You are.

Guidosoft So what is the direct relationship between a consciousness you claim to be non physical and a physical brain? How can physical affect non physical since the two are contrary to each other?

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.

I can accept that. Well now you’ve changed what you said typed.You said that consciousness was ”used to perceive’, now you are saying that it ”experiences the perception’, which is what I said. So, I wasn’t wrong. The senses do the perceiving, the consciousness analyzes the perceptions. 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 . . Of course. Its blatantly obvious. Calling something ridiculous doesn’t make it not true. Experiences are physical, especially the physical ones like touching something. Why do you think that experience itself is not physical? Please provide a reason other than it is ridiculous so we can continue the discussion. I can accept that concepts are not physical. lol. I find that amusing. Well that clarification could have been provided earlier. But not for everything, not even every physical thing. Some of the movements of particles are called random walks, they are not predictable and you have to use probability to have any useful information about the particle’s movement. There is no “direct mathematical relationship” for where the particle is now and where it will be a second from now.The claim of yours is incorrect: Not everything natural and physical is predictable.

Guidosoft 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. 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.

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.

I guess so, i mean, sure, its possible.

I think the concept needs some constructive criticism.

I did not see your post where you said you are 14. And it's nothing to be ashamed of if your age shows in your writing. Your youthful enthusiasm betrays it, but that is not a bad thing. I just wanted to give you some well-meant advice. Why? Because of my avatar? I don't understand why you find me cheap. But nevermind. If you do some research on me, you'll find out about my gender. (If Robin Rohan doesn't tell you first.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

I guess so, i mean, sure, its possible.

---

OK that is where I dissagree. Physical interactions are merely spatial changes(changes in space) such as movement. I don't see how that can account for consciosuness.

OK, I like to shut this topic and transfer the debate to the fresh new topic I created.

If you tell everybody who criticizes you to shut up, you'll soon be out of debating partners. Is that what you want? If your book gets published, it's because your publisher said so, not you, make no mistake about that. You may be bright, but, as you'll see when you scrutinize those two sentences, even bright people need a spelling checker every now and then. Just keep that in mind. The brain is largely made of carbon and has a lot of electrical activity going on inside. Take away the carbon: gone is consciousness. Take away the electricity: gone is consciousness. To me, that suggests that carbon and electricity do produce consciousness. And since carbon is a bit like silicon, I don't see why, in principle, silicon and electricity couldn't do the same. I think you say that because you cannot imagine how physical interactions produce consciousness. You're in good company, because no one knows precisely how it works. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. The fact that a blow on the head may result in a temporay cessation of conscious activity is strong evidence for a direct connection between physical activity and consciousness, wouldn't you say?Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

he fact that a blow on the head may result in a temporay cessation of conscious activity is strong evidence for a direct connection between physical activity and consciousness, wouldn't you say?

---

Yes, a connection.