Thread: CS Lewis

You don't have a body. You are a body. You don't have a soul.

So khh, you're saying we're all just a lump of atoms eh? So's a doorknob. Never knew it was alive.

C.S Lewis was a genius, especially how he was able to word things.

Originally Posted by Noogah

So khh, you're saying we're all just a lump of atoms eh? So's a doorknob. Never knew it was alive.

Yes, I'm saying we're all just a lump of atoms. Yes, so is a doorknob. So?

Originally Posted by Noogah

C.S Lewis was a genius, especially how he was able to word things.

I wouldn't call him a genius, no more so than any other good writer. But I have enjoyed some of his works.

What sets us aside from a doorknob? Afterall, we're both just a lump of atoms.

He was also a great theologian who had an excellent grasp on the spiritual, and physical realm. Of course, it all depends on how you define a genius.

A doorknob isn't conscious... not having atoms structured into a neural network is a slight disadvantage on the way to self awareness.

What difference does it make? Networks, or no networks. It's all just a thrown together blob of atoms. Even if they are intricately designed, what's the difference? One is complex, the other isn't? Is that really the only thing that sets you aside from a doorknob?

Originally Posted by Noogah

What difference does it make? Networks, or no networks. It's all just a thrown together blob of atoms. Even if they are intricately designed, what's the difference? One is complex, the other isn't? Is that really the only thing that sets you aside from a doorknob?

That complexity appears to be the thing allowing me to think, so, yeah, the organized network of cells is a pretty big difference.

What difference does it make? Networks, or no networks. It's all just a thrown together blob of atoms. Even if they are intricately designed, what's the difference? One is complex, the other isn't? Is that really the only thing that sets you aside from a doorknob?

Would there be anything particular wrong with this? It is the reason why we're humans and a doorknob is a doorknob after all.

Originally Posted by Noogah

What difference does it make? Networks, or no networks. It's all just a thrown together blob of atoms. Even if they are intricately designed, what's the difference? One is complex, the other isn't? Is that really the only thing that sets you aside from a doorknob?

Can there be any other difference when you compare material objects to other material objects? What matter it's made of and how it's structured... I don't understand what your problem is here?

So khh, you're saying we're all just a lump of atoms eh? So's a doorknob. Never knew it was alive.

Do you not understand basic logic?

Water is wet. Water is made of atoms. So's a doorknob. Never knew doorknobs are wet.

There is physical evidence that the brain is equivalent to the mind. For example, it has been shown that when you see pictures of certain celebrities, a certain neuron in your head always fires, but when you don't, the neuron doesn't fire. Also there's plenty of evidence that your brain activity is spatially localised, and also that drugs affect your mind via changing the activities of your neurons.

And when it comes to CS Lewis as a theologian, the only genius was the ability to manipulate words to make the idiotic sound intelligent. Which I guess is a kind of genius when you think about it.

Good writer though.

Originally Posted by Noogah

What difference does it make? Networks, or no networks. It's all just a thrown together blob of atoms. Even if they are intricately designed, what's the difference? One is complex, the other isn't? Is that really the only thing that sets you aside from a doorknob?

Yes. Although I know you'd never accept such a thing.

Originally Posted by Xei

There is physical evidence that the brain is equivalent to the mind.

Yes, Physicalists currently have a strong argument, particularly in the field of Philosophy of Mind. It's become easier now than ever to support the idea that the mind is equivalent to the brain.

One really convenient method that can justify this idea is a kind of scientific deconstruction of the brain and how we study it: Our brain biology is basically a grouping of components (cerebellum, etc.) identified through physiological means. Since the physiology of the human brain concerns the activities and functions it undergoes and possesses, the brain can better be understood at the chemical level--through chemistry. The chemical study of the brain has ultimately led us to discover the systematic motion of the particles that make up the brain (neurons, etc), which can be studied via physics.

This is a really, really simplified example of this logic, but the gist of it works well for explaining practically any human characteristic or quality that exists. Pain, for example, is a sensation that occurs as a result of our nerve endings receiving sensory input and signaling it through the body in order to relay it to the brain. As a result the brain undergoes activity (neurons firing, etc), and leads individuals to feel what we call, "pain."

HOWEVER, how we experience pain is definitely not consistent: someone who views pain as an opportunity for spiritual growth will not experience the pain in the same manner as someone who believes pain is caused by a negative force that is out to make him/her suffer. The feeling of pain is initially identical amongst human beings because we function the same, biologically. The experience of feeling pain is not because of consciousness.

