tommi atkins

The lack of brain tissue and synapses makes several heaven and hell properties redundant in literalism.
The shirts made of pitch, the flowing waters, the wines, the cool grass of paradise.All a bit pointless if heaven is a alter conciousness of teh soul.

Muslims get round this by having non-biodegradable bodies aged 33 years old after the day of judgement with which to get drunk with. Christianity AFAIK is a bit more woolly.We have the example of Lazerus, Jesus and all the Zombie Prophets that rose up on Crucifixion day, to show that we have physical bodies after death.But it's not entered the jurisprudence of the christian church that in happy land we get heavenly bodies.

Og

I disagree. I think its clear that it can. In fact, I'm currently involved in the crest of the research wave illustrating just this reality.

Consciousness is a property of the brain. It is entirely sensory in nature (i.e. bound to your physical neural senses) and it is based on computation (thought/understanding/awareness) and memory (storage of previous events for later correlation). There is no element of consciousness that we do not understand. It is the product of 100 billion neurons each averaging 1000 connections to other neurons in the brain. That is a massively complex network that forms a computer with highly complex capacities. You can look at the spectrum of life on earth to find all manner of complex organisms with the spectrum of intelligence from us to the round worm with 302 neurons (c. elegans).

While science never claims anything w/ 100% certainty, there is every reason to believe that consciousness is entirely a phenomena of the physical brain.

The properties of neurons are exactly what would be required to create what we perceive as consciousness. Illusions and the results of brain lesions and trauma illustrate the physical nature of consciousness in the brain. etc.

The notion of consciousness as some "force" in the universe like gravity is not based on any objective observation.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

marmalade

You may be right that the brain is where its at. If science proves, within reasonable doubt, that to be the case, then I'll accept it. But I imagine that we might be a few decades away from science being able to declare anything with clear certainty.

However, science may prove that consciousness is intimately related to the brain. I don't think any one is arguing against this. But I can't see how science will ever prove that consciousness is limited to the brain... at least not prove to anyone accept materialists who already believed that in the first place.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe time will tell, or maybe it won't.

I'm one of those crazy people who are as much or more in love with the questions than with any particular answer.

That is part of my point. Ultimately, no one can objectively say anything with much certainty about the origins of consciousness. Science can say something about how the brain functions and how this correlates to conscious experience, but this is a different matter. When we speak about the fundamental and ultimately philosophical(or even theological, not scientific anyways) issues of consciousness, we're limited to subjective statements.

Besides, I see no reason to assume that objectivity is anything other than collective conclusions of subjectivity mixed with socio-cultural paradigms. Even scientists are limited to their subjectivity to make their observations. Their observations only become (semi-)objective when other scientists make similar subjective observations.

You can't escape subjectivity. Subjectivity and objectivity are a false dichotomy of the mind as far as I can tell.

marmalade

I've got a new query about literalism.

What is the relationship between literalism and extremism?

The problem is that these terms are relative.

No one exists(except in mental institutes) who is absolutely literal about everything. Christians are selectively literal. Maybe the central problem is not that they're literal, but that they don't distinguish between being literal and not... or else that they don't give any reasons for their choices of literalism. So, maybe the problem is that their literalism is mostly unconscious because they simply accept certain things and feel they shouldn't be questioned. Beyond this, there are some literalists who are willing to entertain the questions to give an appearance of open-mindedness(to themselves and others), but who aren't willing to entertain a full study of the possible answers.

Extremism also comes in many forms. I've often thought the only thing that differentiates Christian fundamentalists in the US and Muslim Terrorists in the Middle East is that US fundamentalists live easy comfortable lives as citizens of the most powerful country in the world. As Americans, they have a lot to lose by acting too directly according to their beliefs. The Middle Eastern fundamentalists, in many cases, already live horrible lives in poverty under oppressive governments... and so, from their perspective, they have little to lose and a lot to gain.

But not all fundamentalists are extremists. People are a mixed bag. The other thing is that US fundamentalists grew up with the ideals of democracy and personal freedom. They may argue against liberals, but relatively speaking US fundamentalists are fairly liberal people. Democracy is a powerful meme and not easily discarded by someone raised with it as an ideal... possibly and hopefully more powerful than fundamentalism in the long run.

When speaking about literalism with Christians, I'm usually speaking with people who are Westerneres and so raised with the ideal of democracy. These Christians don't understand the dangers of literalism because they don't understand how much democracy keeps literlism in check. I doubt that many US fundamentalists would be happy if they actually got the world they think they want.

That is all preamble to the original query. So, what is the relationship?

Literalism(in its extreme form) includes black/white thinking:either/or, right/wrong, righteousness, absolutism, closed-mindedness, etc.

Does literalism cause or in some way lead to extremism? Does extreme thinking cause extreme actions? The answer seems an obvious yes to me.

But extreme behavior especially in a social situation reinforces and encourages extreme thinking to rationalize it? Gangs and cults do this kind of thing. You get someone to do something for the group that goes against normal societal morals such as killing an innocent. The person identifies more strongly with the gang/cult because now they feel like an outsider to the culture whose morals they just broke. The extreme behavior creates cognitive dissonance that necessitates extreme thinking to appease it(rationalize and repress it).

