Consciousness: Is it seperate from the human body?

[Surgenator]

Its doesn't matter, we still have to have our senses to even understand it, it all works well in our so called life, other levels of life it probably means nothing.

Deduction is not a sense.

We can know what others believe, but we will never fully know, your mind is yours, not mine. so we can never truly know what the other thinks because we can only know our own mind, and in truth we don't even truly know that. Who is the one knowing, where is he, if you say it me, then who are you. You see we are just an organism that has been conditioned and programmed, and nothing else. So are we the conditioning and programming, you see there is no one, there's a body here typing away, but its no me.

So you admit that you don't know what is in someone elses mind. Yet, you claim that the originator of an idea will always know more than anyone else studing it. How would you know how much the orignator knows. How would you know how much someone else studing knows. You can't measure it. You just don't know. So you claim is nothing more than an opinion. I can easily counter your claim by pointing out that stratergy game devolpers loose in their own games. If they knew more than anyone how to play their game they wouldn't loose. Yet, we all know that they do.

[psychoslice]

Its doesn't matter, we still have to have our senses to even understand it, it all works well in our so called life, other levels of life it probably means nothing.

Deduction is not a sense.

We can know what others believe, but we will never fully know, your mind is yours, not mine. so we can never truly know what the other thinks because we can only know our own mind, and in truth we don't even truly know that. Who is the one knowing, where is he, if you say it me, then who are you. You see we are just an organism that has been conditioned and programmed, and nothing else. So are we the conditioning and programming, you see there is no one, there's a body here typing away, but its no me.

So you admit that you don't know what is in someone elses mind. Yet, you claim that the originator of an idea will always know more than anyone else studing it. How would you know how much the orignator knows. How would you know how much someone else studing knows. You can't measure it. You just don't know. So you claim is nothing more than an opinion. I can easily counter your claim by pointing out that stratergy game devolpers loose in their own games. If they knew more than anyone how to play their game they wouldn't loose. Yet, we all know that they do.

I didn't say I knew what is in the others mind, and of course its my opinion, after all its coming from a mind body organism which is apparently me. We are all little minds mingling together on this earth, we agree on certain things, and these are made to be our truth. Myself I know nothing, only that which I was programmed to know, but the difference is that I came to the realization of this truth, that's why I may sound like I'm coming from two angles or levels. There are so many levels and we as humans only live on one, and here we are discussing something which we really haven't a clue about, but yea, its fun to play and that is all I am doing.

[Surgenator]

I didn't say I knew what is in the others mind, and of course its my opinion, after all its coming from a mind body organism which is apparently me. We are all little minds mingling together on this earth, we agree on certain things, and these are made to be our truth. Myself I know nothing, only that which I was programmed to know, but the difference is that I came to the realization of this truth, that's why I may sound like I'm coming from two angles or levels. There are so many levels and we as humans only live on one, and here we are discussing something which we really haven't a clue about, but yea, its fun to play and that is all I am doing.

Claims and more claims but no nothing to back them up. Pity.

[psychoslice]

I didn't say I knew what is in the others mind, and of course its my opinion, after all its coming from a mind body organism which is apparently me. We are all little minds mingling together on this earth, we agree on certain things, and these are made to be our truth. Myself I know nothing, only that which I was programmed to know, but the difference is that I came to the realization of this truth, that's why I may sound like I'm coming from two angles or levels. There are so many levels and we as humans only live on one, and here we are discussing something which we really haven't a clue about, but yea, its fun to play and that is all I am doing.

Claims and more claims but no nothing to back them up. Pity.

As soon as I try to back them up, they collapse into a concept, the concept isn't what they are, its up to you to find out, after all I have already experienced it. But its no big deal, you and I are in the same boat, but only one of us has a paddle, he he, na only joking with you.

[Surgenator]

Claims and more claims but no nothing to back them up. Pity.

As soon as I try to back them up, they collapse into a concept, the concept isn't what they are, its up to you to find out, after all I have already experienced it. But its no big deal, you and I are in the same boat, but only one of us has a paddle, he he, na only joking with you.

Move the burden of proof onto me. That is not how you proof a claim. Since you cannot provide proof, I can dismiss your claim without proof.

[psychoslice]

As soon as I try to back them up, they collapse into a concept, the concept isn't what they are, its up to you to find out, after all I have already experienced it. But its no big deal, you and I are in the same boat, but only one of us has a paddle, he he, na only joking with you.

Move the burden of proof onto me. That is not how you proof a claim. Since you cannot provide proof, I can dismiss your claim without proof.

Yes you can, you have no choice to do what you want to do, whatever you want to do, then do it.

[Hezekiah]

Sorry I'm just now catching up. I'm gonna try to make this a general response across the board:

No, it is what you call the mind that is both fooled, and in some cases knows it is being fulled. Your mind isn't a straight forward stream of rational thought. All kinds of things are going on in there at the same time.

I see what you mean. Maybe I should brush up on my neurology then lol. I was trying to touch on more of what Charles Sanders Pierce talks about when he discusses the "phaneron", "the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not." (wikipedia).

The idea that the world, outside of our senses, may be radically different from the way we percieve it filtered through our brains. This to me, suggests that everything we know to be true or everything we can observe with our minds, could all be a universal illusion.

