How our experiences could have location when soul has no location?

[Gorgias]

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.

It’s not a fact; it’s a claim that you’re making without attribution. Can your soul “act everywhere”? Does it “experience everything” in the universe? Can you demonstrate this?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Odd… I just read through that thread, and didn’t see anything of that sort, there. Just some vague set-theory assertions about ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ forces acting on one another.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Part 1…

We don’t share thoughts and experiences. Our thoughts are personal and move with us wherever we go.

You claimed that the mind is physical because it is bound to the brain - our experiences go wherever our brain goes, in other words. There are two senses in which consciousness is nonphysical, that is, in terms of being unobservable and in terms of being nonlocal. Your point only addresses one aspect - locality. As to that point, my view is that the interaction (electrochemical activity) is local in that it occurs in the brain; however, it becomes nonlocal when the effect involves nonphysical features, like subjective experience, thoughts, feelings, etc.

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.

Well there are two aspects that are relevant to my point. One is the image itself, the other is the subjective experience of the image. I can use a CPU and computer monitor as an analogy. The image is not in the CPU, except perhaps as information, instead a signal is transmitted to the monitor to project the image and of course we’re the ones that would view the image. In relation to images in the brain, your point fails to demonstrate how the image is generated and transmitted (or projected) and it fails to account for who or what is doing the looking.

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.

I view the mind as being an emergent property of the brain because it contains features that are more than the individual parts of the brain. Examples are awareness, experience, mental imagery, and it can even change the brain (neuroplasticity). You can not predict this by observing individual neurons nor do individual neurons have awareness. In fact, some of the leading neurobiological theories of consciousness, like the Global Workspace Model of Consciousness, rely on complex interactions between multiple areas of the brain to generate consciousness.

Taking into account my view, the mind is not a physical state but rather it is an emergent property. There’s a difference between ‘states’ and ‘properties’. States are conditions of matter (solid, liquid, gas), whereas properties describe how matter (or states of matter) looks, feels, and acts.

There is no mind as an abstract entity. We just have matter and matter can experience. Therefore your argument doesn’t follow.

I believe the same logic behind the law of identity can also be applied to properties, as well. The mind as a property of the brain can mean that the mind is but one part of the brain or it can mean the mind is more than the individual parts (brain) while still being dependent on those brain parts. The former scenario is about the mind being an intrinsic property which is your view. The latter scenario is about the mind as an emergent property which is my view.

Matter can react, but reaction is not necessarily the same as experience. Experience requires awareness, sentience, etc. To say otherwise, fails to factor in the differences between the acts of a person and the acts of nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects, even.

Rock also experience rockiness and respond to external stimuli.

Not only is this nonsensical based on my previous point, but lets not also forget that you have not offered empirical evidence to support your case.

Part 2 in the next post…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Part 2…

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.

The bold font part is a red herring. My point about ‘self’-directed neuroplasticity is not to show that the brain can rewire itself. It’s about the person playing an active role, in that person causes the change and directs it towards a particular goal (change in behavior, including neurobiological behavior). You make it sound as if the brain rewires itself all the time, as if neurobiological behaviors correct themselves on their own. Ask yourself, how many cases of OCD, schizophrenia,etc do you know of that just go away on their own? To the contrary, I can show you scientific peer-reviewed studies showing that it only occurs when there’s psychotherapeutic or pharmaceutical intervention.

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.

Deviate from the laws of nature? If you accept this then all of your threads that reason from the laws of physics fall flat. Again, I’m not arguing about if or how the brain changes. My argument from self-directed neuroplasticity involves the cause of the change, the nature of behavior involved (neurobiological behavior are NOT supposed to respond to thoughts, otherwise we’d ask how does the brain control thought and behavior?), and the success of brain states/activity changing to fit mental states/activities.

I think I already argue enough that matter is more than a medium.

If matter does not control thought/behavior, as I believe my studies suggest, then it may as well be a medium. It’s clearly playing a passive role in this case.

 

[STT]

Fine. That doesn’t equate to “omnipresence”, either.

It does. If there a non-local entity and it could experience then it experience everything. That I already argued it: All points in space are equivalent to a non-local entity. That is the very definition of omnipresent in simple word.

Umm… those who have died in the flesh? Whose bodies are buried? Are still physical? :nope:

Think of matter as a set of shells. Inner shells become free when the outer shell dies. I have a thread on this topic in here.

OK… go for it! You made a claim, and I provided a counterexample.

Yeah, but we are not God or non-local entity so your argument doesn’t follow.

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).

Are you kidding me? You are not serious!

