Thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. Consciousness or awareness is fundamental, with thoughts secondary. So for thoughts, yes, you need a brain. But for consciousness, the brain structure isn't necessary.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > > wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > complex and assume that it must have been created > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by something more complex. This was Darwins genius > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as he showed it isn't the case where biology is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But not where human consciousness is concerned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a belief. And a strange one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's also just a belief that biology is responsible for human > > > > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Which words did you not understand? > > > > > > > > > > I guess it's just a belief that biology is responsible for my > > > > > heartbeat. > > > > > > > > Non sequitur. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > The heartbeat is a biological thing. > > > > > > And I guess the brain isn't...... > > > > You seem to be losing track of the conversation. The brain > > is biological, like the heartbeat; consciousness may well > > not be. That's why the notion that consciousness is > > biological is just a belief, like the notion that it isnT. > > That's really anything funny you know. > > To give you a clue: Just try thinking that without a brain. > Brains create consciousness, they also create the ability > for brains to create and hold models that entirely contradict > how brains themselves behave. The Greeks thought that brains > were for cooling blood as it went round the body! You can't > rely solely on people to work things out philosophically, > they believe sorts of weird stuff. > > > > > > > You mystical types start from the wrong place. > > > > > > > > I'm not doing mysticism here. There are very significant > > > > thinkers in philosophy and science who are not mystics or > > > > believers in God who make the points I'm making. > > > > > > So? > > > > So it's possible to think evolution doesn't explain > > consciousness without being a mystic, which means you > > can't blame my views on consciousness on my being a > > "mystical type" (if I even am). > > > > > > And where they start from is the fact that the biology of > > > > evolution doesn't account for human consciousness. > > > > > > > > > You claim to understand evolution but have you considered how > > > > > an alternative might fit in? > > > > > > > > An alternative to evolution? Why would that be necessary? Nothing > > > > wrong with evolution as it is. > > > > > > Other than that it can't account for human consciousness? > > > > Nothing wrong with that. It just means we have to look > > elsewhere for an understanding of consciousness. Why > > would we even expect evolution to provide the answers to > > all questions? That it doesn't isn't a flaw in evolution, > > it's a flaw in our expectations. > > > > > PS I know what the "hard" problem is. > > > > I'm sorry to hear that. If you didn't know, there'd be > > some excuse for your inability to contribute anything > > thoughtful to this discussion (not necessarily agreement, > > but at least thoughtful disagreement). You want to "win" > > without having to do any work. > > Win what? > > > You're more than welcome to withdraw from the conversation > > if it doesn't interest you. > > I'm withdrawing because you haven't offered anything new yet. > We just go back to where we start. You won't get anywhere without > evidence that brains aren't capable of creating consciousness and > as every step in brain imaging and understanding gets us closer > to thoughts, how to measure them and where they come from, some > might say the mystics are in for a bit of a disappointment. Which > shouldn't be the case as learning stuff is worth it for its own > sake but a majority still believe in gods and afterlives so it's > going to be tricky to convince them and it's probably the sort > of thing that people will think they can take or leave and it > won't matter, and they'd be right in every practical way. >
