BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 10 - 10:35 AM

Josep:

That is the most circular, time-twisting reasoning I've ever seen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:57 PM

We've have a pretty good discussion thus far and I'm glad that people are mulling it over. It's worth thinking about. I want to make sure the reader understands the argument. I think at this point, it's been hashed out, although the reader may continue to post concerning it but I want to move one at this time and conclude the argument. My next post or two will deal with the afterlife by showing that--

a. There can be no heaven or hell.
b. The only logical choice is reincarnation.
c. The limitations of the argument.

And that will conclude the argument.

Whether there is a god will not be discussed because as some famous French guy told another, "I had no need for that hypothesis."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:45 PM

//Josep, one's death extinguishes consciousness in the dead person, not in those who are alive since their brains generally are operative. But for the dead person, consciousness
is not there and there is no "now". I don't believe in a universal consciousness. It is a matter of brain waves and neurons interacting.//

That is the very thing that has to be proven not assumed. My argument is designed to prove your statement to be in logical error. My argument is constructed from the following:

i. I exist, I am conscious, I experience.
ii. I remember existing and being conscious and experiencing.
iii. If I (someday) recall an experience, then I was conscious of and during that experience. I was conscious at all the points I will (someday) ultimately remember.

There is no presupposing the conclusion that death cannot extinguish consciousness, it arises as a natural, logical fact when one takes the three statements above to their logical ends. Since they seem to be be a priori, my argument holds. It is not a matter of belief.

Permanent amnesia and death are not at all separate things if death extinguishes consciousness because to your consciousness they are indistinguishable. The dualists are right to a degree--the brain and the mind are separate.

So if you get total amnesia at some in the future, you cannot be conscious now. Why? Because consciousness skips over the events that cannot be recalled under any circumstances (i.e. permanently forgotten). The earliest recollection it can have is the instant the amnesia ends. Since this is not the case with you, then this event will never happen to you. Death would have the identical effect if it extinguished consciousness--you could not be conscious now. Since you are, death cannot extinguish consciousness. The death of the brain is not the death of consciousness. Couldn't be.

There IS a universal consciousness as Schrodinger's Cat proves but we don't need to go into that. I can prove my case without relying on it. I have already done so, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM

Stringsinger was quoting your quote of Amos but your post appeared to attribute it to you. Your method of indicating a quotation can be a little unclear at times.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:22 PM

I said that. No commerce on Sunday make sno proof one way or the other about Monday through Saturday.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:14 PM

//Josep says, "Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either."//

I said no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:25 PM

That Gould quote seems to be trotted out a lot on Islamic sites trying to discredit Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:10 PM

And I didn't even say that very well, but you know what I mean innit.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:07 PM

Stringsinger, I tried to find out more about that Gould quote (it's occasionally been quoted, disingenuously, out of context), which is why I said I thought perhaps he was playing devil's advocate. Certainly he had issues with Dawkins' selfish gene proposition, but he was far too good an evolutionary biologist to arrive at that elemental misconception about one species deriving from another. I think. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:05 PM

I don't doubt you there, Lox, but

To quote him accurately, he says: "I am, I think."

sometimes my pedantry gets the better of me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM

Again Smokey, context is everything.

The point with descartes was that he wanted to break from prior philosphical method. The philosphy of his immediate predecessors was based on bold but doubtful premises.

He wanted to apply the type of thought to philosophy that mathematicians applied in Geometry.

His idea was that if he could prove one thing that ws beyond doubt, then he could build an understanding of the universe with that unshakeable truth as his first principle.

It is in the meditations that he attempted to demonstrate how his method of observation and analysis worked, by hopefully succeeding in finding that one doubt free first principle.

He found that while he could doubt everything else, he could not doubt his own existence, as in order to do so, he had to be doing some doubting .. so everytime he eclipsed himself in one place, he would turn around to find himself protected on the other side of the verb.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:50 PM

he never used the argument "I think therefore I am" as a means of solving the mind body riddle.