Of course. Tell me… where (physically) is ‘love’ located?

First love is not everything. Second love exist as a physical state exactly where your brain is. You cannot experience something which has no location.

 

[STT]

It’s not a fact; it’s a claim that you’re making without attribution. Can your soul “act everywhere”? Does it “experience everything” in the universe? Can you demonstrate this?

The argument that I am making has two parts. First, we are discussing the properties of a non-local entity. If there is a non-local entity and if it could causally be related to things then it causally related to everything since all points of space are equivalent to it. Second, soul cannot be a non-local entity since otherwise it would causally relate to everything which is not. What you are claiming is that soul exist and it is causally related to body which cannot be correct because we already argue that a non-local entity is causally related to everything. Therefore soul cannot be a non-local entity or it does not exist given the definition, it is non-physical.

 

[STT]

Odd… I just read through that thread, and didn’t see anything of that sort, there. Just some vague set-theory assertions about ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ forces acting on one another.

It is not odd. Think of matter as an entity with many layers. We are exposed to outer layer. When we die we are released from outer layer and inner layers take the duty. As simple as that.

 

[STT]

Part 1…

You claimed that the mind is physical because it is bound to the brain - our experiences go wherever our brain goes, in other words. There are two senses in which consciousness is nonphysical, that is, in terms of being unobservable and in terms of being nonlocal. Your point only addresses one aspect - locality. As to that point, my view is that the interaction (electrochemical activity) is local in that it occurs in the brain; however, it becomes nonlocal when the effect involves nonphysical features, like subjective experience, thoughts, feelings, etc.

Think of all sort of experience that you could have as a physical state whether it is thought, feeling etc. They are physical state and have a location where the physical state is bounded, namely your brain. All our experience are generated by our brain and are experienced right there with matter. Consciousness as I argued is the basic property of matter and it is not non-physical or non-local.

Well there are two aspects that are relevant to my point. One is the image itself, the other is the subjective experience of the image. I can use a CPU and computer monitor as an analogy. The image is not in the CPU, except perhaps as information, instead a signal is transmitted to the monitor to project the image and of course we’re the ones that would view the image. In relation to images in the brain, your point fails to demonstrate how the image is generated and transmitted (or projected) and it fails to account for who or what is doing the looking.

First, I think that an area in the brain is responsible for experience of an image. Second, Pieces of matter are strongly correlated inside the brain such that it allows the experience of an image which is nothing more than a signal granted with our sensory system.

I view the mind as being an emergent property of the brain because it contains features that are more than the individual parts of the brain. Examples are awareness, experience, mental imagery, and it can even change the brain (neuroplasticity). You can not predict this by observing individual neurons nor do individual neurons have awareness. In fact, some of the leading neurobiological theories of consciousness, like the Global Workspace Model of Consciousness, rely on complex interactions between multiple areas of the brain to generate consciousness.

That I already argue against. What you are saying is not a counter-argument but repeating your previous position. Again, a physical state cannot experience another physical state.

Taking into account my view, the mind is not a physical state but rather it is an emergent property. There’s a difference between ‘states’ and ‘properties’. States are conditions of matter (solid, liquid, gas), whereas properties describe how matter (or states of matter) looks, feels, and acts.

There is no mind as I stressed before. There is only matter and matter is able to experience and react. Once you accept a non-physical concept like mind then you fall in the trap of mind-body problem. There is nothing like emergent property either unless you believe in magic. Each piece of matter is constitute of its part and it has a form. The form only produce a specific physical state which that define the response of system to an external stimuli.

I believe the same logic behind the law of identity can also be applied to properties, as well. The mind as a property of the brain can mean that the mind is but one part of the brain or it can mean the mind is more than the individual parts (brain) while still being dependent on those brain parts. The former scenario is about the mind being an intrinsic property which is your view. The latter scenario is about the mind as an emergent property which is my view.

There is no mind. There is only matter and matter can experience. Once you accept mind as a non-physical thing then you fall in trap of mind-body problem.

Matter can react, but reaction is not necessarily the same as experience. Experience requires awareness, sentience, etc. To say otherwise, fails to factor in the differences between the acts of a person and the acts of nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects, even.

Well, matter needs to experience in order to react. The only difference between a piece of rock and a human is the type of physical state each undergoes.

Not only is this nonsensical based on my previous point, but lets not also forget that you have not offered empirical evidence to support your case.

Part 2 in the next post…

What type of evidence do you want? I already argue against mind or consciousness as an emergent property. I also argue against the existence of soul as a non-physical thing. So what is left is that matter experiences.

