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

'I'm not talking about the processor'

No warner, the processor is not a separate issue -- and it was exactly what I was talking about. If there is no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse, no speakers, the processor will still run the software. The processor is absolutely analogous to the brain -- everything you mention is analogous to various parts of the body and, in some cases, portions of the brain.

there is no ghost in the machine in front of you, and there is no ghost in the machine in front of your computer.

>>Because to believe that the conscience will go some where after death<<

Yes it's a common belief but no-one will explain how.

>>you have to admit that it's a weak point in your argument <<

Umm...no I don't I'm basing my argument and model on current thinking about how the mind and brain work. That's hardly an apologists tactic. If the full answer isn't known I'll be honest about it. And for something as complex as consciousness there is no simple direct answer. You say conscious mind is what we are discussing, okay - fine - but this presents as many problems to you. You think consciousness somehow survives death but how? in what form? in part or in total? Without having a clear idea of what consciousness is, those qustions are meaningless. I've repeatedly stated what I think consciousness is; I've identified it with the brain, and I think when the brain dies consciousness goes with it. End of story. You think there's some kind of dualism involved or the the mind and soul are the same thing? and there was something in there about bodies and people I didn't follow at all.

I still think the comparison to Christian apologists is poorly made and faintly offensive.

I appreciate the thanks for expanding on Marx. I hope I answered your question and set it in an understandable context. I don't think it's possible to really understand Marx without understanding Hegel's philosophy because the two are so tightly interwoven. I know on one of your guide entries you've said specialist without degrees in philosophy (a sly dig at me perchance? ) but seriously - if you really want to get a handle on Marx, I advise read some of Hegels Phenomenology.

I don't necessarily agree with Marx or Marxism either, but I do hope I've got a bit of a grasp of what he stands for.


>>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.<<

Well hands up. Time for some of the good time honesty I promised. I am not trained nor familar with psychology to do more than outline in brief my understanding.
Take something like an eating disorder or dissociative disorders which might be treated with say cognitive behavioural therapies. I think this is what falls more within the purview of psychiatry as oppose to psychology which is more based in medical practice. Counselling to deal with something like grief which can affect perception is I think something that takes place in the psychiatry, which is the sort of thing I meant about mental states not connected to something 'being wrong' in the brain.

However, I think this is a fairly artificial distinction that is breaking down. Eating disorders etc might be caused by chemical deficiencies, for example, just as depression and grief, can cause chemical changes in the body.

But my case is mind and brain are linked not separate so I don't see this as undermining my case at all.

If someone does have a chemical imbalance that causes them to overeat, how they feel about themselves is the internal subjective, are they then socially nervous, overly senstive or paranoid to glances, lingering stares and so on. so the physiology, and the neurology and the psychology are to me all linked.

I did say it was not necessarily the case that something be wrong with the brain but let me row back from that a little and clarify my statement. I think what I want to distinguish between is not that there are some states of mind not caused by the body, which would imply a dualism I don't think exists. But what I meant was there are some mental states which are not caused by brain injury, there's still the wider sense of the whole body network, the Immune systems and the chemical and hormonal processes that govern our bodies, including and especially our brain which could be otherwise completely healthy but subject to atypical desires and needs.

and I've not even touched on things like chemical addictions to alcohol, nicotine of worse.


>>It's interesting to note, imo, that psychology and religion have a strong connection.<<

If you mean temporal lobe damage can produce feelings of religious ecstasy, I'd agree.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you are talking about.

>>there is no ghost in the machine in front of you<<
Actually there is. Norton ghost

God in the machine or deus ex machina.

Deus ex machina - literally "god from the machine" - is a plot device in which a surprising or unexpected event occurs in a story's plot, suddenly and completely resolving an otherwise unsolvable conflict.

Neoclassical literary criticism, from Corneille and John Dennis on, took it as a given that one mark of a bad play was the sudden invocation of extraordinary circumstance. Thus, the term "deus ex machina" has come to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative.

how did we get to talking about computer games lol

It's an analogy for discussing minds and bodies.

and still we can't seem to cure you of your dualisms!!

my what?........

warner:

I find it informative that you seemed to really like the computer analogy ( you said) until I pointed out that the analogy actually demonstrated that the soul/mind is simply what the brain does. How quickly the eureka moment ends when deeply held unsupported preconceptions run up against the paradigm shift.

anhaga
I'm still happy with the analogy. The brain is hardware. I don't think anybody would have any difficulty with that bit. Now, some people are trying to tell me, that magically a baby is born with that hardware and without anything else, has a distinct character and personality.
ie. every baby is born unique. No! That can't be right, imo. That's where the program (soul) comes in.
I can't explain fully what it is. In the same way, I can't explain fully what Almighty God is either. It's not just an irrational belief. There are good reasons why people believe it. And furthermore it is totally plausible and answers a lot of difficult questions.

warner the baby comes with an operating system installed as standard

the main parts of the programming are downloaded from the enviroment as the child learns

>>Now, some people are trying to tell me, that magically a baby is born with that hardware and without anything else, has a distinct character and personality.
ie. every baby is born unique. No! That can't be right, <<

Fallacy of genetic determinism

I'm too tired to be bothered explicating that one now, I'm just setting it down as a for tomorrow...

>>I can't explain fully what it is. In the same way, I can't explain fully what Almighty God is either. It's not just an irrational belief. There are good reasons why people believe it. And furthermore it is totally plausible and answers a lot of difficult questions.<<

Remember what I said about apologists and mystery being the conclusion of understanding.

Well... Exhibit A.

and there is a great danger of picking up viruses, trojans, and worms.


warner:

do you believe that wolves, for example, are born with what Taff calls the operating system pre-installed? Animals exhibit remarkably complex instinctive behavior, far more complicated than the simple mewling and puking (apologies to Bill) human brats come into this world capable of.

simulpost, Clive. Get some sleep.

warner, you are using the argument from incredulity again. You can't understand it so it can't be true.

'every baby is born unique. No! That can't be right'

You don't think that every baby is born unique? Please show me a pair of babies who are identical in every single detail and we can continue with that one.

Every baby is born identical. No! that can't be right.

Yes...mum.

every baby is born looking like winston churchill

every baby is born unique? this is inncorrect

all babies are born identical!

'all babies are born identical!'


most particularly the little girl babies and the little boy babies. Identical.

all babies are born unique, otherwise there would be no work for the newborn baby photographer in hospitals, they would just need a single generic photo????????

I've started a thread here F11571454?thread=6287724 (attached to the 'is it possible to construct a device . . .' entry) concerning something I mentioned somewhere a few nights ago about 'different ways of knowing'. If anyone is interested in discussing what this phrase could possibly refer to, I'd be interested in sharing thoughts.