Ah, you obviously never went drinking with him.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM

But he said it again in full, "cogito ergo sum" (now in Latin) three years after 'The Meditations' in 'Principles of Philosophy'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

Smokey,

"It's a different statement - I was questioning what Lox said:

"In fact, he never said "I think therefore I am" "


OK - to clarify, ..

he never used the argument "I think therefore I am" as a means of solving the mind body riddle.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:39 PM

Paul,

Because "the meditations" Is a thesis on the mind body problem, which is the subject being discussed.

"A discourse on Method" is a thesis on scientfic method and therefore the quotes you refer to are in an entirely different context.

So if you want to know what Descartes analysis of the mind body problem is, you need to refer to the world which covers that subject.

As Crow Sister points out, he modified his language when he wrote the meditations to more accurately reflect what he had discovered, as he wanted to clarify that he was not merely assured of his own existance due to some logical word trick, but because he had applied his method of close and careful observation and scrutiny and found that there were no circumstances under which he could make any other claim.

In other words, no matter how much he tried to doubt "I", it always went and hid round the back of a verb ...

I doubt "I" ... oops - "I" just doubted something - empirically I have to admit that.

It is confusing yes, but nonetheless correct.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:38 PM

It's a different statement - I was questioning what Lox said:

"In fact, he never said "I think therefore I am"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM

Why on earth do you want a reference to it in a book that it isn't in, rather than references to two books that it is in?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM

Crow sister, the above distinction is a very important one as it clarifies whether Stringsingers rebuttal is relevant, or in response to a (non-deliberate) straw man.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:14 PM

Here we are - Descartes argument and declaration - "I am, I exist!"

Latin:

"Haud dubie igitur ego etiam sum, si me fallit; & fallat quantum potest, nunquam tamen efficiet, ut nihil sim quamdiu me aliquid esse cogitabo. Adeo ut, omnibus satis superque pensitatis, denique statuendum sit hoc pronuntiatum, Ego sum, ego existo, quoties a me profertur, vel mente concipitur, necessario esse verum."

Or more specifically: "Ego sum, ego existo"

Ego - not ergo.

French:

"De sorte qu'après y avoir bien pensé, et avoir soigneusement examiné toutes choses, enfin il faut conclure, et tenir pour constant que cette proposition: Je suis, j'existe, est nécessairement vraie, toutes les fois que je la prononce, ou que je la conçois en mon esprit."

Or more specifically: "Je suis, j'existe"

English: "Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something. So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum ) I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind"

Or more specifically "I am, I exist"


As I stated earlier, this is not a logical objective deductin, but an evidential experiential observation.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM

Still crappily expressed.. Eh oh. Cider..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:09 PM

Sorry, badly constructed:

Surely what matters in order to properly understanding Descartes meaning, is to place the phrase in context of Descarte's Meditations, rather than reducing his philosophy to various isolated translation of a single phrase?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 02:04 PM

Surely what matters is the context (The Meditations) rather than the translation of unitary single phrase?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM

Paul, in the original translation on the link provided by Bill, my "control f" function finds the following phrases nowhere in the text.

"Puisque je doute, je pense;
puisque je pense, j'existe."

"je pense, donc je suis"

Are you sure you got these from the meditations?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM

Thanks bill.

I would add that the phrase "cogito ergo sum" does not exist in that text.

"ergo" appears once, but as far as I can judge, not in that context - again I stand to be corrected.

Which begs the question again, why does the official Englis translation say "I am, I think" and not "I think therefore I am"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:50 PM

"Descartes's original statement was "Je pense donc je suis," from his Discourse on Method (1637). He wrote it in French, not in Latin, thereby reaching a wider audience in his country than that of scholars. He uses the Latin "Cogito ergo sum" in the later Principles of Philosophy (1644), Part 1, article 7: "Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat." (English: "This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whomever conducts his thoughts in order.")."

"The phrase Cogito ergo sum is not used in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it. Descartes felt that this phrase, which he had used in his earlier Discourse, had been misleading in its implication that he was appealing to an inference, so he avoided the word ergo and wrote "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (Meditation II.)"