 

[STT]

Part 2…

The bold font part is a red herring. My point about ‘self’-directed neuroplasticity is not to show that the brain can rewire itself. It’s about the person playing an active role, in that person causes the change and directs it towards a particular goal (change in behavior, including neurobiological behavior). You make it sound as if the brain rewires itself all the time, as if neurobiological behaviors correct themselves on their own. Ask yourself, how many cases of OCD, schizophrenia,etc do you know of that just go away on their own? To the contrary, I can show you scientific peer-reviewed studies showing that it only occurs when there’s psychotherapeutic or pharmaceutical intervention.

Well, I think we need to an agreement that what is person in your opinion because I already argue against mind, soul, emergent phenomena etc.

Deviate from the laws of nature? If you accept this then all of your threads that reason from the laws of physics fall flat. Again, I’m not arguing about if or how the brain changes. My argument from self-directed neuroplasticity involves the cause of the change, the nature of behavior involved (neurobiological behavior are NOT supposed to respond to thoughts, otherwise we’d ask how does the brain control thought and behavior?), and the success of brain states/activity changing to fit mental states/activities.

I never talk about laws of physics in this thread. I only mentioned that any piece of matter is in a specific physical state.

If matter does not control thought/behavior, as I believe my studies suggest, then it may as well be a medium. It’s clearly playing a passive role in this case.

Matter behaves so it can have active role in any changes. Moreover, I think you need to define what do you mean with medium because mind to my understanding as a non-local thing cannot causally related to matter or it causally related to everything which the later is not the case.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Think of all sort of experience that you could have as a physical state whether it is thought, feeling etc. They are physical state and have a location where the physical state is bounded, namely your brain. All our experience are generated by our brain and are experienced right there with matter. Consciousness as I argued is the basic property of matter and it is not non-physical or non-local.

A lot of your arguments are simply conclusions drawn from terms/definitions that you set up. For instance, you’ve defined thoughts and feelings as being a physical states and then drew a conclusion based on your definition. This begs the question which is whether or not thoughts and feelings are physical. I fail to see how your supporting point about thoughts being wherever our brains are refutes my point about thoughts being physical in their cause (neural impulses) but not in their effect (feelings, mental imagery, etc).

First, I think that an area in the brain is responsible for experience of an image. Second, Pieces of matter are strongly correlated inside the brain such that it allows the experience of an image which is nothing more than a signal granted with our sensory system.

When scientists can demonstrate a mechanism showing how brain leads to mind, and how they can directly observe the content of our thoughts, then I’ll accept that the mind is entirely physical. Without this evidence, all you’ve demonstrated is that you have confidence in your theory, confidence that it will one day be empirically verified. With the emerging evidence from neuroplasticity studies, perhaps I should also have confidence that the mind will be shown to have much more of an affect on the body and brain than what we currently think it does.

What you are saying is not a counter-argument but repeating your previous position. Again, a physical state cannot experience another physical state.

According to you, all that’s needed for experience is any reaction to external stimuli. I don’t agree with your minimized standard for experience but lets play it out because I question why can’t physical states experience (or react to) other physical states. Lets say we have 2 chemical elements, hydrogen and oxygen. If the two chemicals are mixed together and interact (or react) to form water , isn’t this then an example of two physical states “experiencing” each other?

There is no mind as I stressed before. There is only matter and matter is able to experience and react. Once you accept a non-physical concept like mind then you fall in the trap of mind-body problem.

I accept a nonphysical aspect of the mind because that is the reality of how it is. Sometimes reality leads to problems, like the mind-body problem. Real problems are meant to be solved and not defined or explained away.

There is nothing like emergent property either unless you believe in magic. Each piece of matter is constitute of its part and it has a form. The form only produce a specific physical state which that define the response of system to an external stimuli.

How is your view working so far to figure out consciousness?
Emergence is oftentimes misused and just thrown around to avoid real explanation. However, when used in the context of science, it should involve identifying and explaining the lower level components, which through some complex interaction, leads to a higher level behavior, property, or phenomena. This should be testable, in principle. Some neurobiological theories of consciousness do just this, like the popular Global Workspace theory of consciousness. There are others, as well like those described here.

Well, matter needs to experience in order to react. The only difference between a piece of rock and a human is the type of physical state each undergoes.

I disagree. Matter only needs external stimuli or force, none of which are ‘experience’, to react. This is pure physics and biology, no ‘mind’ needed and the same applies for computers. Computers do not need consciousness, experience, nor awareness in order to react.

