Human Dignity?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, don't believe me go back to what Sam Harris said. Not to say that science won't in the future.

Your still 'arguing from ignorance' and Sam Harris does not really help you. He leaves the question open as to the nature of consciousness and the relationship to the brain, but still physical, and he does not have the answer, and appealing to him as an authority is again an 'argument from ignorance.' I do not think Chalmers and Sam Harris necessarily represent the view of the scientific community as a whole, as in this reference. There is no 'objective verifiable evidence that there is any 'other' source of the mind and consciousness than the human brain.

I have always acknowledged that there are unknowns in the relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness, but that is the nature of all sciences, and does not justify and definitive conclusions beyond simply the present knowledge of these relationships.

Brain, Mind and Consciousness: Advances in Neuroscience Research, (2011) Pter Bob

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behavior generally asserts that brain mechanisms ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain consists entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements.

Good so you are a dualist!

Not an issue in this thread.

It is emergent from the physical brain - that is the only kind of emergent dualism there is.

I am not sure that all philosophers and/or theologians consider the mind as emergent from the physical brain the only kind of emergence. Need to review some sources,

I believe that distinguishing the separation of the mind from consciousness is problematic
Do you consider consciousness emergent from the brain.?

That is just stupid Shuny, of course a reflection in a mirror is physical, made of photons/light, and photons can be investigate. What is the mind made up of?

Remove the light and the image is gone and does not exist. No the image is not made up of photons/light. The light that makes the image is photons/light.

[seer]

That is the one you hold to since you cannot even start to answer very simple questions making the case it is more than subjectivity. But I better leave....

Charles, I have no problem if you invent dignity for yourself. And I thought you were leaving.

[seer]

I have always acknowledged that there are unknowns in the relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness, but that is the nature of all sciences, and does not justify and definitive conclusions beyond simply the present knowledge of these relationships.

And I never said that science could not possibly explain consciousness, but it hasn't to this point.

Brain, Mind and Consciousness: Advances in Neuroscience Research, (2011) Pter Bob

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behavior generally asserts that brain mechanisms ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain consists entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements.

Right - assumptions.

Not an issue in this thread.

It is since you jumped on me for not having objective evidence - so you are a hypocrite.

I am not sure that all philosophers and/or theologians consider the mind as emergent from the physical brain the only kind of emergence. Need to review some sources,

I believe that distinguishing the separation of the mind from consciousness is problematic
Do you consider consciousness emergent from the brain.?

Yes.

Remove the light and the image is gone and does not exist. No the image is not made up of photons/light. The light that makes the image is photons/light.

Does your religion teach that the soul plays a part with our ability to think?

The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr3

[shunyadragon]

And I never said that science could not possibly explain consciousness, but it hasn't to this point.

Than any argument is mute. Many scientists believe there is current sufficient evidence, but like all sciences there are unknowns. So what????

It is since you jumped on me for not having objective evidence - so you are a hypocrite.

Yes, because the argument has never been that there is any objective evidence for the soul. There is abundant objective evidence for the relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness. Yes, there are still unknowns as I acknowledged, but arguing from ignorance as you propose is a fallacy as your argument and it is Alice's rabbit hole.




Yes.

Does your religion teach that the soul plays a part with our ability to think?

As previously cited the Baha'i Faith considers the mind an intermediary between the brain and soul. Yes what the quote you cite is true the mind is the intermediary for the soul to:

The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr3

[seer]

Than any argument is mute. Many scientists believe there is current sufficient evidence, but like all sciences there are unknowns. So what????

No they don't, there is no evidence on how and why consciousness came about.

Yes, because the argument has never been that there is any objective evidence for the soul. There is abundant objective evidence for the relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness. Yes, there are still unknowns as I acknowledged, but arguing from ignorance as you propose is a fallacy as your argument and it is Alice's rabbit hole.

We were not even speaking of the mind when you made that comment. You said that I could not present any objective verifiable evidence that this (inherent human dignity) cannot evolve naturally. If you think it can present your evidence.

