/fringe/ - Fringe

The idea that consciousness can be affected by the physical is not equivalent to the idea that consciousness is the physical.
I could affect your face by throwing a custard pie at it, it doesn't mean your face is a custard pie.

>>16061

10/10
Symmetric post number 11/10

Take that mundane

Hey Nietzsche, whats the problem?

I can disprove your notion easily OP by suggesting the brain is a thoughtform and you just damaged that thoughtform and without creating a backup for your consciousness in another thoughtform.

the only consciousness that exists is the fundamental I AM that resides beyond thought. everything else is an illusory trapping of the ego.

>>16154
The Kybalion tells us that to regard this reality as an illusion is only a half-truth you know.

>>16057
No, my consciousness remains the exact same, what changes is the ego which is not me.

>>16165

sure, because we're trapped in the illusion, and if someone starts cutting up our brains, it's going to fuck us up. But ultimately it doesn't matter.

>>16182
Think of your brain as a TV antenna and your mind/soul as the signal. If you fuck with your antenna, you affect the picture quality.

Does that analogy make sense to you?

>>16182
Check out the Tibetan Llama

>>16182
pls be more mad. your loosh fills me with life-energy you weren't putting to good use.

your futile keyboard clacking here will echo throughout eternity, nourishing the cyberwizards forever.

Your first mistake is trying to use material means to prove something material. Consciousness is immaterial in the same way an operating system in memory is immaterial.

Just because you can alter the medium it's stored on and destroy a fragment of it to change its function does not make the consciousness a material phenomenon. Though the expression in the physical may be altered, the nature of it is unchanged.

You may destroy the order of a thing, in the same way a ceramic mug can be destroyed, thus shattering its "mugness," its virtue beyond the material, but it can be put back together. Materially it may be altered but its mugness may be remembered and recovered.

On that topic, there is the Ship of Theseus - If a ship is repaired so much over time to the point where there may not be any material parts remaining from the original ship, is it still the same ship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

If your body sheds all of its original cells and physical materials every 8 years or so, are you still the same person?

The most well-known teaching of Hermeticism posits "As above, so below; As below, so above." Destroying part of the brain only alters the physical and hinders the expression of the physical. Higher orders may largely be unaffected, much like how information (the matter destroyed) can actually be retrieved from a black hole.

You (or anyone else interested) may want to read "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, it explains how all of this is possible.

http://scilib.narod.ru/Physics/Talbot/

>>16266
>falling for a false dichotomy

There is clearly SOMETHING here. What is the illusion based on? No man. The relative is NOT an illusion. There is the absolute and the relative but it is folly to regard them as mere illusion. It is but half illusion.

"Matter is none the less Matter to us, while we dwell on the plane of Matter, although we know it to be merely an aggregation of "electrons," or particles of Force, vibrating rapidly and gyrating around each other in the formations of atoms; the atoms in turn vibrating and gyrating, forming molecules, which latter in turn form larger masses of Matter. Nor does Matter become less Matter, when we follow the inquiry still further, and learn from the Hermetic Teachings, that the "Force" of which the electrons are but units is merely a manifestation of the Mind of TILE ALL, and like all else in the Universe is purely Mental in its nature. While on the Plane of Matter, we must recognize its phenomena — we may control Matter (as all Masters of higher or lesser degree do), but we do so by applying the higher forces. We commit a folly when we attempt to deny the existence of Matter in the relative aspect. We may deny its mastery over us — and rightly so — but we should not attempt to ignore it in its relative aspect, at least so long as we dwell upon its plane."

"The half-wise, recognizing the comparative unreality of the Universe, imagine that they may defy its Laws — such are vain and presumptuous fools, and they are broken against the rocks and torn asunder by the elements by reason of their folly. The truly wise, knowing the nature of the Universe, use Law against laws; the higher against the lower; and by the Art of Alchemy transmute that which is undesirable into that which is worthy, and thus triumph. Mastery consists not in abnormal dreams, visions and fantastic imaginings or living, but in using the higher forces against the lower — escaping the pains of the lower planes by vibrating on the higher. Transmutation, not presumptuous denial, is the weapon of the Master." — The Kybalion.