Well, I think we need to an agreement that what is person in your opinion because I already argue against mind, soul, emergent phenomena etc.

If thoughts/feelings simply boil down to being the brain, then what does it mean to say that the brain controls thoughts and feelings? To say that something controls, you need to have a distinction between what’s controlling (the brain) and what’s being controlled (the mind). To establish that the brain causes and controls thoughts/behavior, you need to show that a fixed pattern of neurobiological states/activity leads to a fixed pattern of thought/behavior. To show that the reverse can happen would simply involve showing how thought/behavior acts contrary to the fixed pattern of brain activity, and changes the brain activity to reflect the thought/behavior. There is scientific evidence of the latter scenario occurring. It’s likely that more evidence of what the mind can do over the brain would be discovered in the near future.

Matter behaves so it can have active role in any changes. Moreover, I think you need to define what do you mean with medium because mind to my understanding as a non-local thing cannot causally related to matter or it causally related to everything which the later is not the case.

I used “medium” to refer to the brain simply being an organ to house the mind. It only plays a passive role in relation to the mind. This is not my position, but I’m just showing what the relation between the mind and brain would be if the mind was controlling the brain…

 

[Gorgias]

The argument that I am making has two parts. First, we are discussing the properties of a non-local entity. If there is a non-local entity and if it could causally be related to things then it causally related to everything since all points of space are equivalent to it.

No, that argument doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny.

Let’s suppose I have an object p, and a set of objects S={s[sub]1[/sub], …, s[sub]n[/sub]}, such that for each s in S, p is non-local to s. It is not the case that, merely because each s in S shares the property of “non-locality” to p, the relationship between p and each s is equivalent.

Moreover, your statement is poorly formed. You state that if an entity could be causally related to non-local entities, then it is causally related to others. It would be reasonable to state that “if there is an entity that is non-local to other entity (or entities) and if it could be related causally to one or more of those non-local entities then it could be causally related to other non-local entities.” Big difference.

(Notice, too, that this statement does not preclude causal relationships between non-local entities!)

Second, soul cannot be a non-local entity since otherwise it would causally relate to everything which is not.

This is not a “second” point; this is a logical consequence of the first point. Therefore, if the first point is invalid, the second point falls apart. Since the first point is in error, so is the second point.

What you are claiming is that soul exist and it is causally related to body which cannot be correct because we already argue that a non-local entity is causally related to everything.

Again… only if your first point holds. That point is disputed, so you aren’t proving anything with this assertion.

Therefore soul cannot be a non-local entity or it does not exist given the definition, it is non-physical.

Yet again… only as a consequence if your argument holds up.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not odd. Think of matter as an entity with many layers. We are exposed to outer layer. When we die we are released from outer layer and inner layers take the duty. As simple as that.

No, you misunderstand me. You pointed me at a thread, stating that it was talking about a particular notion. What I found odd was that this notion wasn’t discussed in that thread in the least…

 

[STT]

A lot of your arguments…

There are three main problems if you consider thought, feeling and consciousness as non-physical: (1) How a non-physical phenomena could interact with matter, (2) How thought and feeling interact with consciousness and (3) The problem of non-locality which states that a conscious being should experience everything because all points in space are equivalent.

When…

What evidence do you have that mind is an emergent phenomena? I already argued against the mind as an emergent phenomena. Do you have any-counter-argument for them? Moreover, as I explain before the problem neuroplacticity also is resolvable in the new paradigm.

According to you, all that’s needed for experience is any reaction to external stimuli. I don’t agree with your minimized standard for experience but lets play it out because I question why can’t physical states experience (or react to) other physical states. Lets say we have 2 chemical elements, hydrogen and oxygen. If the two chemicals are mixed together and interact (or react) to form water , isn’t this then an example of two physical states “experiencing” each other?

No, this is example of two type of matters experiencing each other. They are of course in two different physical states and that define which type of interaction we should expect from them, in simple word how do they respond to an external stimuli.

I accept a nonphysical aspect of the mind because that is the reality of how it is. Sometimes reality leads to problems, like the mind-body problem. Real problems are meant to be solved and not defined or explained away.

Why bother with the old paradigm when an anomaly, mind-body problem, is resolved in the new paradigm?

How is your view working so far to figure out consciousness?

It is very simple: Consciousness is the basic property of matter.

Emergence is oftentimes misused and just thrown around to avoid real explanation. However, when used in the context of science, it should involve identifying and explaining the lower level components, which through some complex interaction, leads to a higher level behavior, property, or phenomena.

Let me ask you this question: Is an emergent phenomena reductionist? If not where do you get that from?