As previously cited the Baha'i Faith considers the mind an intermediary between the brain and soul. Yes what the quote you cite is true the mind is the intermediary for the soul to:

The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr3

So without the interaction of the soul we would not have the sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries, etc... And that "thinking" part of man is beyond science to discover.

[shunyadragon]

No they don't, there is no evidence on how and why consciousness came about.

First your demanding evidence of how and why consciousness comes about when there is abundant evidence that consciousness exists throughout the mammals, and other animal kingdoms in various forms. How could you ever demonstrate or present evidence that consciousness is not a part of the natural evolution of animals.

Oh yes there is evidence! I have cited it in many threads. There remain unknowns of course, and that is the nature of ALL sciences, but you perpetually resort to an 'appeal to ignorance' to justify your agenda.

First, objective verifiable evidence, if a person is biologically dead there is no mind nor consciousness. If there is damage to the brain the mind and brain can be altered to the degree of the damage.

We were not even speaking of the mind when you made that comment. You said that I could not present any objective verifiable evidence that this (inherent human dignity) cannot evolve naturally. If you think it can present your evidence.

True!!!! . . . and you cannot present any 'objective verifiable evidence' that consciousness, human dignity cannot evolve naturally.

You reject evolution and the fact that self-image and identity, primitive morals and ethics, and other attributes of human behavior exist in primates and other intelligent animals, which would evolve to what you call dignity. In and of itself the claim of 'inherent dignity' being unique is to anecdotal and vague to assert that they cannot evolve naturally. In fact, neither the philosophical naturalist, nor other scientists, nor theists can demonstrate that their case alone demonstrates the source of 'dignity.' There is absolutely no positive evidence that it cannot evolve naturally.

So without the interaction of the soul we would not have the sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries, etc... And that "thinking" part of man is beyond science to discover.

No, thinking is not beyond science to discover, because of the direct link between the brain and the mind and consciousness, and the link to the soul. If you wish to describe this 'direct link' as emergent as you claim this okay with the Baha'i view. Arguing the highlighted simply confirms the Theist belief we share that without God we would not have anything.

[Tassman]

Right, because we both know that neither side can prove their position.

No it is not, that is just an accident of nature. You have no idea if this instinct to survive will last into the future, it is not permanent. And it certainly does not mean that we have inherent value.

Yes, our subjective values and sense of purpose.

All living creatures are endowed by nature with the instinct to survive. And the "values" and "sense of purpose" and moral codes of sentient creatures such as us, derive from this same natural instinct.

Instinct does not equal value or purpose.

Our values and sense of purpose are grounded in our evolved instincts.

Nature did not create us to survive, it was accidental.

The survival instinct is a by-product of all living creatures, ever tried to kill a common house fly?

[Tassman]

And I never said that science could not possibly explain consciousness, but it hasn't to this point.

[seer]

First your demanding evidence of how and why consciousness comes about when there is abundant evidence that consciousness exists throughout the mammals, and other animal kingdoms in various forms. How could you ever demonstrate or present evidence that consciousness is not a part of the natural evolution of animals.

Some animals seem self-aware, that does not mean that they are conscious in the way we are.

True!!!! . . . and you cannot present any 'objective verifiable evidence' that consciousness, human dignity cannot evolve naturally.

Then make the case Shuny that inherent human dignity or worth can evolve naturally. That does not even make sense.

No, thinking is not beyond science to discover, because of the direct link between the brain and the mind and consciousness, and the link to the soul. If you wish to describe this 'direct link' as emergent as you claim this okay with the Baha'i view. Arguing the highlighted simply confirms the Theist belief we share that without God we would not have anything.

No Shuny, the soul is what causes us to understand the sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries, etc... Without it there is no science, knowledge, art, no discoveries, etc... The soul is central and necessary for human reasoning. So how do you know that consciousness is not part of the soul?

The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr3

[shunyadragon]

Some animals seem self-aware, that does not mean that they are conscious in the way we are.

Problem with this assertion. The evidence is clear and specific many if not most animals have consciousness, some self-awareness. They dream, and show emotions, and higher primates mourn the loose of relatives, share food, show affection, punish those that violate the rules and other similar behavior. These properties of consciousness cannot be distinguished from human consciousness.

