of “doesn’t”? I ask because physical states are tangible. I can see water in all of its states or forms (liquid, solid, etc.)
We can also say that the mind is an ‘emergent property’ of the brain. If you can accept that, then how far are you willing to go with emergence? Dr. David Chalmers takes it to another level by distinguishing between weak and strong emergence.
That is not correct. Our experiences, whether thought, mental image with or without sensory perception have location. They are physical states of brain so they are basically bounded to where your brain is.
A mental image of a tree without any sensory perception has a location inside your brain. In fact the image is a construct of your brain activity.
I personally believe that consciousness is intrinsic property of matter. In fact it is absurd to consider consciousness as an emergent phenomena, a physical state, because brain has to construct experiencer/consciousness and the subject of experience, a thought for example, at the same moment which is not economical since the experience of subject matter is enough. Moreover, we know that matter is experiencer, it reacts, so why bother and claim that consciousness is an emergent phenomena.
Mind to me as it is discussed is intrinsic property of matter rather than an emergent phenomena.
No, what is tangible is matter instead of physical state. Physical state simply is a condition in which matter behaves in a specif way.
I have problem with emergence of consciousness as it was discussed.
Immaterial to the discussion.
But, nevertheless, is non-local. In other words, we have a non-local causal agent (God) that affects local (i.e., physical) objects. So, we have exactly what you claim is impossible.
Non sequitur. Moreover, immaterial to the argument. In any case, it’s an incorrect conclusion; omnipresence isn’t a necessary characteristic of a soul.
It is necessary. A non-local entity is omnipresent. That is true because there is no preference in any point in the space from point of view of non-local entity. Therefore a non-local entity is omnipresent. Our experience is local therefore we cannot have a soul since soul is immaterial and is non-local.
But soul is immaterial. Isn’t it?
So far, this is just an assertion made without any evidence.
You mentioned that the brain constructs the image, which I can agree since memory is involved. However, your explanation only takes into account the cause (memory) but not the effect (mental imagery). Can we observe the image? Where is it?
So you claim that matter (brain) is the experiencer and that it constructs consciousness/experience. I don’t quite see how this rules out emergence unless you’re saying that consciousness is not a higher-level property. The only supporting point that you offered was that matter reacts. If ‘reaction’ was the only standard to go by then I’d say you had a point, however, conscious experience involve mental reactions, and the physical brain is not attributed with being sad, having desires, and other subjective states. In other words, physical reactions are different than mentalistic reactions. Besides my former point, it’s also a leap to say that reaction implies awareness.
I understand what you mean but I respectfully disagree.
The law of identity says otherwise. Whatever is true of x (brain) must be true of y (the mind) and vice-versa. We would not ascribe mental attributes (feelings, beliefs, awareness, mental imagery, etc) to a brain any more than we would to a rock. Another objection to your point would be the fact that mental activity can conflict with brain states and I’ll elaborate on this more below.
According to your worldview, the brain is in control of our thoughts and behavior. As you said earlier, it constructs our mental experience. Self-directed neuroplasticity provides evidence of our ability to use our mind to change our brain states. ** If the mind was the brain, it wouldn’t make sense for it (the brain) to work against itself and change itself to reflect something against itself.** As in the neuroplasticity studies, we know that the ‘mind’ was the cause of the change, because mental states/activity can be different than brain states/activity.
Refer to my response above this one. Basically, I question the purpose of the brain if it does not have the control over behavior as we think it does. What other brain activity will this new field (neuroplasticity) show that we can change using your mind? At this point, the brain may as well function as a medium.
That non-physical entities have “no preference for any point in space” does not imply that they are present in all points in space.
Please prove that human experience is solely local. Otherwise, your assertion fails.
The physical components of experience (sensory (name removed by moderator)uts and the things that cause them) have location. However, the mind of the person – which experiences – does not.
Who is this ‘we’? Anyway, now you’re contradicting yourself, aren’t you?
And yet, the soul is associated with the body, which does have location. Therefore, by virtue of its relationship to the body, it shares some of the effects of location (while not strictly having location itself).
The question’s been asked and answered. Experience is a characteristic of the person, not the soul; the person has a physical reality and a spiritual reality.
Well, to me that is evident. We don’t share thoughts and experiences. Our thoughts are personal and move with us wherever we go.
Of course you can observe the constructed image from third point perspective. We just need to learn how an external image is coded and memorized in the brain. We then need to take a specific brain activity, encode it to understand what is the internal image is. I believe that another areas of brain are involved to create an image. That is why we are able to create images which we have never seen before or dream.
I have three argument in favor of my idea one I already provided and here are another two: (1) Consciousness is nothing more than a physical state, in your opinion. A physical state however is only a condition in which matter react to an external stimuli. Thought is another physical state. A physical state cannot experience another physical state given the provided definition. Therefore consciousness cannot be a physical state. (2) Brain has to construct consciousness and subject of experience, thought for example at exactly the same moment otherwise we cannot experience the subject of experience. These two however are not correlated, unless they are synchronized, we cannot have both of them at the same instant therefore we cannot experience the subject.
Then you need to say what is wrong with my arguments.
There is no mind as an abstract entity. We just have matter and matter can experience. Therefore your argument doesn’t follow.
Rock also experience rockiness and respond to external stimuli.
Ok, lets follow.
There is no mind. The only thing which exist is matter which experiences and behave. Matter in simple form behaves depending on its physical state and external stimuli. What is interesting in brain is that you have loops within neurons so you have a kind of feedback in the brain which this allows that a physical state change over time, in another word system rewire itself.
I think loops allow you rewiring. Moreover to my understanding matter just approximately follow the laws of nature. There could be deviation from laws of nature too and that could allow freedom in decision. You might be interested to read this article about Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment.
I think I already argue enough that matter is more than a medium.
I didn’t say so. I meant that all point in space are presented equally to an non-local entity since there is no preference for any point in space.
To me they are physical but they live in another realm which we could have access to it. I have a thread on this topic in here.
Lets then discuss things.
You want me to prove you an evident fact. Have you ever experience everything?
I think we need to focus on the fact that a non-local or non-physical entity like soul is omnipresent, experience everything and can act everywhere. This is discussed in the previous post.
Fine. That doesn’t equate to “omnipresence”, either.
Umm… those who have died in the flesh? Whose bodies are buried? Are still physical? :nope:
OK… go for it! You made a claim, and I provided a counterexample.
No… I’m asking you to prove that experience is solely local. The distinction being made here, of course, is that there’s a difference between physical sensation and experience of the mind; the former is physical, whereas the latter is not (since the mind is not a physical construct).
Of course. Tell me… where (physically) is ‘love’ located?