(Wiki)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM

Evidently he did write in Latin, and it was later put into French.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:36 PM

Puisque je doute, je pense;
puisque je pense, j'existe.

   then later

je pense, donc je suis

   is what he wrote. (Discourse de la Methode; Project Gutenburg.

However, most of his works were written in Latin, which was the international language of scholarship at the time.

but it does exist - how do I know? ... well ... because "I"/my mind very clearly exists.

You possibly are wrong there. You could be mistaken. That's Zen, and much of current thinking, with some experimental evidence. The funny thing is, it doesn't deny that you exist in the sense of being an objective entity; what it says is that your sense of individuality is a construct. It's a difficult thought to take on board, but it identifies the error in "because I think, I exist", as the 'I'. Perhaps the thought can exist, because that's what happens in physical systems with a certain degree and type of organisation, and the feeling is what happens to the matter involved in that system?

Thought exists, therefore something exists?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:25 PM

In French: "Je pense donc je suis".

I like Augustine though:

"If they say, "What if you are mistaken?" -- well, if I am mistaken, I am. For, if one does not exist, he can by no means be mistaken. Therefore, I am, if I am mistaken that I am, since it is certain that I am, if I am mistaken. And because, if I could be mistaken, I would have to be the one who is mistaken, therefore, I am most certainly not mistaken in knowing that I am. Nor, as a consequence, am I mistaken in knowing that I know. For, just as I know that I am, I also know that I know."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:21 PM

Therefore in Latin ..

Did Descartes write in Latin?

Or French?

I think he wrote in French and said "Je suis, Je pense".

I stand to be corrected

I don't speak Latin.

However, what I do know is that the academically accepted english translation, which I did study, does not say "I think therefore I am", but "I am, I think."

Based on that fact, I am forced to ask if the famous "cogito ergo sum" quote is accurate or part of the same mythology as "Ithink therefore I am."

I think that if it had been "cogito ergo sum" then it would have been translated as "therefore" and not the way you will find it if you look it up in "Les Meditations"

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

Lox - what does 'ergo' mean then?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:07 PM

Well said, Stringsinger, with you all the way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 01:05 PM

"Because of the nature of DNA and evolution, to turn DeCartes around, "I am, therefore I think" rather than the reverse."

In fact, he never said "I think therefore I am"

To quote him accurately, he says:

"I am, I think."

This isn't the same thing as "I think therefore I am."

It isn't a logical construct.

It is a subjective experience described.

So to manipulate it as though it were an argument is not to deal with it at all, let alone counter it.


Now, if you read through my posts again, you will note that I am not expressing a view about what the mind is, though I allow myself the luxury of a few fun hypotheses.

I am on the other hand recognizing, as Bill confirms and as scientists are allegedly trying to measure, that if electrical energy is required for the mind to function, then it follows that that electrical energy is needed to fuel the minds energy, just as electrical energy is needed to fuel the light energy from which a TV image is formed.

So what does the electrical energy convert into?

What kind of energy is mind energy?

It isn't light, or sound, it isn't potential energy or kinetic ...

... but it does exist - how do I know? ... well ... because "I"/my mind very clearly exists.

Unlike a Unicorn, of whch I can conceive, but of which I have never had any experience, I experience my mind all the time, yet in a beautiful twist of reason, I am unable to conceive of it except in the realms of my imagination. I just am "it".

I [verb] - for all of us this is the premiss of every idea or bit of knowledge we have.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:52 PM

I know *I* would sure welcome any way to measure that 'body audit' in order to approach the question. Right now physics and astronomy are certain that there is (so far) unmeasured energy AND matter in the Universe that is mathematically required to explain how things are as they are. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" seem to be taken for granted currently, but their composition and whether they can can help explain how there could be "a mind sized hole" seems to be beyond us so far.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:47 PM

There is an antipathy to the idea that consciousness comes from the brain. There is always an attempt to claim that it emanates independently and theoretically you could make a hypothesis for this but it would still be empirically inconclusive, regardless of
the manipulation of philosophical terms.

