Our Brain, Our Brain on "God"

[POI]

The default position is that a physical brain is necessary to produce "conscious thought". Theists will argue, in addition, an "external source" is also necessary to give us some or all of our "conscious thought". And by 'external source', this could mean a Christian God, another god(s), or maybe even an evil source, or other such as acting as a 'medium' for dead relatives/other.

For debate: Does the material brain need/require an external source, or 'god(s)', to give us any information? I'm leaning towards no-ish. Why?

1) The only time we get information in which we could not have conjured up completely on our own is when we engage other humans/other. Such as, in a classroom, communicating with others at work, etc... However, when one states they are receiving messages from some "invisible/external source", it seems to be information they can manufacture on their own?
2) If a part of our brain becomes damaged, altered, or destroyed, which controls particular function(s), the brain is no longer able to produce/function in the same manor.
3) Brain tumors have been known to change a person's personality and/or impulse behaviors. It is no longer thought to be because of "evil" external sources.

I'll stop here....

[William]

This assumes then that conscious thought is necessary?

Allow me to clarify. If 'consciousness' exists without, or, outside being directly connected to a physical brain, demonstrate it. Can you do that? You may wish to argue some/all of your thoughts are 'given'. Which insinuates/assumes there exists some origin/builder/operator outside the physical brain. But, if we take away your brain, can demonstration still be made for a source to the thoughts for which you argue are not your own, or, are instead by way of self-manifestation alone?

In other words, we know "brain-states" come from brains. Demonstrate the source of these "brain-states" come from elsewhere?

I'm going to stop here because the fundamental question still remains.

Can you demonstrate a builder/operator for the human brain?

The focus of my questions has to do with your claim that brains make "Us" (re all the bolding)...

You claimed that The default position is that a physical brain is necessary to produce "conscious thought".

You further wrote "I'm leaning towards no-ish. Why?

1) The only time we get information in which we could not have conjured up completely on our own is when we engage other humans/other. Such as, in a classroom, communicating with others at work, etc... However, when one states they are receiving messages from some "invisible/external source", it seems to be information they can manufacture on their own?
2) If a part of our brain becomes damaged, altered, or destroyed, which controls particular function(s), the brain is no longer able to produce/function in the same manor.
3) Brain tumors have been known to change a person's personality and/or impulse behaviors. It is no longer thought to be because of "evil" external sources."


I have bolded the words in your sentences which require identifying as to the source of said entities...as generally theists claim that those are made by an immaterial entity (god) while atheists claim they are made by material entities (brains) so the question to be asking is "what are WE talking about when WE mention US and OTHERS?".

General theists argue these are immaterial entities which are experiencing being human while atheists argue these are immaterial entities created by brains.

The first question to answer therefore, is why brains created these immaterial entities and then gave these IE's sentience and then move on to explaining exactly what they/we/us/others are.

Are you arguing that "Conscious thought" is something other than what we are?

[POI]

Are you arguing that "Conscious thought" is something other than what we are?

I'm arguing that we see the 'origin' of all this from the brain, and the brain alone. If you have evidence to suggest "something else" is actually building/operating brain(s), and the brain cannot do it on its own accord, please provide?

[William]

Are you arguing that "Conscious thought" is something other than what we are?

I'm arguing that we see the 'origin' of all this from the brain, and the brain alone. If you have evidence to suggest "something else" is actually building/operating brain(s), and the brain cannot do it on its own accord, please provide?

I am not disagreeing with what is "seen" I am asking you to clarify what it is you understand to being "Conscious thought" and is it something other than what we are?

For example, if you believe that the brain is the sole source of (your particular thinking processes/thoughts), is this to say that you believe your are actually the brain rather that the thoughts you are having as a brain?

[POI]

Are you arguing that "Conscious thought" is something other than what we are?

I'm arguing that we see the 'origin' of all this from the brain, and the brain alone. If you have evidence to suggest "something else" is actually building/operating brain(s), and the brain cannot do it on its own accord, please provide?

I am not disagreeing with what is "seen" I am asking you to clarify what it is you understand to being "Conscious thought" and is it something other than what we are?

If I remove your brain, do I remove "William"? Well, depends.... Physically speaking, I can still burry you and state, "here lies William" on your epitaph. Further, If I were to burry your brain in one place, and the rest of you elsewhere, which one, or both, should I morn?