So, literalism can cause extremism and extremism can cause literalism. What are the external factors that lead to this whole state of affairs in the first place.

Fundamentalists and terrorists always emphasize the importance of the group. Maybe more fundamental is this group-mindedness. Most literalists I know are part of literalist churches. Whereas, many non-literalists I know don't belong to religious organizations or often to any organizations at all. Liberals are very individual-oriented, and thus idealize freedom of individual thought. Ultimately, literalism is most often about a group of people demanding that those in the group all think the same way... and if they become powerful enough, that everyone they have power over think as they do.

Does all of this make sense to you?

Any other theories?

Og

But some evidence that answers old questions opens up even cooler questions to ask.

At any rate, I think that science has demonstrated a huge amount of evidence for consciousness being purely the behavior of a physical system (the brain) and that it is not some "thing out there." Consciousness is the behavior of the brain, not some thing behaving in parallel with the brain. Particularly as modern computers have gotten more and more complex and algorithm development has become more of a science (i.e. the last 30 years), we are beginning to understand and describe EXACTLY the processes in the brain that we call consciousness.

What makes you think that science isn't there? Why do you say "decades?"


You don't think that experimental controls remove subjectivity in order to create an objective measurement? What about the concept of a baseline to which measurements can be related? How does subjectivity come into the raw scientific process? I thought things like controls, independant observations, peer review, and descriptions of procedures and methods in journals removed subjectivity. In scientific reports, observations are described as well as the environment and methods used to conduct them.

It seems that this process is immune to subjectivity in my opinion. The conduct of science (i.e. what is studied and how it is approached) could be subjective, for sure, but the products are not. Once you decide what question to ask, the answer is objective.

So when you ask about consciousness, there can be an objective answer.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

marmalade

As I'm not a researcher or into reading journals about scientific research, I can't say much about what is going on at the leading edge of brain science. I plead ignorance.

However, if science is already there, I'd like to read about it to see what conclusions scientists are coming to... including the more tentative theories.

This might be one of those times where its best to agree to disagree. I could try to argue why I believe consciousness/subjectivity is more complex than you're portraying it, but I doubt I'd persuade you. You seem strong in your position and you believe evidence backs you, but I don't have as much confidence in scientific objectivity as you do.

If we discussed this, then we'd be arguing about different issues. I'd be arguing philosophy and you'd be arguing science. They're not separate, but talking about where science and consciousness meet is a complex topic.

I might be willing to attempt having such a discussion. The problem is that philosophy most likely has more to say about science than science has to say about philosophy. Science doesn't care about most philosophical ideas because philosophy doesn't limit itself to what is falsifiable through scientific means.

Despite some obvious differences, my having a discussion with you about this is similar as my having a discussion with an open-minded theist about atheism(I'm sure you don't like that comparison and I'm sorry if I offended). You believe in materialism and you believe you have good reasons to back your position... you're unlikely to ever change your position no matter what I say. I'm as much a doubter of materialism as I am of theism. I'm an agnostic's agnostic.

You speak of what is objectively true. Whereas, I prefer to speak in terms of possibility... truth(scientifically and spiritually) being an eternally relative term in my mind. If I believe in anything its in possibility... even those that defy present mainstream understandings and assumptions. Even though I do consider probability of those possibilities, I don't like to discount possibilities unless they strongly contradict my experience or seem bizarrely ludicrous.

Or this is my position on topics I consider less than clear or which don't necessitate a direct conclusion on my part for practical purposes. Consciousness doesn't seem a clear topic to me, and claiming a clear conclusion about it doesn't help me in any practical way. Maybe if I was a brain surgeon, I'd think differently about it... or maybe not.

If you know anything about typology, then just put all this into context of my being an INFP. This might explain everything. I'm a dreamer and idealist... not a scientist. Its just the way I am. Nonetheless, I'm a dreamer and idealist who likes to discuss complex abstract ideas.

Anyways, the more certain someone else proclaims something, then the more doubt and questioning I proclaim. Its a contrarian streak in me. I'm allergic to certainty. When someone else seems overly certain, I start wondering why they feel that way. I start psychologically analyzing their motivations.

In this sense, I question why is it so important to you to discount the possibility of consciousness being something more than an epiphenomenon of the brain? Discounting this possibility isn't necessary to do good scientific research. Discounting this possibility isn't necessary to being rational. What advantage do you gain by discounting it? One less question to clutter your brain with possible doubts?

marmalade

Here is something a fellow INFP said on the INFP forum. This is representative how many INFPs think. Elfee is a manifestation of Extraverted Intuitiona(Ne) on overdrive. Ne is the Jungian function that INFPs relate to the world with.

http://infp.globalchatter.com/messag...=109379#109379

I'm pretty darn sure you're not an INFP. So, pardon me for my INFP nature. I want to keep questions about consciousness open because it deeply satisfies me to do so, it makes me happy... or as happy as a depressive one as I am capable of.

marmalade

marmalade

Here is the kind of literal translation I prefer.

http://www.mbticentral.com/forums/ph...rpreted-3.html

romansh

Hi Marmalade

you seem to be in a feisty mood this evening? ...

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams