What is the use of consciousness?

[empther]

I wish there was a theory which could resolve the problem of mind-body interaction and its anomaly free, but it seems that** that theory does not yet exist. :bigyikes: **

Of course it does.
The mind is the spiritual power of the spiritual human soul.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The charge epiphenomenalism is very serious in Contemporary Problems of Mental Causation, related to property dualism. Substance dualism as the only theory left has other problems Traditional Problems of Mental Causation. Apparently there is no theory which is anomaly free and could explain mental causality.

Substance dualism is not the only alternative. Hylemorphic dualism is an oft overlooked theory with much greater explanatory power and consistency than either of the two you mentioned.

newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm

But even the theory of substance dualism, insufficient as it may be, only seems to suffer as many problems as it does because modern (materialistic) philosophers approach it with the same scientistic attitude as they do the rest of the universe.

 

[Bahman]

Substance dualism is not the only alternative. Hylemorphic dualism is an oft overlooked theory with much greater explanatory power and consistency than either of the two you mentioned.

newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm

But even the theory of substance dualism, insufficient as it may be, only seems to suffer as many problems as it does because modern (materialistic) philosophers approach it with the same scientistic attitude as they do the rest of the universe.

Thank you very much for the link. I have read it a while a ago but it was nice to bring it up as it is going to be one my to read task. Hylemorphic dualism unfortunately as far as it is related to this thread does not solve the problem of interaction, please read here. On separate note it does seems that it does not resolve that problem of immortality, please read here.

I have to confess that I had to do some reading to become familiar with content of these posts, but it was fruitful, and more reading on the way.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Thank you very much for the link. I have read it a while a ago but it was nice to bring it up as it is going to be one my to read task. Hylemorphic dualism unfortunately as far as it is related to this thread does not solve the problem of interaction, please read here. On separate note it does seems that it does not resolve that problem of immortality, please read here.

I have to confess that I had to do some reading to become familiar with content of these posts, but it was fruitful, and more reading on the way.

Well, hear both sides of the argument:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part_25.html

 

[Bahman]

Well, hear both sides of the argument:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part_25.html

I was aware of those posts. He unfortunately doesn’t address how the problem of interaction is resolved under HD, nor how possibly a disembodied soul can think. To me, thinking requires the process of information and information requires form. A disembodied soul cannot have any form hence cannot think. Moreover, he doesn’t clearly define what is death? In another word, why soul just don’t leave the body if it could sustain itself alone?

 

[Bahman]

Well, hear both sides of the argument:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/08/vallicella-on-hylemorphic-dualism-part_25.html

Also please read This.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I was aware of those posts. He unfortunately doesn’t address how the problem of interaction is resolved under HD, nor how possibly a disembodied soul can think. To me, thinking requires the process of information and information requires form. A disembodied soul cannot have any form hence cannot think. Moreover, he doesn’t clearly define what is death? In another word, why soul just don’t leave the body if it could sustain itself alone?

Also please read This.

In the second article you link, the author provides his proposed solution to the interaction problem. The funny thing about it is that it’s exactly what hylemorphic dualism proposes. There is no “interaction problem” because the body and soul are one substance. The mind is not some alien thing attached to the body. It is not something other than the body. The body is, rather, a seamless composite of matter and spirit.

But even if we don’t accept that explanation and return to a Cartesian/substance dualism, I personally fail to see how one can create a logical case against dualistic interaction. The soul cannot be studied, and so its powers cannot be measured or fully understood. In my humble opinion, even though I disagree with Cartesian dualism, all of the hullabaloo about an “interaction problem” is a lot of pseudo-intellectual conjecture based on materialistic assumptions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman’s favorite tactic is to throw marbles on to the ice rink - makes it hard to stand up.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Oh, come on I don’t use any tactic to defeat my opponent. I have no opponent here. I just enjoy a normal conversation on subject matter. Of course, it is hard to stand when it come to a conversation that you are not an expert on it, namely philosophy for me, but I try very hard to read and back up my mind with reasoning. To be honest, I was expecting much more from this forum and you, and I don’t know why people don’t engage to discussion related to a relevant question. What was the subject of this thread: What is the use of consciousness? What answer I got, non. I of course have this common sense feeling about consciousness as you do, but apparently, no one knows what is consciousness so they cannot know what is its functioning. To close this thread and let it go, at least for a while, what we achieve in this thread: We don’t know the answer to the question since we don’t have a theory to explain it, period.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Oh, come on I don’t use any tactic to defeat my opponent. I have no opponent here. I just enjoy a normal conversation on subject matter. Of course, it is hard to stand when it come to a conversation that you are not an expert on it, namely philosophy for me, but I try very hard to read and back up my mind with reasoning. To be honest, I was expecting much more from this forum and you, and I don’t know why people don’t engage to discussion related to a relevant question. What was the subject of this thread: What is the use of consciousness? What answer I got, non. I of course have this common sense feeling about consciousness as you do, but apparently, no one knows what is consciousness so they cannot know what is its functioning. To close this thread and let it go, at least for a while, what we achieve in this thread: We don’t know the answer to the question since we don’t have a theory to explain it, period.