Lox, atheism is not a religious position. Only religious people make that claim.

The "I"-ness that you all are talking about is a process of cognition, hence comes from
the human brain. It only exists if there is a consensus about what it is from others who perceive that with their brains.

Any concept of "unicorns" or other imaginary images are a product of cognition and don't exist outside of it. Theses images are generally formed by a cultural environment.

Because of the nature of DNA and evolution, to turn DeCartes around, "I am, therefore I think" rather than the reverse.

As to the testing of "I" consciousness, it leaves at death. There is no evidence available
to support otherwise.

Josep says, "Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either."

Either there is commerce or not. Can't have it both ways. Commerce is not a universal construct but only exists conditionally between the transactors. Hence, when memory is not present, it is not there. In the case of human psychology is has been shown that it comes and goes in some cases of amnesia. The question is can total memory be wiped by amnesia? Some things are remembered by amnesia victims such as how to play the piano or speak a foreign language.

Josep, one's death extinguishes consciousness in the dead person, not in those who are alive since their brains generally are operative. But for the dead person, consciousness
is not there and there is no "now". I don't believe in a universal consciousness. It is a matter of brain waves and neurons interacting.

Steve, Dawkins says there is really no missing link or gap as the Creationists claim. Every
bone discovered is a missing link in the grand design of Evolution.

I see the nature of an "afterlife" as being a flawed concept and psychologically motivated
by those who fear death. Memory for the living can return to those who have had it provided they are not brain-dead as Terry Shivo was. There are different forms of memory, some physical in the cellular structure and some having to do with the brain's imaging of past events.

There is a fallacy in Gould's argument.

"What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth."

There may be three existing lineages but nowhere is there evidence that one derived
from the other. But there is a strong probability in evolutionary terms that they all three had a common ancestral predecessor which was their root. This, as Dawkins has pointed out, is one of the misconceptions of evolution that one species or genus derives from another. To find the original river in the tributary or the original branch of the tree, you have to go back far enough to find the transitional antecedent.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:30 PM

I find this thread interesting to read and ponder although I have *no* understanding of it at all.

I do have one tangential thought to interject; I used to put it this way: There is no use wishing I had never been born because if the 'I' that I am had not been born, I would have born as someone else and therefore would still have been 'I'.

And that's all I have to say about *I*. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:22 PM

Amos,

Yes - in this context the matter of positive thinking does take on a new complexion.

All sorts of speculations about energy manipulation become possible.


Bill,

It seems logical to me that if the mind is comprosed of some kind of measurable energy, or at least if, when the body energy audit is done, a mind sized hole is found that can only be explained by the presence of a new different type of energy, then that would suggest that the mind is dependant on the brain and is part of its thermodynamic cycle.

If on the other hand, there is no need for the existence of a mind for the bodies energy accounts to add up, then that suggests the mind is not of the boody but comprised of a different type of energy.

I think that an experiment which could measure that somehow could be very useful indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:14 PM

BillD Said,


"*shrug* Possible? Maybe...but it seems that under such a model human consciousness would have no meaning without the rest of the universe to ummm...'exist IN' and 'relate TO'.. If you even say that consciousness is a 'component' of the Universe, you are implicitly defining it as having some relation TO the physicality of the universe, whether you intend to or not."


My post was not intended to be proof of any one specific idea, but was merely intended as a means for me to think through some ideas and see how they looked once they had been turned into text.

Consequently I made a couple of unconnected suggestions on the general theme of "I", the "ghost and host" versus "mind-body" quandary and the question of "afterlife".

My comments on the matter of consciousness being a part of a continually expanding and contracting universe, serve solely as a possible rationale for the existence of an afterlife in the form of reincarnation.

The question of "mind energy" was an unconnected point on the subject of the mind body problem.