>>16182
The brain generates the consciousness? No anon. You are wrong. The universal mind does that. We are the children of the mental universe. …and the brain is but a thought in the mind of God.

>>16305
How about YOU prove that consciousness is a direct product of the brain?

I think property dualism is the best approach to this stuff. Property dualism is a response to cartesian dualism (the position that mind and body are separate entities mind being non-material and not requiring the body to exist following descartes doubt and indubitability argument). Property dualism is the approach that mind is a non-physical property of matter rather than a separate substance to matter entirely.

Irreducibility of consciousness, qualia and intentionality are good arguments for a non physical mind. Cartesian dualism is kinda weak by comparison but those arguments still undermine materialism/physicalism.

>>16308
>>16308
When you cut up the brain, your consciousness changes. It is the same with any other animal. By occam's razor the brain generates the consciousness.

>>16308
When you cut up the brain, your consciousness changes. It is the same with any other animal. By occam's razor the brain generates the consciousness.

>>16447
>>16448
No, that's already been proven as false in another post, try something new

see Hard problem of consciousness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Consciousness is a hard problem in that it contains qualia. Science has never explained qualia and cannot explain qualia.

There have been scientific attempts to explain subjective aspects of consciousness, which is related to the binding problem in neuroscience. Many eminent theorists, including Francis Crick and Roger Penrose, have worked in this field. Nevertheless, even as sophisticated accounts are given, it is unclear if such theories address the hard problem.

>>16454
My favorite philosophical exercise against a purely physical component is to ask.

If consciousness was purely physical. What purpose does experience serve at all. There is no experience required for the laws of physics to hold. So if the brain operated on purely the principles of laws and physics the individual experience seems to be a wholly superfluous and unnecessary feature. In that we should just be non perceptive zombies. This suggests tat there is a hidden component separated form physics that either underlines or interacts with the conscious manifestation.

>>16519
As we would say in dank maymay terms,
#rekt

The problem with your Occam's Razor >>16447 is that it is a means of ending discussion to *feel* right, a typical fedora tactic.

as >>16519 suggests with their television equivalency of your argument, your occam's razor rhetorical device ends further scientific investigation, the opposite of enlightenment and consciousness.

what if there's really a television station making the signal? Can we really be sure the TV is the signal source without being retarded and overlooking anything else?

I suppose we should ask you again >>16447, why do you *hate* science?

Why aren't you open to science and reason like us here at /fringe/?

>>16305
The antenna model explains more natual phenomena.

Near death experiences
Memories of past lives
Ghosts

Thus Occam's Razor favors it.

>>16660
You said what I was thinking. I would like to add to your list OBE's, people who have had personality changes after transplant surgery, and people who after suffering head trauma have woken up speaking foreign languages.

Occam's razor is a decent rule of thumb, but not if you deliberately ignore cases that don't fit your theory.

>>16061
That doesn't prove anything.

Consciousness and mental is physical. Our brains are simply computers reacting to their environments. I'd go as far to say that there is no free will.

>>16669
>That doesn't prove anything.
>Consciousness and mental is physical.

Why do you hate science so much?


>there is no free will.

You're speaking only for yourself.

>>16057
This doesn't even make sense. Consciousness is "you." It's subjective, individual existence bearing witness to thoughts and perceived phenomena. What changes in the case of physically altering the brain is the senses, perceptions, cognition, etc., but not the "you." Is a blind or deaf person any less aware of "I am"?
This is why fedoras are mocked.

>>16666
Quads of truth.

The living entity is transcendent to both the mind and the body. The idea that the universe is mental is not based in any authentic spiritual tradition.

>>16695
When religions talk about infinity , they are really talking about imagination ( only infinite thing)

So how does the physical and non-physical interact? And what's the hierarchy here? This seems a lot like the soul debate.

>>16695
What the heck are you even suggesting? Oceanic shamanism or what? You are discarding idealism and pretty much every spiritual tradition ever by rejecting the principle of mentalism.

>>16702
There is no physical world it's all mental.

>>16706
There's no physical "you," either?

>>16666
Quads of righteousness.

May all the unbelievers be humbled.