Can non believers have supernatural experiences?

dvae

Can non believers have supernatural experiences?
The reason i ask is i have a friend who dose not believe in God what so ever but tells me he believes in ghosts.
Are ghosts and God related?
What i mean to say is can you believe one but not the other?

Jester Minute

Non-believers can experience the preternatural (angels and demons) or the Super-natural (God).

For info on ghosts in Catholic thought, read this:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=14715

I suppose you can believe in one but not the other.

biko

I would say that, as an atheist, I'm not entirely against the notion of ghosts.
The usual Christian notion of ghosts I don't believe in as that would imply a heaven or hell where these ghosts usually reside.

However I'm open to the notion that if someone dies their energy may hang around a bit and could be perceived as a ghost before it dissipates.
Ghosts could also be being outside our spectrum of perception. Not family/friends etc but another race that exist outside outside our wavelength.
Maybe one day we'll be able to find the technology to discover whether this is true or not but I'm keeping an open mind.

Fanny Cradock

biko wrote: »

The usual Christian notion of ghosts I don't believe in as that would imply a heaven or hell where these ghosts usually reside.

That isn't, as far as I'm aware, a feature of orthodox Christianity.

Morbert

biko wrote: »

However I'm open to the notion that if someone dies their energy may hang around a bit and could be perceived as a ghost before it dissipates. Ghosts could also be being outside our spectrum of perception. Not family/friends etc but another race that exist outside outside our wavelength.
Maybe one day we'll be able to find the technology to discover whether this is true or not but I'm keeping an open mind.

Let's not get carried away. There's nothing mysterious about energy. When we die, just as when any plant or animal dies, the energy that was within the body at the time dissipates as heat. The idea that life is a form of energy sounds like vitalism, and has been debunked as a branch of philosophy for a while now. And while we can certainly speculate on alien beings we cannot perceive, there's no reason to consider it anything more than speculation.

Zombrex

Aren't ghosts a very non-Christian idea?

Splendour

dvae wrote: »

Can non believers have supernatural experiences?
The reason i ask is i have a friend who dose not believe in God what so ever but tells me he believes in ghosts.
Are ghosts and God related?
What i mean to say is can you believe one but not the other?

You say your friend believes in ghosts but have they had an encounter with a ghost?
Yes non believers can have supernatural experiences-St.Paul's confrontation with God whilst travelling on the road to Damasus springs to mind...

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

biko

Wicknight wrote: »

Aren't ghosts a very non-Christian idea?

There's a Holy Ghost in there somewhere.

Aren't ghosts supposed to be banished with Christian crosses and other stuff? If so then the Christian aspect is there.

JimiTime

biko wrote: »

There's a Holy Ghost in there somewhere.

Aren't ghosts supposed to be banished with Christian crosses and other stuff? If so then the Christian aspect is there.

I think you are getting too much of your education about 'Christianity' from Hollywood:)

Fanny Cradock

biko wrote: »

There's a Holy Ghost in there somewhere.

There is actually the Holy Spirit. The Holy "Ghost", at least as it is commonly understood as reference to a Casper type character, is dodgy theology.

biko wrote: »

Aren't ghosts supposed to be banished with Christian crosses and other stuff? If so then the Christian aspect is there.

I've never heard the like. I suspect it's because it isn't a feature of orthodox Christianity.

dvae

You say your friend believes in ghosts but have they had an encounter with a ghost?

Yes my friend supposedly seen a ghost when he was younger.
Whilst i believe in ghosts i don't believe ghosts to be anything to do with God.
I don't buy into the idea of a ghost being some sort of energy or reflection of a past life or time either but, i think lot of people would believe a ghost to be a spirit with some sort of unfinished business here on earth or a loved one watching over them from heaven.
Yes I'm sure a non believer can have a super natural experience but what i should of made more clear was, how can a non believer like my friend who has no belief in God or any thing spiritual what so ever see a ghost and not question there current beliefs.