I don't know William. Is the brain the be-all-end-all, or does some "external agency" drive it? If you think some external agency is out there lurking somewhere, and our brains do not function on their own accord, I'm ready and waiting to hear about it. Otherwise, I'll continue to admire the cricket noises.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #94]

If I remove your brain, do I remove "William"? Well, depends.... Physically speaking, I can still burry you and state, "here lies William" on your epitaph.

Given that you appear to be arguing that POI is a brain, IF I removed the brain identifying as “POI” I can then bury said brain and state “Here lies the brain which identified as “POI”.

I don't know William. Is the brain the be-all-end-all, or does some "external agency" drive it?

This is why I am asking you for clarification POI. Is “POI” the brain itself or an agency the brain invented/created et all.
And if POI is a brain-created agency, in what way would that make the agency “external” to said brain?
Wouldn’t it be more practical (re your stated position) to consider such agency to being internal re the brain?

If you think some external agency is out there lurking somewhere, and our brains do not function on their own accord, I'm ready and waiting to hear about it. Otherwise, I'll continue to admire the cricket noises.

What is under question here POI, is who the “I” is that is “continuing to admire the sound of crickets”?
Is it “the brain” or is it an agency the brain has created? What does your position have to say on that particular question?

[POI]

Is it a) “the brain” or is it b) an agency the brain has created? What does your position have to say on that particular question?

I do not see any distinction between your two given options. Until further notice, "the brain" is the source for all consciousness, which would include 'created agencies'. It up to "William", or "others", to argue for another source, outside 'the brain'.

[William]

What is under question here POI, is who the “I” is that is “continuing to admire the sound of crickets”?
Is it “the brain” or is it an agency the brain has created? What does your position have to say on that particular question?

I do not see any distinction between your two given options. Until further notice, "the brain" is the source for all consciousness, which would include 'created agencies'. It up to "William", or "others", to argue for another source, outside 'the brain'.

So POI is therefore an agency of the brain that created POI.

And therein POI (as the agency created by the brain) is declaring to be the brain that created the agency.

A brain thus created POI and the agency thus declares itself to being the brain which created the agency, rather than being the agency the brain created.

In effect, the agency has declared that it is not really the agency but is really the brain.

However, what is not clear, is why the brain would create the agency for the purpose of having the agency then declare for the brain that the agency is the brain (rather than a product of thought (also agency) and where is the evidence that the agency is speaking truth and telling it as the brain would have it told?

The agency could be declaring false information perhaps designed to give the impression that the agency is actually its own creator, rather than being a creation of thought - rather than of being a created agency.

[POI]

What is under question here POI, is who the “I” is that is “continuing to admire the sound of crickets”?
Is it “the brain” or is it an agency the brain has created? What does your position have to say on that particular question?

I do not see any distinction between your two given options. Until further notice, "the brain" is the source for all consciousness, which would include 'created agencies'. It up to "William", or "others", to argue for another source, outside 'the brain'.

So POI is therefore an agency of the brain that created POI.

And therein POI (as the agency created by the brain) is declaring to be the brain that created the agency.

A brain thus created POI and the agency thus declares itself to being the brain which created the agency, rather than being the agency the brain created.

In effect, the agency has declared that it is not really the agency but is really the brain.

However, what is not clear, is why the brain would create the agency for the purpose of having the agency then declare for the brain that the agency is the brain (rather than a product of thought (also agency) and where is the evidence that the agency is speaking truth and telling it as the brain would have it told?

The agency could be declaring false information perhaps designed to give the impression that the agency is actually its own creator, rather than being a creation of thought - rather than of being a created agency.

Whatever you say William At any given time, the brain performs function(s) in which "my self-aware part" are both aware, and unaware of. All "my aware-parts' know is that all "brain-states" originate from the brain alone, (aware or unaware), until further notice.

To simplify, we have a physical brain. 'Brain-states', of many types, emerge from this physical brain. To assert emergence of any immaterial 'brain-states', which originate from anything other than from a portion of the physical brain itself, requires more. Do you have anything?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #97]

You are of course fiddling the argument by equivocating, to make it look circular.

POI is the being that was named and later Identified as POI. Once it wasn't. It was a baby taking its' first breath. POI in the head and created by the brain is the identity that the brain of POI later came to accept. They are not the same thing and as Gandaf said, "He who fiddles an argument to win has no argument".

[otseng]

Then I guess I lack the basic reading comprehension skills needed to keep up with you, oh wise one.

So, lets try not to jump in to conversations unless we know what we are talking about.

Moderator Final Warning

Please tone it down with the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.