Though my imagination compels me to say that they aren't incompatible as my consciousness iis only a small part of this universe, and my little spirit "I" might only flutter down to rest here for a briief time each time the universe expands.


Of course this throws open the idea of life being like groundhog day ... the same each time the universe re-expands ...

Maybe our "karma" affects subtle differences in the way it expands next time round ...

Maybe there is a whole cast of angels doing the can can on the head of my grans favourite knitting needle ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 11:31 AM

Lox: You do a very good job of setting out some of the questions and speculations. Several of them come close to classic issues in Philosophy.

But the part I tend to agree with is the idea that IF consciousness ...the *I*... can exist independently, it is hard to imagine it without some form of energy comprising it...and we should be able to measure it.
What we DO measure is electrical energy in the brain when we stimulate an *I* with electrodes attached. Under different circumstances we get activity in different parts of the brain. I am never 'quite' sure why some are dissatisfied with exploring that and insisting "there MUST be something else", when we have no way yet to go beyond constructing linguistic models of our wishful thinking.

Now, you do say back there: " If the universe can expand from a singularity, then contract and expand again in an infinite gravity induced cycle, and spacetime can be recycled and reborn, then why can't all of its components - including human consciousness."

*shrug* Possible? Maybe...but it seems that under such a model human consciousness would have no meaning without the rest of the universe to ummm...'exist IN' and 'relate TO'.. If you even say that consciousness is a 'component' of the Universe, you are implicitly defining it as having some relation TO the physicality of the universe, whether you intend to or not.

I try every now & then to make the point in these discussions that we do get confused when we 'think' we have referred to 'something' by using a linguistic construction. (Kant referred to "the transcendental unity of pure apperception", but he KNEW he meant only a metaphorical construct to identify a relationship of ideas, not a 'something'.) Thus, it is my 'opinion' that having a complex language allows us to imagine and debate things that we can't quite be sure how to classify as to their status. (We know how to draw pictures of Unicorns, even though none has ever existed, because we construct their essence from known parts....whereas 'consciousness' as an independent entity..(singular or plural? eternal or temporary?)... is a will-o-the-wisp. It is linguistic cotton candy which melts when you try to pin it down.
   In some forms, it's great as poetry and metaphor... it is just awkward to base too much of our decision-making on as we struggle to cope with the daily reality we can't avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

If the "I"-center, the viewpoint that is aware of its awareness, is in fact not of the brain but merely operates through it, the possibility is also introduced that in terms of mental energy it is an energy production unit as well. Which compares pretty well to experience, when you consider the various effects of self-talk in energizing the individual, mentally, and the wide array of placebo effects that the mind can have on the body.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:47 AM

"Consciousness is not such a paradox.
IT is system of reflections and feed back loops that offer a perspective that is successful in perpetuating consciousness"

Donuel,

But we cannot say with any conviction one way or the other whether any piec of IT has any sense of "I".


I can comment on what a piece of IT Does, but whether it just does it - fulfils a function, or whether it actually 'experiences' doing it are not observations that anyone has ever been able to make.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:41 AM

"I believe that this is something that could be scientifically tested in an experiment."

This could be seen much like a human body energy audit.


Realistically, the human body is so complex, and contains so many variables, that such an audit could theoretically be impossible.

A person would have to agree to live in contraoole conditions, with a very strict routine, for at least a month.

Estimates would have to be made for how much energy was stored in the body in the form of fat ...

... maybe a mudcatter with an endless supply of tea and buscuits would be the ideal candidate ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:34 AM

Oh yes ... and another thing ...

There is a big difference betweeen the TV and "I" in this essential respect.

In the case of the TV, we can see a definite chain of thermodynamic events, involving the transformation of electrical energy into light, sound, kinetic and heat energy.

We know where all the energy goes.

There is no surplus and no deficit at the end.

What goes in, comes out, and the books are balanced.

The picture is light energy, the voice is sound energy, the cathode ray gun sweeps across the screen using kinetic energy, and the TV heats up and that energy rises and dissipates into the room, into the atmosphere and ultimately into space.