JoeB-

Yes, temporal lobe epilespy (spelling?) can cause spiritul experiences, even in non-believers. This area of the brain can be stimulated electrically and the result is that people say that they have 'out of body' experiences, that they feel at one with the universe, .. and other spiritual experiences generally. (If you are Catholic or religious in general you will often say that you have experienced your 'God')

This is often given as the reason for revalations, God experiences, 'seeing' ghosts etc. I think it's surmised that Joan of Arc suffered from temporal lobe epilespy, and others.. I can't quite recall some of the bigger names... but it's very likely that historical figures who had vivid experiences suffered from temporal loibe epilespy. (Epilespy is an electrical storm in the brain, and results in massive over-stimulation)


This is the type of thing I'm getting at when I say that there are natural explanations for visions, revalations (sp?), spiritual experiences etc. It's un-necessary to postulate supernatural causes for these things, when they can be explained perfectly well using science, via temporal lobe epilespy.. and they can be duplicated in 'normal' people who have no spiritual beliefs. Drugs may have the same effect. In actual fact it's wrong to ignore the evidence that these experiences are natural... akin to saying that angels push the planets around the sun and simply insisting that that's correct. (Of course I cannot rule out the angel theory)

These things give clues to how the mind works. I'd recommend Oliver Sacks 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat', for incredible stories of how the mind can break down and the very unusual problems which can occur. (including not being able to tell the difference between a wife and a hat, as per the title)

Cheers

antiskeptic

JoeBallantine wrote: »

These things give clues to how the mind works. I'd recommend Oliver Sacks 'The man who mistook his wife for a hat', for incredible stories of how the mind can break down and the very unusual problems which can occur. (including not being able to tell the difference between a wife and a hat, as per the title)

I read it (following the recommendation of an atheist on boards.ie). Whilst it was very interesting and certaintly showed the brain as a control centre processing sense data (erroneously so in the cases in the book) it didn't manage (nor can I envisage how it could manage) to source the self in the brain. The book pointed out in many cases how it was the self which figured there was something wrong with the brain processing function - becoming disturbed by the very fact of the mis-processing.

It's also the self which would decide it is a spiritual experience that has been encountered - not at all being disturbed as one could expect to be if finding oneself mistaking wives for hats.

You're making a leap in equating the highly unusual (men mistaking wives for hats) to the pretty common (men having spiritual experience)

gbee

dvae wrote: »

Can non believers have supernatural experiences?

Interesting question actually and funny too.

One will or can experience what is true, whether one believes in it or not: example: the flat Earth sailors did no in fact fall off the edges of the world despite they believing they would do so.

One can also experience things that don't exist by believing in them: example: alien abductions describe the aliens uniformly as Greys. The depictions of Greys came from a film and have no baring inn reality, apart from a little possible happen-stance, but they were coined up by a writer for a film.

In religion fact and reality can be completely mixed up: example: Stigmata [AKA Padre Pio and others] put their wounds in their palms, when the Romans used nails in crucifixions it was above the wrists as the the hand would simply tear apart if nailed in the palm.

There you have examples of fact not interfering with reality and a myth interfering in fact where people wound themselves in the wrong place and attribute credence to fiction.

In this mix we have a belief in God, and then a religious teaching and then reality. The human is made up of two parts, the body and the soul. The body comes first and then it is possessed by the soul, they then are Inseparable until death.

The soul does not die with the body [at least not immediately] what the soul is will depend on your faith and religion, whether your soul goes on to a heaven a hell or purgatory; or be trapped as a ghost will also depend on your upbringing.

I personally don't believe the soul is religious in any way, its a life force that bonds with human babies soon after birth and will seek other babies after the life has extinguished and repeat the process [at least a few times].

Piano man

Jester Minute's link is pretty good.

Ghosts are an orthodox feature of Christianity, but of course we refer to them as spirits. They can be angel, demon or human.
Summoning spirits or necromancy is a definite no-no because of the dangers of deception spiritually. But there appear to be other types of ghosts - either souls in Purgatory or in Heaven.

Here's a quote from Jimmy Akin:

"Ghost" is simply the German-derived equivalent of the Latin-derived word "Spirit." That's why the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost. Originally in English "ghost" and "spirit" referred to the same thing. Indeed, in German the word for "spirit" is still "geist." Rather than get hung up on semantics, we may wish to analyze claims about ghosts in terms of what we know about spirits.

First, spirits exist. This is a truth of the faith.
Second, spirits can sometimes manifest themselves to those in this life, as in the apparitions of the saints.
Third, there are even reports in Catholic history that spirits in purgatory have--by God's will--occasionally manifested themselves to those on earth. In these cases, those on earth may see the spirits experiencing their purgation in some way.
Therefore, if these reports are true, God may at times allow spirits to manifest to those on earth in a way that might lead folks to describe them as "ghosts."