Then make the case Shuny that inherent human dignity or worth can evolve naturally. That does not even make sense.

I have made the case, it makes perfect sense by the evidence, and you cannot provide an objective verifiable evidence, nor demonstrate that it cannot evolve naturally, and proving the negative cannot happen.

This is the same problem with the hypothesis of Intelligent Design (ID), which cannot falsify nor demonstrate that all life, our physical nature, and human nature cannot evolve naturally.

In any argument it is up to one making the claim to support, demonstrate or falsify the claim, and all you have done is assert that your claim is true.

[seer]

How many times do we have to go over this Tass - you have no actual evidence that a physical force alone created this cosmos.



Tass, just because we have an instinct to survive does not mean that we have inherent purpose or value. I mean we can make believe that we have purpose and value, but that is not an inherent property. Our survival itself is not even an inherent quality or purpose.

All living creatures are endowed by nature with the instinct to survive. And the "values" and "sense of purpose" and moral codes of sentient creatures such as us, derive from this same natural instinct.

Yes, and these made up ideas of purpose and value are just that, made up - not inherent.

The survival instinct is a by-product of all living creatures, ever tried to kill a common house fly?

Right, and that does not mean that the housefly has inherent value. That is why you kill it.

[seer]

Problem with this assertion. The evidence is clear and specific many if not most animals have consciousness, some self-awareness. They dream, and show emotions, and higher primates mourn the loose of relatives, share food, show affection, punish those that violate the rules and other similar behavior. These properties of consciousness cannot be distinguished from human consciousness.

But it is our rational soul that separates us from the animals, again:

No Shuny, the soul is what causes us to understand the sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries, etc... Without it there is no science, knowledge, art, no discoveries, etc... The soul is central and necessary for human reasoning. So how do you know that human consciousness is not part of the soul?

The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/S...=highlight#gr3

I have made the case, it makes perfect sense by the evidence, and you cannot provide an objective verifiable evidence, nor demonstrate that it cannot evolve naturally, and proving the negative cannot happen.

You have made no case for inherent human worth Shuny. You asserted. We can make up values, but that is not inherent. You would have to make the case that the laws of nature, that care nothing for our value or worth, created us with an inherent value. That is what doesn't make sense. And if nature did not create us with this worth then where did it come from?

[Tassman]

How many times do we have to go over this Tass - you have no actual evidence that a physical force alone created this cosmos.

Tass, just because we have an instinct to survive does not mean that we have inherent purpose or value. I mean we can make believe that we have purpose and value, but that is not an inherent property. Our survival itself is not even an inherent quality or purpose.

And the survival instinct in living creatures is demonstrably a permanent, essential and characteristic attribute. For sentient creatures such as us it is also the basis for our values and sense of purpose as well. Where else would it come from, God?

Yes, and these made up ideas of purpose and value are just that, made up - not inherent.

They are inherent.

Right, and that does not mean that the housefly has inherent value. That is why you kill it.

[seer]

No, there is evidence that we live in a physical universe, there is no evidence that a physical force created it.


How is human worth or purpose an inherent property then? These are made up ideals. And ones that all men do not share. Yes men may invent such concepts to aid survival - but they are not inherent properties.



Yes we have an instinct to survive, but it does not follow then that a housefly has an inherent worth or an inherent purpose any more than we do. There is not even an inherent purpose that we should survive.

Why don't you be a good little atheist and just agree with Dawkins, instead of trying to ring some inherent meaning out of it all?

And I quote:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

[Tassman]

No, there is evidence that we live in a physical universe, there is no evidence that a physical force created it.

non-physical force created the universe.

How is human worth or purpose an inherent property then? These are made up ideals. And ones that all men do not share. Yes men may invent such concepts to aid survival - but they are not inherent properties.

The 'survival instinct' is the most permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute for all living creatures. For sentient creatures such as us it is also the basis for our ideals and moral code as well.

Yes we have an instinct to survive, but it does not follow then that a housefly has an inherent worth or an inherent purpose any more than we do. There is not even an inherent purpose that we should survive.

It does to a housefly.