You are.

I win.

Well point them out and I'll reply to them.

Guido exists in the physical world and is a conscious being. Wheather you believe I exist or not does not change that fact. However, language only exists in the human mind.Hold on, I will post further replies to your other statements and the statements of others later. My attention is not in this thread at the current moment.

This topic has spiralled out of my control. I could not bear to manage it any further. This is why I began to respond to posts the way I did towards the end of the debate. I was preoccupied and overcome by lassitude with the topic and thus I could not respond appropriatly. So I may have responded in manners that made little to no sense.I think a fresh continuation is in order. It was just that the majority (you) was heavily armed against the minority (me). I had no alliance an thus I could not battle the opponet coallition.

Why is this on top?Edited by Guidosoft, : What the?

quote:

---

Guidosoft

​

Please tell me where they become conscious?

​

That is a very good question Guidiosoft, but it is unlikely to be a question that is resolved directly. If we assume the position that consciousness is the activity of the brain it is reasonable to think that we should be able to alter the structure of the conscious state by altering the state of the brain.

​

Have you ever been knocked unconscious? If so how do we explain this as a phenomena of the actions of particles. Is it possible that the interaction of the mass that knoocked you unconscious with the mass of your brain was accomplished through through the electromagnetic force? If not, how else do we explain the lack of a consciousness after a sufficient impact to the head?

​

However, if we assume this to be the case then we can expect that the conscious state can be altered by a variety of means employing the electromagnetic force. Since we are aware that chemical properties are the result of the EM force then it stands to reason that there are chemicals that can do such things. In fact if you have ever had surgery and been under general anesthesia you would be well aware of the effects of the chemical injections.

​

I am sure you have heard of the capital punishment method of lethal injection in which chemicals are introduced into the blood stream and produce not only unconsciousness but also cause the cessation of heartbeat and subsequent death from this.

​

There is also the loss of consciousness as a result of a low oxygen enviroment. Why should such a situation result in the loss of consciousness unless the oxygen somehow interacted with the brain tissue in such a way that the lack of it does something to the brain tissues? Of course the means by which oxygen provides the cells of the body with this necessisty of life is well known and is interesting to explore.

​

This does not of course explain how consciousness arises in brain tissue but it does place limits on what we can expect the reason to be.

---

The brain has access to the consciousness. When something affects the brain, its access to the consciousness through physical means is affected. This is why physical activity in the brain affects consciousness. It does not produce it. It is not responsible for it. It is merely affecting it.I would really appreciate it if we could continue this in a fresh new topic.

quote:

---

For example, someone brough up a chair earlier. The chair is made up of atoms and atoms are mostly empty space. So how can the chair be solid if its made up of mostly empty space? This seems to be how your looking at consciousness in the brain and you just can't look that close, there is more involved.

---

The chair is solid because of the electromagnetic force. Its that simple. It is indeed made up of mostly empty space therefore objects that can fit in that space will be given the perception that it is not solid, but objects that cannot fit in those spaces will be given the perception that it is solid. Everything that happens in the physical world is naturally explainable by physical interactions. Consciousness is not something which happens in the physical world though it is what is used to percieve the physical world. It is probably difficult for you to imagine that consciousness is not within the physical world because with your consciosuness you are experiencing the physical world. But consciousness is not physical. It is spiritual. Neither is free will physical but spiritual for if free will were physical it would be mathematically predictable and would therefore cease to be free will.

quote:

---

Honestly, Guido, if you think about that again, do you stand by it? Do you think it is a reasonable statement?

​

I don't know how young you are, Guido, but you come over as an eager fourteen-year-old with a voracious appetite for knowledge. That's good. But every now and then, you should stop and think about what you've learned. Try to get some perspective, try to put the pieces of the puzzle together. And never, ever, assume you know it all. What you and I know is nothing compared to what we don't know. Realizing that makes what we do know worth a lot more.

---

You knew I was 14 because I stated it awhile ago and you saw it. You mam, are a cheep illuisionist. I say mam because your avatar suggest that you are female, however I am uncertain so correct me if I am wrong.

quote:

---

So how do you explain that if I take a big stick and whack you upside the head I can render you unconscious?

---

Simple, the state of the brain affects the state of the consciousness because there is a direct relationship between the two. However the consciousness is not a direct result of the brain.

quote:

---

I disagree. What about dark matter? Also, I’d consider consciousness to be a thing that happens in the natural world that is not naturally explainable by physical interactions. But, then again, you said .

​

Consciousness is not something which happens in the physical world...