In the Brain, we see chamical energy turning into electrical impulses in the brain.

But what type of energy is "I" made of?

What are its properties?

and are the books balanced when it is factored into the brains thermodynamic cycle?

chemical energy goes in and is transformed into electrical energy, and of course heat, which again dissipates into the atmosphere.

But unlike with a TV, the "Image" is not a recognizable form of energy.

The electrical energy in the TV transforms into light ... thats the type of energy from which the image is composed.

The electrical energy in the brain transforms into ... a type of ethereal hologram? ... a "soul" ... certainly it correlates perfectly with "I"'s experience, both external and internal.

And when we die, where does this "I" energy go?

How much energy does an "I" need.


I believe that this is something that could be scientifically tested in an experiment.


The results could show whether I is defined by, or is independant of this universes thermodynamic cycle.


Which in turn could indicate whether "I" is an earthly 'product' of electrical impulses, or whether "I" is something else ... a ghost in a machine ... a partner in a symbiotic relationship between an organic host lifeform and an otherwise freefloating "I".


And who knows, maybe, if it cannot be explained where this energy goes when we die, then just maybe it doesn't rejoin the thermodynamic cycle of this universe as all the chemicaal energy contained in us does, but maybe it dissipates into a different universe/dimension/reality/world/afterlife.

Maybe a soul needs to inhabit an organic body to experience this universe.

Maybe we can experience other universes in other compatible vessels ...

Bill D ...

You're quite good at spotting shortcoming in ideas ...

Anyone ...


Spot any big flaws or unsupported premises?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 08:08 AM

On the subject of memory,

My grandfather had a housekeeper for many years, who, in the last years of her life lost all her memory and didn't recognize anyone. I will refer to her here as Eva.

Once, an aunt of mine who had known here for mmany many years was visiting her. We shall refer my aunt as Caroline O'Reilly.

Well, Caroline was visiting Eva who had lost all useful day to day memory, and as usual Eva was busying herself to make Caroline feel welcome, as was her way.

They chatted about how eva was enjoying the home where she was staying and general other stufff that was of the immediate moment, but as far as Eva was concerned Caroline was just a kind stranger in a world full of unfamiliar things and people.

Suddenly, Eva turned to Caroline and said - in the manner of a barrister at law - "do you know Caroline O'Reilly" ...

To which my aunt replied "yes - I'm Caroline O'Reilly"

For a moment there was comprehension, then a mist of tears, and then the moment had passed and Caroline was a stranger again.

As I see it, in the ever changing present moment, Eva was never anything less than "I".

She was just "I" with no frame of reference to the world around her.

I think "I" can therefore exist without memories, being something of the moment, whether grappling to define terms in an inconsequential debate or whether trying to remember what it is you are sipposed to be doing, or trying to work out how to get the toast out of the clock radio.

When I was very small I did not understand the world around me, but I was definitely still "I". I don't agree that you have to be self aware to be "I".

"I" am conscious

"I" am aware

"I" ... float

"I" in isolation.


This of course still has no bearing on whether "I" can exist independently of the human brain or body.

But an interesting thought is this ... If the universe can expand from a singularity, then contract and expand again in an infinite gravity induced cycle, and spacetime can be recycled and reborn, then why can't all of its components - including human consciousness.

"I" am the essential ingrdient of the universe that I experience. Of that there is no doubt as without that ingredient I wouldn't be experiencing it.

So why shouldn't the laws of the ever reincarnating universe also apply to me?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 07:57 AM

Consciousness is not such a paradox.
IT is system of reflections and feed back loops that offer a perspective that is successful in perpetuating consciousness

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 07:42 AM

Josep argues objectively that if we lose our memory then it does not follow that our consciousness didn't happen.

This is right.

Losing consciousness does not mean that we were never conscious, it just means that we have stopped being conscious in that moment.

But this does not help us on a subjective level.

I certainly see no link between this observation and the conclusion that consciousness can continue beyond the death of its "host" body.