This should be testable, in principle. Some neurobiological theories of consciousness do just this, like the popular Global Workspace theory of consciousness. There are others, as well like those described here.

That is strange to me that scientist believe in magic instead of accepting a model which simply resolve their problems.

I disagree. Matter only needs external stimuli or force, none of which are ‘experience’, to react. This is pure physics and biology, no ‘mind’ needed and the same applies for computers. Computers do not need consciousness, experience, nor awareness in order to react.

Then you want to live in old paradigm dealing with the problems I mentioned.

If thoughts/feelings simply boil down to being the brain, then what does it mean to say that the brain controls thoughts and feelings?

There are two approaches which can answer this question: (1) The existence of loops in the brain. This leads to the fact that control on feeling and thought is an illusion and it is basically based on our last experiences. (2) Matter has ability to decide. I already give you a link about this so called Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment.

To say that something controls, you need to have a distinction between what’s controlling (the brain) and what’s being controlled (the mind). To establish that the brain causes and controls thoughts/behavior, you need to show that a fixed pattern of neurobiological states/activity leads to a fixed pattern of thought/behavior.

You don’t have any evidence to show that brain control thoughts and behaviors. All could be a simple feedback caused by loops. In fact you always have a reason for trying to control a behavior or thought. Where the reason comes from? Most of the time from our old experiences. That confirms that the control in most of the time is the result of a feedback caused by loops in the brain.

To show that the reverse can happen would simply involve showing how thought/behavior acts contrary to the fixed pattern of brain activity, and changes the brain activity to reflect the thought/behavior. There is scientific evidence of the latter scenario occurring. It’s likely that more evidence of what the mind can do over the brain would be discovered in the near future.

I think that can be explained by existence of loops also.

I used “medium” to refer to the brain simply being an organ to house the mind. It only plays a passive role in relation to the mind. This is not my position, but I’m just showing what the relation between the mind and brain would be if the mind was controlling the brain.

Then you have to deal with the all problems that I mentioned.

 

[STT]

No, that argument doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny.

Let’s suppose I have an object p, and a set of objects S={s[sub]1[/sub], …, s[sub]n[/sub]}, such that for each s in S, p is non-local to s. It is not the case that, merely because each s in S shares the property of “non-locality” to p, the relationship between p and each s is equivalent.

You need to consider that members of S are local then you realize that any relationship between non-local p and members of S is equivalent.

Moreover, your statement is poorly formed. You state that if an entity could be causally related to non-local entities, then it is causally related to others. It would be reasonable to state that “if there is an entity that is non-local to other entity (or entities) and if it could be related causally to one or more of those non-local entities then it could be causally related to other non-local entities.” Big difference.

(Notice, too, that this statement does not preclude causal relationships between non-local entities!)

No That is not what I am trying to say (bold part). What I am trying to say is that a non-local entity is causally related to any other local entities considering the fact that all local entities are equivalent from the point of view of non-local entity.

This is not a “second” point; this is a logical consequence of the first point. Therefore, if the first point is invalid, the second point falls apart. Since the first point is in error, so is the second point.

Again… only if your first point holds. That point is disputed, so you aren’t proving anything with this assertion.

Yet again… only as a consequence if your argument holds up.

Therefore my arguments holds.

 

[Gorgias]

You need to consider that members of S are local then you realize that any relationship between non-local p and members of S is equivalent.

What I am trying to say is that a non-local entity is causally related to any other local entities considering the fact that all local entities are equivalent from the point of view of non-local entity.

Please prove it, then. You’re asserting it as if it were manifest – which it’s not.

 

[STT]

Please prove it, then. You’re asserting it as if it were manifest – which it’s not.

Proof: A non-local entity is causally related to any other local entities because there is no preference in causal relationship with any of local entities.

 

[Gorgias]

"Gorgias:

STT:

What I am trying to say is that a non-local entity is causally related to any other local entities considering the fact that all local entities are equivalent from the point of view of non-local entity.

Please prove it, then. You’re asserting it as if it were manifest – which it’s not.

Proof: A non-local entity is causally related to any other local entities because there is no preference in causal relationship with any of local entities.

Umm… a re-statement of an assertion is not a proof of the assertion.

 

[STT]

Umm… a re-statement of an assertion is not a proof of the assertion.

I tried my best to make it obvious.

 

[Gorgias]

I tried my best to make it obvious.

You just repeated your assertion! How’s that a “proof”?

 

[STT]

You just repeated your assertion! How’s that a “proof”?

That is the proof if you think about it deeply.