Now connecting this to the idea of consciousness being seperate of the body; the reason I make these points is because if the case is that the only tools we have to understand the unvierse with are several pounds of meat we call a brain, is it better to think that we can fully understand the universe by these means, or to think that we are more than our brains?

[Jenny A]

Sorry I'm just now catching up. I'm gonna try to make this a general response across the board:

No, it is what you call the mind that is both fooled, and in some cases knows it is being fulled. Your mind isn't a straight forward stream of rational thought. All kinds of things are going on in there at the same time.

I see what you mean. Maybe I should brush up on my neurology then lol. I was trying to touch on more of what Charles Sanders Pierce talks about when he discusses the "phaneron", "the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not." (wikipedia).

First of all, if you are going to quote, me attribute me.

The idea that the world, outside of our senses, may be radically different from the way we percieve it filtered through our brains. This to me, suggests that everything we know to be true or everything we can observe with our minds, could all be a universal illusion.

Could be theoretically, but I wouldn't act on that if I were you. The consequences appear to be deadly.

Seriously, there is no way to prove that the world we perceive is the actual world. But everyone except those who are insane acts as if it were absolutely the real world. This is a good example of the value of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation with fewest assumptions is most likely correct. Although we don't see the world in all possible ways (we can't see radio waves, ultraviolet, etc. or see all of the world at once, or even all of it from earth) it introduces unnecessary complication to assume the we world perceive as filtered through are brains is an illusion even if we can speculate that there are parts of it we can't see as demonstrated by what we can additionally perceive through the use of tools.

Now connecting this to the idea of consciousness being seperate of the body; the reason I make these points is because if the case is that the only tools we have to understand the unvierse with are several pounds of meat we call a brain, is it better to think that we can fully understand the universe by these means, or to think that we are more than our brains?

You lost me here. The fact that we can't perceive it all through our senses as interpreted by our brains in no way suggests we are more than our brains. It simply shows that we are limited. We certainly don't understand the universe now. Thinking we are more than our brains won't help in that endeavor. Delusion is never helpful to understanding..

This is in some ways the great atheist/theist divide. I see no reason for assuming that because the universe vast and mysterious, that I and/or a god must be vast and mysterious.

[The Grand Nudger]

It may indeed be that the "exterior world" is very different from our sense maps/pictures/data - but it would be difficult to explain our success as a species (and more generally the success of other species which we view as their "outsiders" using similar equipment) - were this the case.

if the case is that the only tools we have to understand the unvierse with are several pounds of meat we call a brain, is it better to think that we can fully understand the universe by these means, or to think that we are more than our brains?

I fail to see how those are even opposing choices referent to some singular question? Is it better to what, with what, and what does this have to do with..well...anything? We -are- "more" than our brains. It's the total package. You don't point at a pair of axles with wheels attached and call them a BMW, right? "More" doesn't imply any sort of floating consciousness. It would be pointless to attempt to explain some aspect of consciousness without referencing everything that goes into it, because the limitations and ability of each component part are going to give us the tech specs for whatever we're referencing. "Touch" isn;t "just" the impulse in your brain, it has to do with the thickness of your skin, it's pliability, the way it interacts with objects of differing compositions...hell, even temperature (notice that a metal pole which is precisely the same temperature as the air outside will "feel" colder - that's not just a "software" bug or brain related..it's a kink of the supporting hardware as well).

[Hezekiah]

First of all, if you are going to quote, me attribute me.

Sorry, friend. Didn't mean to anonymously quote you there. I'm still getting used to the tools in this messaging box lol.

Seriously, there is no way to prove that the world we perceive is the actual world. But everyone except those who are insane acts as if it were absolutely the real world. This is a good example of the value of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation with fewest assumptions is most likely correct. Although we don't see the world in all possible ways (we can't see radio waves, ultraviolet, etc. or see all of the world at once, or even all of it from earth) it introduces unnecessary complication to assume the we world perceive as filtered through are brains is an illusion even if we can speculate that there are parts of it we can't see as demonstrated by what we can additionally perceive through the use of tools.

Now connecting this to the idea of consciousness being seperate of the body; the reason I make these points is because if the case is that the only tools we have to understand the unvierse with are several pounds of meat we call a brain, is it better to think that we can fully understand the universe by these means, or to think that we are more than our brains?

You lost me here. The fact that we can't perceive it all through our senses as interpreted by our brains in no way suggests we are more than our brains. It simply shows that we are limited. We certainly don't understand the universe now. Thinking we are more than our brains won't help in that endeavor. Delusion is never helpful to understanding..

This is in some ways the great atheist/theist divide. I see no reason for assuming that because the universe vast and mysterious, that I and/or a god must be vast and mysterious.

By that question I meant to draw attention to whether it is more delusional to assume that one day mankind will fully know all the secrets the universe holds, or that man will never know in this life?

And as you said before, "Thinking we are more than our brains won't help in that endeavor. Delusion is never helpful to understanding.." But I feel as though both sides are equally delusional in that case. Thinking that we will one day fully understand everything about this life, and thinking we will become more than everything in this life.

I agree, it's the great divide among us. And I can completely understand why you choose not to believe that I and/or god must be vast if the universe is. But on the flip side I also understand why some would believe that was indeed the case too.