Now, I'm not saying that this actually happens. I'm just saying that we shouldn't quickly scoff at the idea. It certainly has a place in Catholic tradition (lower "t" tradition). I know that folks today often repeat the mantra "There's no such things as ghosts," but it seems to me that this may have more with the influence of a secular/scientistic worldview than anything else. I see no theological reason to say that God doesn't allow this to happen on occasion. (On the other hand, I see no theological reason that compels us to the conclusion that he does, either.)

One note on the possibility of ghosts: Sometimes folks think of ghosts (or some ghosts) as malevolent. I don't see how that would be possible on the above account. Souls experiencing purgatory might seem strage or disquieting to individuals in this life and might appear malevolent, but they would not be. I don't see any evidence, though, that genuinely malevolent souls--i.e., the souls of the damned--could manifest on earth. Thus any genuinely malevolent ghosts would more likely represent demonic activity as far as I can tell.

These two phenomena--the "purgatory ghosts" and demons--also might explain so-called haunted houses and poltergeists ("noisy ghosts" in German).

I just want to add that yes, exorcisms are a genuine Church ministry, though hardly accurately represented in films.

And also - Guardian Angels are real! And we all have one.

Hope that helps.

God bless

JoeB-

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're making a leap in equating the highly unusual (men mistaking wives for hats) to the pretty common (men having spiritual experience)

It is quite unusual to report vivid hallunications and ghostly encounters... less so than wife mistakinig. But I never intended to offer that book as an answer to everything.


You speak about conciousness and the 'self' as if these questions can never be answered... and you complain that most theories of conciousness leave out the 'self'.

I disagree.. the mind is caused by the brain, and is contained within the brain, there is no magic or pixie dust. A computer or a machine could be concious, and could suffer from the same problems we do, including hallunicinations and false ghost stories.

Fanny Cradock

JoeBallantine wrote: »

A computer or a machine... could suffer from the same problems we do, including hallunicinations and false ghost stories.

There is, of course, no evidence that I've ever heard of to suggest this. But, hey, believe whatever you want.

Incidentally, without intending to get too sidetracked by this tangent, people might find the following video talk by Rosalind Picard ("Affective Computing Research Group" at MIT) to be of interest.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is, of course, no evidence that I've ever heard of to suggest this. But, hey, believe whatever you want.

Incidentally, without intending to get too sidetracked by this tangent, people might find the following video talk by Rosalind Picard ("Affective Computing Research Group" at MIT) to be of interest.

I'm not sure why, but I am getting no sound from that video. Perhaps because I am using linux fedora. Is that video hosted anywhere else?

antiskeptic

JoeBallantine wrote: »

It is quite unusual to report vivid hallunications and ghostly encounters... less so than wife mistakinig. But I never intended to offer that book as an answer to everything.

I wasn't talking of hallucinations or ghostly encounters. I was talking of spiritual experience - something which is very common. I mean churches are filled (although not universally so) with people who testify to this.

You speak about conciousness and the 'self' as if these questions can never be answered... and you complain that most theories of conciousness leave out the 'self'.

I was pointing out that "The man who..." focus' on a particular aspect of the brain and that that part isn't the part we might identify as self-awareness. And so we can't tell (from this book) that self-awareness in the brain.

I disagree.. the mind is caused by the brain, and is contained within the brain, there is no magic or pixie dust.

You say so - but is it so. I'd be really interested to find out how this is demonstrated experimentally. To me it seems like one of those bridges too far.

-

So as not to lose sight of it: my point would be that self-awareness is the final arbitrator on whether or not the person perceived as God is separate from the self and real - or whether it's an illusion.

This isn't to say the self is necessarily correct if it concludes 'God exists' but if it can be wrong about this, it can also be wrong about the existance of the external-to-self reality. Which is a kind of pointless thing to be considering. Solipsism in effect.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Perhaps because I am using linux fedora. Is that video hosted anywhere else?

I'm not sure that would make a difference. Have you got the speakers plugged in

You can find an audio version on the Faraday site. I can't directly link to it for some reason but you can still access it from within the site.

Go to the link above, click the radio button for "speaker" and search via her name. It's the only entry. I should add that I haven't listened to the talk but I've enjoyed some of her past contributions even if, as far as my very limited knowledge allows, I don't always agree with her.

You can also find a few other talks/ debates at the Veritas Forum - here, here and here.

Morbert

Scientifically speaking, it is generally accepted that awareness/consciousness emerges from brain activity. There is a causal relationship between the condition of the brain and a person's awareness. It is no more controversial than the claim that friction causes heat.

Philosophically speaking, however, we still do not know how to describe the consciousness properly. We do not know why a complicated array of stimulus-response mechanisms should manifest itself as awareness. This is known as the p-zombie problem.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure that would make a difference. Have you got the speakers plugged in

You can find an audio version on the Faraday site. I can't directly link to it for some reason but you can still access it from within the site.

Go to the link above, click the radio button for "speaker" and search via her name. It's the only entry. I should add that I haven't listened to the talk but I've enjoyed some of her past contributions even if, as far as my very limited knowledge allows, don't always agree with her.

You can also find a few other talks/ debates at the Veritas Forum - here, here and here.

Thanks, will take a look when I get the chance.

JoeB-

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't talking of hallucinations or ghostly encounters. I was talking of spiritual experience - something which is very common. I mean churches are filled (although not universally so) with people who testify to this.

Yes, but for the non-religious there is no difference. Non religious may interpret these feelings as 'spirits' or 'ghosts'.. religious people may interpret the feelings as 'spiruitual' experiences, or a oneness with God. But these personal revelations are very unconvincing to others... and can hardly be offered as evidence that God exists, or that the experiences are 'spititual' as opposed to 'a feeling of oneness with the universe'

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was pointing out that "The man who..." focus' on a particular aspect of the brain and that that part isn't the part we might identify as self-awareness. And so we can't tell (from this book) that self-awareness in the brain.

No part of the brain is likely to be identified with 'self awareness'.. it is quite likely that the entire brain is involved. Having said that there are parts of the brain which if damaged will cause loss of counciousness.. so those parts are clearly required, but are likely not sufficient for conciousness by themselves.

Daniel Dennett, 'conciousness explained'.. have you tried that one?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say so - but is it so. I'd be really interested to find out how this is demonstrated experimentally. To me it seems like one of those bridges too far.

This was about the brain causing the mind. This is widely accepted. From whence do you propose that conciousness comes from?, if not the brain? Do you believe that there is a natural explanation for conciousness?, or do you propose a magic dust theory? (Could be the holy spirit for example, .. but if this is beyond science then this is 'magic dust'). Does God intervene in the conception of a feotus in a test tube?, or is the conception purely natural and explainable by science? (or even duplicated with advanced technology?)

antiskeptic wrote: »

So as not to lose sight of it: my point would be that self-awareness is the final arbitrator on whether or not the person perceived as God is separate from the self and real - or whether it's an illusion.

This isn't to say the self is necessarily correct if it concludes 'God exists' but if it can be wrong about this, it can also be wrong about the existance of the external-to-self reality. Which is a kind of pointless thing to be considering. Solipsism in effect.

So your point is that nothing can be considered true? Well yes, .. but if we doubt the existence of the external world and we question our inbuilt senses then it's certainly a bridge too far to postulate the existence of a creator of our doubtful world. In any event it could be the devil tricking you.


People can decieve themselves. Does the existence of a person in a lunatic asylum today who claims to be Jesus prove that he is Jesue. Clearly not.. and simply because someone claims to have experienced God privately is hardly convincing to anyone else. These same feelings that are attributed to God by one person can be invoked in non-religious people, who will report strange and wonderful experiences, but they won't attribute them to God. Before Christ came to earth there would still have been temporal lobe epliespy, and these feelings would have existed.. it's clear that no-one would have attributed them to Jesus at that stage.

If Christanity was proven to be false, the spiritual experiences would remain.

gbee

JoeBallantine wrote: »

If Christanity was proven to be false, the spiritual experiences would remain.

Christianity is only one teaching, it's not even a religion, there are many on this planet who never heard of Christ.

See, part of the wool over eyes is to use the existence of spirits and say they are angles or saints or God and simple people will believe that from then on.

As you say, the spirit was here long before Christ's teachings were manipulated into madness.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Scientifically speaking, it is generally accepted that awareness/consciousness emerges from brain activity. There is a causal relationship between the condition of the brain and a person's awareness. It is no more controversial than the claim that friction causes heat.

In which sense are you speaking of awareness. I'll grant that if you snip the various nerve bundles leading from each sensory apparatus to the brain then the person won't be aware of anything happening around them. But they would still be self aware.

But how does science show that self-awareness is located in the brain? It strikes me as an impossibility to be honest.

gbee

antiskeptic wrote: »

But how does science show that self-awareness is located in the brain? It strikes me as an impossibility to be honest.