The answer is really simple, Bahman. Not everything in life needs to be analyzed under a microscope. The use of consciousness is that which we all use it for: to know and to love. To learn and create. Or, at our worst, to hate and destroy.

It’s good to love philosophy and the search for knowledge, but don’t lose your heart in the process.

 

[empther]

Bahman complains:

What is the use of consciousness? What answer I got, non. I of course have this common sense feeling about consciousness as you do, but apparently, no one knows what is consciousness :bigyikes: so they cannot know what is its functioning. To close this thread and let it go, at least for a while, what we achieve in this thread: We don’t know the answer to the question since we don’t have a theory to explain it, period.

Everybody knows what consciousness is,
but you ignore our explanations,
because all you do is talk and confuse and waste time.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We don’t know the answer to the question since we don’t have a theory to explain it, period.

What do you mean “we”?

Based on your previous posts, I am assuming you will not reflect on this.

Seriously, you know you are a part of something! What are you part of, that seeks an answer?

“We” actually do have an answer. It has been revealed.

If my saying “we” feels like a “them” to you, please work on it. It is not easy; there are lots of groups and ideas out there, but one Truth.

 

[Bahman]

The answer is really simple, Bahman. Not everything in life needs to be analyzed under a microscope. The use of consciousness is that which we all use it for: to know and to love. To learn and create. Or, at our worst, to hate and destroy.

It’s good to love philosophy and the search for knowledge, but don’t lose your heart in the process.

To lose our hearts on what is appealing to us, is a part of duty to search the truth, since truth might be what we don’t like to hear on whatever subject matter.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman complains:

Everybody knows what consciousness is,
but you ignore our explanations,
because all you do is talk and confuse and waste time.

I invite you to listen to this Talk, to see that is really a problem.

 

[Bahman]

…Seriously, you know you are a part of something! What are you part of, that seeks an answer? …

There are three main issues on hand, first is philosophical and the second and third are neurobiological. The first issue is dealing with what mind is and apparently there are many candidates for it so the main question is which philosophical framework is correct. The second issue is how a neurobiological process can lead to consciousness. There is a simple argument that can demonstrate that consciousness is a neurobiological process and that is general anesthetic for example, meaning that sensation to pain can be removed by using a proper medicine. It is simply cause and effect. The third issue is how consciousness could cause an effect if it solely gives rise experiencing a subject. In another word, if we accept that the neurobilogical process as a part of physical process can explain the chain of cause and effect then how experience itself could cause anything since apparently the neurobilogical process itself can take care of cause an effect.

So as you can see there are problems sitting here and no one yet has an explanation for them. It is better to be aware of them rather even if we don’t have any answer for them.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a simple argument that can demonstrate that consciousness is a neurobiological process and that is general anesthetic for example, meaning that sensation to pain can be removed by using a proper medicine.

False deduction! It doesn’t follow that consciousness is **solely **physical.

 

[Bahman]

False deduction! It doesn’t follow that consciousness is **solely **physical.

It is simply cause and effect. Disturbing a brain functionality causes some disturbance in consciousness, emotions, etc, so please what I am missing?

Consider soul on a seat, then remove every brick that seat is standing upon, such as emotion, intention, consciousness, thinking, etc, so what you are left with at the end? In another word, what is the functionality of soul?

 

[empther]

In another word, what is the functionality of soul?

So now we’re being asked what is the usefulness of the soul !!! :bigyikes:

Has there ever been a more useless thread?

 

[Bahman]

So now we’re being asked what is the usefulness of the soul !!! :bigyikes:

Has there ever been a more useless thread?

And what is your answer to that question: :bigyikes:. Is that all you can offer?

 

[prodigalson2011]

It is simply cause and effect. Disturbing a brain functionality causes some disturbance in consciousness, emotions, etc, so please what I am missing?

I refer you again to the theory of hylemorphic dualism: body and soul are one substance, so disturbing one can disturb the other. The mind is not something wholly separate from the brain, but neither is it simply the brain.