h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm really sorry TimeLordOrchy. I was trying to keep to discussing my idea originally for the death of my mind, which has entailed debating Warner over what the mind is. and that gave rise to duality and here we are discussing whether or not God exists. Again.

if I could find some way to debate Warner away from this thread I would but everywhere we go this seems to keep happening.

I'll keep my replies and rebuttals brief.
-------------------------------------

>>I can see plenty of design in [a picture of the brain], myself.<<

Well of course you can, operating as you do without the slightest conception or understanding of evolution and a persistent refusal to learn.

>>To have a mental health problem, there does not have to be anything physically wrong with the brain!!!<<

I don't think I claimed there had to be. I recognise fully that there are cognitive health issues that arise solely in the realm of psychology. My point was the modular nature of the brain is typically best seen when the job of representing the world as perception is disrupted by a physical change to neurology. Now evolutionary psychology - there's an interesting subject.


>>More evidence that satisfies me; if I didn't believe in Almighty God, I would be the same person (soul), but my actions and behaviour would definetely be different. Having experienced both conditions, I know which one has benefit for me, and which one has danger for me.<<

That's a moral argument isn't it? I'm pleased you've resisted the urge to say a lack of belief in god is a ticket to hedonistic debauchery. Still, you imply it and that's a shame.


>>In this life the soul (mind) and body do not act independently, but together, which is why mental health problems cause physical health problems, and vice-versa.<<

I'm not sure that sentence makes sense or is very scientific but I asked you before for a definition of person and without deigning to answer my request you have said "soul/mind" so the soul and mind are equal and the same, are they?


>>There are consequences for all our actions. (fixed the grammar)
Although mankind has intellect, he does not have the power to see the consequences of all his actions, without guidance. As a child needs guidance from his parents.<<

Another moral argument, this time from what unforeseen consequences. I don't follow the logic why is that evidence that satisfies you?


>>C: consciousness - is still not understood fully<<
>>W: You're starting to sound like the apologists <<

That's a low blow. Unlike apologists for me mystery is the beginning of understanding not it's conclusion.

TLO:

>>I still believe that conscience goes somewere, i find it hard to believe when you die your conscience will cease to be.<<

Why is that hard to believe?

Hard to accept, granted.

But why hard to believe?

maybe its hard to accept, but i still believe that our conscience will go some where.

Okay but why?

I don't see how or why consciousness could or would survive death.

Why do you? (that's not a challenge unlike my on-going debate with Warner) I just don't see how. If you do, I'd be delighted if you could explain it a little please.

If I might offer an appeal to authority for Clive:

"The mind bears the same relationship to the brain and the nerves as urine does to the kidneys."
Karl Vogt (1817 - 1895)


and in response to TimeLordOrchy's argument from incredulity:

If you find it hard to believe that consciousness does not continue after death, you must have some model of the functioning of consciousness without dependence on a brain which is a more believable model than the model being outlined by Clive, the model of mind being a function of the workings of the brain. If you don't have such a model, then what exactly are you believing in when you believe that consciousness will continue?

I don't understand these fuzzy statements and I really don't understand how people can get about their day with such lack of intellectual rigour.

early man was affraid of the dark (out there were the predetors)

so he sat around his small fire ans made up stories of fairys and goblins and enchanted lands where only good things happend

and the dark was not so scary

after death there is only darkness and early man was frightend of the dark and could light no fire after death

so he sat around and made up stories about how there was this enchanted land full of light after death, and all you had to do to get there was to follow the rules of the troop

so early man became a more social animal and stopped being affraid of death (most of the time)

thats a hard one, im not sure how to explain it, but i just think you wont know you have died

Anhaga.

I like it.

Also you frame the question I was wanting to ask TimeLordOrchy better than I did. Thanks.

great, so now im a cave man lol

TimeLordOrchy
I think Clive and I are in the right thread discussing dualism. Because to believe that the conscience will go some where after death implies it.
Clive
>>That's a low blow.<<
It was only meant in fun .. nevertheless, you have to admit that it's a weak point in your argument and after all, the conscience mind is what we are discussing.
Oh, and BTW, thanks for expanding on Marx's quote. I will read it in more detail later. There's a lot of interesting points in that post.

>>I recognise fully that there are cognitive health issues that arise solely in the realm of psychology.<<
Right, so in "The mind is not the brain, but what the brain does", does that mean there's something wrong with what the brain does when somebody's mentally ill. If so, that implies to me, that there's something wrong with the brain, which as you've already agreed is not necessarily the case.
It's interesting to note, imo, that psychology and religion have a strong connection.

'Right, so in "The mind is not the brain, but what the brain does", does that mean there's something wrong with what the brain does when somebody's mentally ill. If so, that implies to me, that there's something wrong with the brain, which as you've already agreed is not necessarily the case.'

can I take this one?

if your computer has a virus and starts acting weird, does it imply there is something wrong with your hardware? Is software the machine's soul? Is mind the software of the brain? Does your copy of space invaders live on even after you wipe your harddrive?

<>

it is recoverableclear

anhaga
Thankyou. That's very good.
>>Is software the machine's soul?<<

The brain is the hardware. The soul is the software (or the program). The brain can't work without it ..

<>

but once you un-install a program it is lost, it does not go to the great program library in the sky

'The brain is the hardware. The soul is the software (or the program). The brain can't work without it ..'

but the software is simply what the hardware does. It's not some mysterious 'other'. And, the software is nothing without the hardware.

so . . .

the soul is simply what the brain does. It's not some mysterious 'other'. And, the soul is nothing without the brain.

>>the software is simply what the hardware does<<
No, the hardware is the interface between the program and the user ie. monitor, scanner, microphone, speakers etc.

so should ask bill gates what he thinks lol

I'm not talking about the processor, that's a separate issue. I'm referring to sound card, video card, inerrupt controller and so on.
In any case, it's an analogy, perhaps not a perfect one.

{{>>the software is simply what the hardware does<<
No, the hardware is the interface between the program and the user ie. monitor, scanner, microphone, speakers etc.}}

SOOOOOOOOooooooo

the soul works the body and the brain has no part in the set up...

in your case that might be true warner

TimeLordOrchy
I agree with your OP to an extent. The soul enters the baby before birth and after conception. Some time after death, it is 'pulled out', and lives eternally. And yes, it does enter another body. Whether the body is made of the same material as right now on this , I'm not sure. That's my opinion.