It's the only logical place it could be, none of our other organs have the capability of diagnosing external and internal forces and making a decision based on this combination.

The brain controls all functions, even heart beat and breathing are subroutines, interrupt the signal from the brain and the body stops working, this is handy for surgery.

The brain is physical and the mind is contained therein, but the mind is virtual.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

In which sense are you speaking of awareness. I'll grant that if you snip the various nerve bundles leading from each sensory apparatus to the brain then the person won't be aware of anything happening around them. But they would still be self aware.

But how does science show that self-awareness is located in the brain? It strikes me as an impossibility to be honest.

By awareness I am referring to sentience. Self-awareness is exhibited by humans and animals with highly developed brains, such as chimpanzees and orang-utans. There is also a causal relationship between your state of awareness and brain activity. Alcohol is the most obvious example. But there are more subtle and precise examples. Electrically stimulating parts of the brain can induce thoughts, alter moods, etc.

It doesn't mean humans can't have some supernatural spirit, but it does mean sentience/consciousness is a product of the brain.

antiskeptic

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Yes, but for the non-religious there is no difference. Non religious may interpret these feelings as 'spirits' or 'ghosts'.. religious people may interpret the feelings as 'spiruitual' experiences, or a oneness with God. But these personal revelations are very unconvincing to others... and can hardly be offered as evidence that God exists, or that the experiences are 'spititual' as opposed to 'a feeling of oneness with the universe'

I was countering your suggestion that spiritual/ghostly encounters were "highly unusual" by pointing out that they were in fact pretty common.

Whether or not they are actually spiritual or not wasn't being evidenced.

No part of the brain is likely to be identified with 'self awareness'.. it is quite likely that the entire brain is involved. Having said that there are parts of the brain which if damaged will cause loss of counciousness.. so those parts are clearly required, but are likely not sufficient for conciousness by themselves.

Daniel Dennett, 'conciousness explained'.. have you tried that one?

No I haven't. But I'd bet that self-awareness is defined as the accumulation of that which is known to be located in the brain (with the assumption that all is located in the brain). Such a definition would be a circular way of arguing self-awareness located in the brain.

This was about the brain causing the mind. This is widely accepted. From whence do you propose that conciousness comes from?, if not the brain? Do you believe that there is a natural explanation for conciousness?, or do you propose a magic dust theory? (Could be the holy spirit for example, .. but if this is beyond science then this is 'magic dust'). Does God intervene in the conception of a feotus in a test tube?, or is the conception purely natural and explainable by science? (or even duplicated with advanced technology?)

It's not widely accepted that personhood - that which makes me separate and individual - arises in the brain. If that were so then Christians who know the brain of a loved on has turned to dust would have to suppose that loved one ceasing to exist. Wouldn't they?

My point was that I suspected a bridge too far in the case of identifying the location of self. This not least because of the difficulty in actually defining what the self is.

So your point is that nothing can be considered true? Well yes, .. but if we doubt the existence of the external world and we question our inbuilt senses then it's certainly a bridge too far to postulate the existence of a creator of our doubtful world. In any event it could be the devil tricking you.

Indeed it could be.

What I do however is to dispense with what I think is useless to me and carry on as if what I consider to be true is true. I don't worry if the external reality is real or whether it's really a mad scientist controlling my brain in a jar - it's useless for me to do so when the external reality behaves real to me. And I don't worry about whether its really the devil tricking me and not God - it is also useless for me to do so when God is so undevil-like.

People can decieve themselves. Does the existence of a person in a lunatic asylum today who claims to be Jesus prove that he is Jesue. Clearly not.. and simply because someone claims to have experienced God privately is hardly convincing to anyone else.

The question isn't whether it's convincing to anyone else. The question is whether it's convincing to the person themselves - whether we're talking about the apparent realness of the external reality or the apparent realness of God.

What's the difference between you're being certain the external reality exists and my being certain God exists? I would say there is no difference at all.

These same feelings that are attributed to God by one person can be invoked in non-religious people, who will report strange and wonderful experiences, but they won't attribute them to God. Before Christ came to earth there would still have been temporal lobe epliespy, and these feelings would have existed.. it's clear that no-one would have attributed them to Jesus at that stage.

My spiritual experiences centre around relating to God personally. I can't quite understand how a non-religious person could report the same experience as me.

If Christanity was proven to be false, the spiritual experiences would remain.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one if I were you. People have been hammering at God/Jesus/The Bible since time immemorial. There hasn't been much of a dent put in them yet.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

It doesn't mean humans can't have some supernatural spirit, but it does mean sentience/consciousness is a product of the brain.

Perhaps. But it could also be that conciousness is something external to the brain, meaning that any change in our state of conciousness is the output of our brain which is itself conjugate. Think of it as working off a copy of an original.

We might say that economy (where economy means the efficient use of resources) is a concept that is merely the product of the mind. However, I think that it is arguable that economy is very evident in nature. Maybe conciousness will also become evident outside of the bit between our ears - though I couldn't imagine how. I'm happy to take either side in this debate.

Either way, I think you are unjustifiably categorical in what conciousness is when the reality is that a lot of uncomplimentary educated guessing goes on in brain science.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps. But it could also be that conciousness is something external to the brain, meaning that any change in our state of conciousness is the output of our brain which is itself conjugate. Think of it as working off a copy of an original.

There is much much less evidence for that, and it would seem rather contradicted by the reality.

For example, my girlfriend's mother had a stroke a few years ago that noticeably effected her character and personality. As the damage in her brain repaired itself (unfortunately not the whole way) her personality changed back some what, yet still is noticeably different to how it was.

What is interesting is not just the initial change, but the continued change related directly to the damage in the brain.

One could argue that the stroke damaged the external "consciousness", but this seems an unnecessary introduction. One could also argue that the damaged external consciousness repaired itself at the same time that the physical brain did, but again this seems an unnecessary introduction. How would the external consciousness be damaged given that we can't detect it at all.

It could also be argued that the effect was a result of the physical brain and the external consciousness remained the same, just how it was perceived changed. But given the extend of the change, from emotion to memory to responses, likes dislikes etc it raises the question what exactly is in this external consciousness if so much of the personality is held in the brain.

What ever way you look at it it is very difficult to form any notion of the mind that explains thinks like radical personality changes due to trauma that doesn't involve the brain being responsible for the mind.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

One could argue that the stroke damaged the external "consciousness", but this seems an unnecessary introduction. One could also argue that the damaged external consciousness repaired itself at the same time that the physical brain did, but again this seems an unnecessary introduction. How would the external consciousness be damaged given that we can't detect it at all.

I think you misunderstand what I was proposing. I mentioned the possibility that the brain was a conjugate, which would suggest that conciousness is something different to the brain. To use a topical analogy, you burst the pipes and you interrupt the flow.

Wicknight wrote: »

It could also be argued that the effect was a result of the physical brain and the external consciousness remained the same, just how it was perceived changed. But given the extend of the change, from emotion to memory to responses, likes dislikes etc it raises the question what exactly is in this external consciousness if so much of the personality is held in the brain.

Those are fair points. As I don't believe that I have a particular bias in this case, I'm perfectly happy to accept that conciousness is a product of the brain and that my suggestion is false.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps. But it could also be that conciousness is something external to the brain, meaning that any change in our state of conciousness is the output of our brain which is itself conjugate. Think of it as working off a copy of an original.

We might say that economy (where economy means the efficient use of resources) is a concept that is merely the product of the mind. However, I think that it is arguable that economy is very evident in nature. Maybe conciousness will also become evident outside of the bit between our ears - though I couldn't imagine how. I'm happy to take either side in this debate.

There is not only a correlation between brain activity and consciousness, there is a causal relationship. If the brain is altered by some chemical and physical means, the mind is subsequently altered, right down to the level of thoughts and memories, the capacity to resist temptation, and a coherent sense of awareness.

Either way, I think you are unjustifiably categorical in what conciousness is when the reality is that a lot of uncomplimentary educated guessing goes on in brain science.

It is no more categorical than any other biological principle. It is tentative, sure, but to claim sentience requires some extra ingredient is to speculate in a scientific field without evidence. If it is held as a religious belief that the human soul has a supernatural component then that is fine. But if it is argued that the material brain is not sufficient to produce consciousness then I would object for the same reason I would object to ID proponents who claim evolution is not capable of producing the complexity and diversity of life.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you misunderstand what I was proposing. I mentioned the possibility that the brain was a conjugate, which would suggest that conciousness is something different to the brain. To use a topical analogy, you burst the pipes and you interrupt the flow.

It is definitely something different to the brain. The p-zombie problem I mentioned earlier essentialy amounts to understanding how the language of the mind (psychology) and the language of the brain (neurophysiology) are related. But I would still hold that consciousness is the product of the brain in the same sense that music is the product of vibrating air molecules, or that (to use the same example from a veritas debate you linked to) pressure is the product of statistical mechanics.

JoeB-

antiskeptic wrote: »

In which sense are you speaking of awareness. I'll grant that if you snip the various nerve bundles leading from each sensory apparatus to the brain then the person won't be aware of anything happening around them. But they would still be self aware.

But how does science show that self-awareness is located in the brain? It strikes me as an impossibility to be honest.

To be honest your example implies that conciousness is in the brain. You started out with a brain and a body, and connections. You agree that this is a self aware person.

We then take away the body, and the connections. All we have left is a brain. And you agree that this dis-connected brain might still be self aware. So clearly it's implicit in your example that self-awareness is in the brain... and that everything can be removed except the brain.

For example... I doubt you'd state that if everything was removed from a person except their feet that they'd still be self aware...


Incidentally there is a correlation with your complaints about conciousness and the lack of explanations and the explanation of life itself. No-one now believes that 'magic dust' is required for life.. that chemistry is enough. But this leaves a situation where something is considered dead.. then it undergoes a chemical change, and the result is considered alive. So when was the magic dust sprinkled on?

The point is that no magic dust was used... that an explanation of life must leave out 'and then a miracle occurs' or 'then we sprinkle the magic dust'... and explain life in more simple things.. otherwise it's not an explanation at all!

So successful theories of conciousness must leave out 'and then a miracle occurs', or 'and then a little man inside your head experiences conciousness himself, .. i.e it must explain conciousness without leaving any magical elements in the theory.. similar to the theory of life itself.


So the theory of life is likely unacceptable to you, as at no point does it state that 'this is why life happens'... i.e there is no magic dust. It's accepted that life arises from dead matter through chemistry... and actually defining the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead is very difficult.

In the same way, conciousness just happens.. and a theory of conciousness might end up like a theory of life...

Several people say that conciousness is a trick, or false somehow.. that it isn't the big problem everyone assumes it to be. You must have heard of Searle's Chinese room argument. He argues that computers can never be concious,., whereas some others, like Daniel Dennett say (,and argue quite convincedly) that a computer that can pass the Turing test will claim to be concious, even if it's not.

This is an astonishing conclusion... that a non-concious computer that can pass the Turing test would claim to have an inner life, and to be concious... even if we had never built those things into the system. So in this sense conciousness is a trick, and an explanation may never be forthcoming... (other than that certain complex calculating systems may be concious, but this cannot be determined or experienced from outside)


It's probably the wrong forum for all this, but it's very interesting.

antiskeptic

JoeBallantine wrote: »

To be honest your example implies that conciousness is in the brain. You started out with a brain and a body, and connections. You agree that this is a self aware person.

We then take away the body, and the connections. All we have left is a brain. And you agree that this dis-connected brain might still be self aware. So clearly it's implicit in your example that self-awareness is in the brain... and that everything can be removed except the brain.

For example... I doubt you'd state that if everything was removed from a person except their feet that they'd still be self aware...

Of course I'd say they'd be self aware - they're dead physically but alive spiritually - that's the Christian position.

My reason for talking of the cutting out of external stimuli was to draw the distinction between aware of external surroundings and self-aware. It wasn't clear from your post that the awareness you spoke of related to self-awareness

-

Continuing in that vein however. We can consider a person whose connection to the external world via hearing is cut. They move from "I am hearing music" to "I am not hearing music anymore and am not happy about that". Then we remove the emotional centre of the brain (assuming that can be done). The person goes from "I am not hearing music anymore and am not happy about that" to "I am not hearing music anymore". Then we destroy the memory centre (assuming that can be done) and the person goes to.

"I am".


How does one locate the centre of awareness of one as a self?

Incidentally there is a correlation with your complaints about conciousness and the lack of explanations and the explanation of life itself. No-one now believes that 'magic dust' is required for life..

I think that might be because of a tendency to conflate "a plausible theoretical route to something happening" with "this is the way it happened". But I've no insurmountable problem (for the purposes of this discussion) with animal life arising naturalistically. Or evolving. I don't see that which is eternal about us (expressed in "I am") as being part of those naturalistic events (if that is what they were)

So successful theories of conciousness must leave out 'and then a miracle occurs', or 'and then a little man inside your head experiences conciousness himself, .. i.e it must explain conciousness without leaving any magical elements in the theory.. similar to the theory of life itself.