Our awareness causes a problem for Physicalists because they cannot explain it. Since consciousness is commonly agreed as a huge component of what we call the mind, the Physicalists don't have a sound argument.

. . . Also, if it is true that the mind is the brain, than the field of psychology becomes obsolete; it should be neurobiology.

As you say; the mind can be explained by physicalism, but the experience of mind (awareness, consciousness) cannot.

However, the experience of mind certainly can't be explained by dualism either. In fact dualism generates either bigger problems, because you have to explain how non-physical consciousness can interact with physical consciousness, and vice versa.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

. . . Also, if it is true that the mind is the brain, than the field of psychology becomes obsolete; it should be neurobiology.

By that logic, every other field is obsolete and we should only have physics.

Also, not being able to explain something doesn't mean the answer is magic, to suggest otherwise would be a fallacy.

. . . Also, if it is true that the mind is the brain, than the field of psychology becomes obsolete; it should be neurobiology.

Not really, that's like saying "if everything is governed by physical laws then Chemistry becomes obsolete; it should be simply Physics". Whilst that's true in a sense, even if we could reduce the subject down completely it's still needlessly complicated to do so.

Psychology deals with behaviour at a higher level. Neurobiology attempts to explain the biological and chemical basis for these behaviours. It's all part of the same overall subject, just at a different level of detail and abstraction.

What sets us apart from a doorknob is that we're a dynamic network of atoms that constantly change structure and position to make us who we are. There is no such thing as a soul.

If psychology is the study of the mind, but the mind turns out to be the brain, then shouldn't psychology be neurobiology? (Neurobiology isn't physics.)

And, yes, dualism does have problems. Like you said, where would the link between something non-physical and physical be? Better yet, where in the world is the non-physical consciousness?

What sets us apart from a doorknob is that we're a dynamic network of atoms that constantly change structure and position to make us who we are. There is no such thing as a soul.

Quantum activity, cellular activity, etc. doesn't lead to a "someone." In this case, it just leads to a human. There is no room for the human to have identity; it makes no sense to experience self. But we do, right?

Why we experience sentience is something as of yet poorly understood. Believing in things like a soul to fill this gap of knowlege is like believing in God where it suits your scientific absences.

If we build a sophisticated conjunction of hardware and software that is self-aware ala HAL 9000, does that mean the machine has a soul? How about people in persistent vegetative states who aren't even conscious?

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.

That is a good way to put it.

Or.


You are consciousness experiencing being human, not a human experiencing consciousness.

You are consciousness experiencing being human, not a human experiencing consciousness.


You are consciousness experiencing being human, not a human experiencing consciousness.

You are consciousness experiencing being human, not a human experiencing consciousness.


You are consciousness experiencing being human, not a human experiencing consciousness.


You are consciousness experiencing being human, not a human experiencing consciousness.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Yes. Although I know you'd never accept such a thing.

No, I'm afraid that I would not.

LOGIC says that we are both the same. A doorknob is a lump of matter, a human body is a lump of matter. No matter how "complex" (and who's to say what is complex and what is not?) one is, it is not capable of becoming conscious.

When do you draw the boundary between human body and doorknob? When does one cease to be dead, and become alive?

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, I'm afraid that I would not.

LOGIC says that we are both the same. A doorknob is a lump of matter, a human body is a lump of matter. No matter how "complex" (and who's to say what is complex and what is not?) one is, it is not capable of becoming conscious.

As Xei said: Water is wet. Water is made of atoms. So is a doorknob. Never knew doorknobs are wet.

How is this logic?

We know one is capable of becoming conscious. If you haven't noticed, it has a strict definition which we can obviously detect.

Originally Posted by Noogah

When do you draw the boundary between human body and doorknob? When does one cease to be dead, and become alive?

Don't you understand that the thing we call life is a complex set of interactions between matter?

And before you say what's complex... in this case a large number of various chemical reactions and interactions.

For God's sake, I already pointed out the glaring fallacy in

"Thing X is A and thing Y is A therefore if thing Y is B then thing X is B".

My soul is non-physical, poetry is non-physical, poetry can't be conscious, therefore my soul can't be conscious.

It doesn't logically work and it takes the intellect of a ten year old to see that it doesn't work.

^

huh... you two beat me to it <_<