It does raise the question though of what happens to "I" when a person loses consciousness.

Is it suppressed, put into some sort of limbo box between the body and the non physical world, or does it just flicker off, like a TV on standby - receiving no signal and emitting no picture, yet primed and ready to spring to life when woken up.

Is death the final unplugging ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 06:19 AM

Come to think of it, Gould was playing devil's advocate. I need coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 05:44 AM

Sorry to gnaw away at this, but one can't really found any strong arguments one way or the other on the alleged human lineage as the details are far too controversial. Whilst I'll concede that my notion of the time of H erectus's extinction was out of date, there is no agreement that those later so-called Homo erectus fragments have been correctly assigned. Neanderthal Man is commonly assigned to our own species, sharing as it does 99.5% of its DNA with Homo sapiens (and there's good recent DNA evidence of some interbreeding). Gould seems to be picking up on something that needn't be at all controversial. There's no evolutionary reason why three lineages of Homo couldn't have coexisted, and they certainly needn't have been derived one from the other any more than modern-day humans are derived from chimpanzees. That isn't how evolution works. As for his claim (not entirely correct as it happens) that the three lineages showed no evolutionary trends, several things. Their tenures on earth were all relatively short, and add to that the long generational span of hominid species and you have limited opportunity for evolutionary change. Then the fossil record is relatively poor. There is some evidence that different races of H. erectus developed in isolation. Lack of intermediates in the fossil record is a common issue in evolutionary biology and it has been addressed, not least, as I said, by Darwin himself. It's a good read.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Sep 10 - 12:08 AM

//Well, J, you have already refused the normal working definition of unconsciousness,//

It really doesn't matter if total unconsciousness as I define it is real or hypothetical since it's being used as a metaphor for the obliteration of consciousness by death. If one isn't real, then we have no reason to suppose the other is.

//which is having no readily recoverable memories of Tn. But you are now saying that the state depends on what can be recovered, or not.//

You appear to saying the same thing twice. If you can recover any memory of an event, then you were not totally unconscious at that event even if if it took years to receover it. I've made that clear fro the beginning and it hasn't changed. It doesn't even matter how accurate the memory is. It can even be a false memory because it still means you are conscious.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:38 PM

//If I am conscious while I am alive, how does that show that death won't end my consciousness?//

Ok, fast forward to Dec 31st of this year and let's say you woke up that morning with a case of total amnesia--you remember nothing about your life, not a memory or anything, you're like a newborn infant. When did it seem that life began for you? Just that morning. Now, could this happen to you? Since experiencing always happens only in the present moment and you are conscious now and have memories, then no, it cannot happen to you. If you were going to get complete amnesia on Dec 31st, you could have no memories until Dec 31st or later. Since you are conscious now and do have memories, you will not get total amnesia on the Dec 31st or at any time in the future or you would not be conscious now.

Now, replace total ammesia with death (which is a form of total amnesia if it wipes out your consciousness). Remember: your experiencing is always in the "now," the present moment, and not in the past or future. Are you experiencing now? Yes. But if death extinguished your consciousness, the "now" cannot occur until after the amnesia occurs. But since death supposedly wipes out consciousness then "now" can't occur at the point either. It never occurs. You are never conscious. But since you recall all your experiences, you ARE conscious--contradiction. Death does not extinguish consciousness.

If you are conscious for even one second or a microsecond, then you are conscious for eternity.

Another way to look at it is to suppose that event X occurs now and you observe it. For you to be conscious, you must recall X at some future point which we'll call X'. X' is what binds future and present together as well as present and past. Without X', X never happened as far as you are concerned because you don't remember it. So if consciousness is wiped out before X' occurs, then you cannot be conscious now.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM

Well, J, you have already refused the normal working definition of unconsciousness, which is having no readily recoverable memories of Tn. But you are now saying that the state depends on what can be recovered, or not.

I appreciate what you are trying to prove but I don't think yuour "if...then" couplings are very tight.


A