Of course it must if it's a naturalistic theory! I just can't figure out how you'd conclude the self to be resident in the brain without the a priori exclusion of magic (and the inclusion of naturalistic) dust.

So the theory of life is likely unacceptable to you, as at no point does it state that 'this is why life happens'... i.e there is no magic dust. It's accepted that life arises from dead matter through chemistry... and actually defining the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead is very difficult.

In the same way, conciousness just happens.. and a theory of conciousness might end up like a theory of life...

With life you have the chance of actually "assembling it" in the lab showing that the "could theoretically" > "could actually". You're left then only with the probably insurmountable move from "could actually" to "did actually". But let's not worry about that.

With consciousness the theory would appear to remain a distant "could theoretically" area with no way to jump to the next step.

Several people say that conciousness is a trick, or false somehow.. that it isn't the big problem everyone assumes it to be. You must have heard of Searle's Chinese room argument. He argues that computers can never be concious,., whereas some others, like Daniel Dennett say (,and argue quite convincedly) that a computer that can pass the Turing test will claim to be concious, even if it's not.

This is an astonishing conclusion... that a non-concious computer that can pass the Turing test would claim to have an inner life, and to be concious... even if we had never built those things into the system. So in this sense conciousness is a trick, and an explanation may never be forthcoming... (other than that certain complex calculating systems may be concious, but this cannot be determined or experienced from outside)

The wiki artical on the Turing test opens with the description of it as a test of intelligence. Not self-awareness. Would that be right?

It's probably the wrong forum for all this, but it's very interesting.

Indeed.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Continuing in that vein however. We can consider a person whose connection to the external world via hearing is cut. They move from "I am hearing music" to "I am not hearing music anymore and am not happy about that". Then we remove the emotional centre of the brain (assuming that can be done). The person goes from "I am not hearing music anymore and am not happy about that" to "I am not hearing music anymore". Then we destroy the memory centre (assuming that can be done) and the person goes to.

"I am".

How does one locate the centre of awareness of one as a self?

"I am" doesn't arise from any unitary process in the brain. The sense of a single consciousness arises from the communication between the separate neural modules, particularly the linguistic sections. The brain is not generating a single train of though, but is more like a collection of networks that communicate with one another coherently. If the connections between these modules are damaged, you end up with neurological disorders like Alien Hand Syndrome, where the sense of what "I am" means is destroyed.

JoeB-

I was going to make another point.

It seems that AntiSkeptic is a dualist. .. this means that AntiSkeptic believes that his conciousness and his mind is seperate to his brain and body.

This means that AntiSkeptic believes that his mind and conciousness could be seperated from his body, and exist independantly. (I.e.. when you die, your mind goes to heaven, but your body is unimportant.)


I could ask some questions of AntiSkeptic about these views. For example, if a man has a leg amputated will his body image in heaven have a leg or not? (This isn't important... heaven itself in unprovable, so exactly what it might be like is pure speculation)


But my questions about the mind are more important. It's known that brain damage, brain surgery, drugs, certain viruses and disese's can all affect personality. If our personalities and minds were seperate to our bodies then these things should not be possible.

So it seems that changes to the brain result in changes in personality. This is strong evidence that the mind is caused by the brain. (Many examples of this exist, several given in 'The Man Who... mistook his wife.. '.. others being lobotomys where the brain is cut in half, which drastically and irreversibly changes personality.)


So this shows that personality is not absolute... and can change,.. and can change significantly. For example, a person who was quite, law abiding and soft spoken became an 'uncout louth' who swore, lied and stole after a brain operation. People who knew him said both before and after said that he was now a different person.


So which of his personalities will arrive in heaven? (This is similar to the amputated leg). This is a paradox... there is no such thing as an unchanging and absolute personality.. so the idea that our conciousness is seperate to our body is untenable.

(Perhaps you might say that only some vital part of our conciousness ends up in heaven.. but the same objections apply)
(Perhaps you might say his original personality will arrive in heaven, but what if the operation took place at two weeks of age?.. before he learnt any language or anything else?.. he'd have no personality.

what if there was a very slow change in personality due to a viral infection?)

I'm sorry if I have misrepresented Anti Skeptics views. I am speaking about dualists in general, who believe the mind is seperate to the brain and body. (Personally I no longer believe that our mind can survive the destruction of our brains,.. unless uploaded to a computer etc, whcih may be possible in the future. But this raises many questions of identity)

Cheers