---

If dark matter is physical than it is explainable by physical interactions. If it is not than it can't be explained by physical interactions. So my statement still stand with the following modificataion:Anything that happens naturally in the physical world is the result of physical interactions.

quote:

---

This is incorrect. Perception is carried out by the senses (seeing, hearing, etc.). Consciousness is applied to your perceptions, it analyzes the data that is collected while perceiving but it doesn’t actually do any of the perceiving.

---

You are wrong. The senses merely recieve information. The consciousness experiences the perception.Consciousness is the actual experiencing of things. We are supposed to be debating with this premise. Consciousness and awareness are two different things. Unless you are a robot, you should be able to grasp my concept of consciousness. Otherwise I will have to assume that I am the only real I and you are all here for my pleasure. That would be quite upsetting.

quote:

---

I disagree. Why do you think that consciousness doesn’t happen in the physical world?

---

When you touch something, you feel it. Do you think that the experiencing of that sensation is a physical thing? I sure don't. You might be able to say that (which I disagree with) the experience is caused by physical interactions in the brain, which I believe to be partly true, but it is redicuous to say that experience itself it physical. Concepts are not physical. Concepts are not even stored physically. Representations of concepts are stored physically. Concepts are concious ideas, which are not physical either but are stored in representation physically. So concepts I don't believe are physical.This is all very difficult to explain.

quote:

---

I disagree. We can’t even predict the weather. Being physical doesn’t make something predictable

---

Your thinking is clearly flawed, not mine. I said that it was predictable. I never said humans could predict it. There is a difference. What I meant was, there is a direct mathematical relationship between the now, and a seccond from now. Everything natural and physical follows a logical protocol. Therefore they are predictable.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Maybe you should reconsider, because I'm not sure that that's where your talents are.

---

Maybe you should shutup. I'll do as I please. If I choose to write, I will write. It will be my decision. If I want to write a book, I will, and it will be published, because I said so. I know that I atleast write good enough for my English teacher to say that I am much brighter than the other students in the school, though teachers ussually complement too much. Wheather or not I am good enough to be published will be decided when the day comes.

quote:

---

How about carbon and electricity? What if I said "carbon and electricity will never produce consciousness", would that make sense to you? Obviously carbon and electricity do produce consciousness. So maybe it's interesting to find out what fundamental barrier exists that keeps silicon from producing consciousness. Is there really such a barrier?

---

It makes perfect sense to me that carbon and electricity can't produce consciousness. They can produce simulated thought but not the experiencing or thoughts, perceptions, or sensations. Carbon and electricity obviosully don't produce conciousness. Electronic Enceplograms aren't proof of a cause. They are merely proof of a relationship.It is not that there is a barrier. There is no barrier between two seperate spacial fabrics, yet I cannot jump from this spatial fabric to the other. I am not saying that there is a barrier between consciousness and physical interactions, I am just saying that physical interactions are incapable of producing consciousness.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.

When I say that it affects, I mean that the consciousness responds in accordance with the brain. There is no actual interaction. It is merely just co-operating with the brain.Even if they did interact it would not be a problem. A non-physical thing can remain non-physical while interacting with the brain, just as a human can interact with a computer program without having to be another computer program.Edited by Guidosoft, : No reason given.

Is not a feeling like a concept. I am talking about the experience. When you touch something, that is physical. When the signal goes from your hand to your brain, that is physical. When your brain processes it, that is physical. I see nothing physical about the experience itself.Now, you accepted the fact that concepts are not physical. Are you telling me that physical things can be responsible for non-physical things?

quote:

---

If there is no interaction then how can the consciousness be said to respond in accordance with the brain? If the brain does something and the consciousness responds what is the activity of the brain that induces the response? To co-operate implies an interaction which you deny in the first place.This also does not answer what happens to the consciousness when the brain recieves an impact as I described.

---

Why does cooperation require interaction? Particles can respond to each other miles away without interaction and this has been proven.

quote:

---

This cnnot be a proper ananlogy since a human and a computer program are both physical entities as they are both dependant upon physical interaction in order to affect their world.

---

How did I know that you were going to say that? I I I.You can't put the anology in the same reality as the literal. That defeats the purpose of the anology.Look, the soul is not physical. Therefore, physical interaction is not required for the soul to act. Think of this:
You look at a dude, and you copy everything he does. He is not interacting with you, you are merely responding to him. That is what the soul does with our brain.

quote:

---

Well that’s insulting. Maybe it is not my ability to grasp, but your ability to explain, that is the problem. I’m not grasping your concept of consciousness and I’m not a robot . .

---

If only someone could assuage the task of conveying such abstract concepts through the english language.