DescentBB

Someone is too deep into computer programing .

Krom wrote:Nothing feels pain. Pain is purely in the software, the only point of confusion here is attempting to assign pain to some specific part or region of hardware when it exists only in the software.

Ok, so I think we can establish that no physical part of the body can feel pain.

So here is where it gets tricky again…

I can understand the role software plays in the pain system…sending & receiving signals, processing signals…etc.

So the obvious question becomes:

Does the software experience pain?

Probably not.

Everyone is focused on the mechanics of pain, and loosing the point of my first question.

If hardware and software make up a living being, but neither of those two things can experience pain…then there must be something else.

Top Gun wrote:Because the brain is where our consciousness exists,

Says who?

There is no way to establish the conscious resides inside the brain, that is simply what people believe to be true.

Perhaps the brain is a type of nexus that observes the corporeal world and sends that information to the conscious, which is perhaps….universal. (or 10 inches right behind the brain)

What mechanics force the conscious to be located inside the brain?

Either way, the location of the conscious in not relevant here.

Spidey wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Because the brain is where our consciousness exists,

Says who?

I think this is dependent on the definition of consciousness. If we are talking about conscious versus unconscious thought then this definitely is a byproduct of brains. But if we are talking about consciousness as a property of complex organisms then it is a lot harder to pin down a location (I believe, without evidence, consciousness is property of our universe). Brains seem to be the place where conscious awareness transforms into cognition, and probably does so as a gradient. Cognition appears to be where we distinguish pain, manifested as suffering, and it is possible that lower organisms can't make this distinction and thus don't "feel" pain the way complex animals do. Then again, there are many non-nerve cells in the brain that serve in the process of thought, so it is hard to know if the brainless think!

How would a "soul" or "life force" feel pain? I suspect that if you gave the alternative explanations an equal amount of scrutiny then they would quickly fall apart.

I can’t answer that, because I don’t understand the nature of those things.

Hell…if we understood the true nature of consciousness or black holes, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

So no, you couldn’t give the same scrutiny to those things.

But when we discuss the things we do understand, there is no explanation for what experiences pain. (unless you accept a premise like the brain is what feels pain)

vision wrote: But if we are talking about consciousness as a property of complex organisms then it is a lot harder to pin down a location (I believe, without evidence, consciousness is property of our universe).

Careful vision, your atheism appears to be faltering.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: But if we are talking about consciousness as a property of complex organisms then it is a lot harder to pin down a location (I believe, without evidence, consciousness is property of our universe).

Careful vision, your atheism appears to be faltering.

Show me where that has anything to do with theism.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: But if we are talking about consciousness as a property of complex organisms then it is a lot harder to pin down a location (I believe, without evidence, consciousness is property of our universe).

Careful vision, your atheism appears to be faltering.

Show me where that has anything to do with theism.

That fact that you espouse a form of afterlife shows you to not believe in atheism .

woodchip wrote:That fact that you espouse a form of afterlife shows you to not believe in atheism .

Where, oh where, did I say ANYTHING about an afterlife? What in the world are you talking about?

A universe wide consciousness (universal) is not a form of spiritual belief?

woodchip wrote:A universe wide consciousness (universal) is not a form of spiritual belief?

Nope. Doesn't have to be. Right now we can measure consciousness, but it is still one of those things that is hard to define and even harder to determine an origin for. Then again, we have no idea what causes gravity either so the origin is not as big a concern as practical application of any theories of consciousness. In contrast, I can't think of a single "spiritual" thing that can be measured. When I say I believe consciousness is a property of the universe I hold that as likely based on what we know so far. And unlike theistic claims, my ideas can be subject to scientific inquiry.

Spidey wrote:Everyone is focused on the mechanics of pain, and loosing the point of my first question.

If hardware and software make up a living being, but neither of those two things can experience pain…then there must be something else.

I'm not sure that I do have the point of your first question....

My hypothesis is that "pain" is a system phenomena, and is at its core a system-level self-preservation response.

If that's the case... then it's essentially impossible to isolate "pain" into a single subsystem. The "hardware" is necessary to provide sensory inputs and physical outputs. The "software" is necessary to process the inputs and discern between "pleasure" and "pain."

So, I guess if I was picking from your list, I'd say "Bodies" but with the qualifier that I mean "body" in the sense of a functioning system... as opposed to the non-functional form of a cadaver.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:A universe wide consciousness (universal) is not a form of spiritual belief?

Nope. Doesn't have to be. Right now we can measure consciousness, but it is still one of those things that is hard to define and even harder to determine an origin for. Then again, we have no idea what causes gravity either so the origin is not as big a concern as practical application of any theories of consciousness. In contrast, I can't think of a single "spiritual" thing that can be measured. When I say I believe consciousness is a property of the universe I hold that as likely based on what we know so far. And unlike theistic claims, my ideas can be subject to scientific inquiry.

I read your link but the gist of the article is measuring consciousness in individuals. I saw nothing about measuring anything to do with a universal consciousness. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Snoopy…the point of my first question is to prove to me there is no “life force” or “soul” to use another word.

The list is just to illustrate that the physical body is just a collection of inanimate substances, and simple chemical processes, starting at some point and working up…

Another question would be…

What gives this “system” the ability to experience sensations, when it’s comprised of nothing more than inanimate substances and simple chemical processes?

When you look at each subset you can not understand how this is possible, but somehow it happens. Saying it is the system as a whole, doesn’t really answer the question, because it doesn’t really explain anything as per the process. (other than the obvious mechanics, of the system, it says nothing of where and how it becomes conscious)

I understand that it is a bigger question, hiding in a simpler form.

woodchip wrote:I read your link but the gist of the article is measuring consciousness in individuals. I saw nothing about measuring anything to do with a universal consciousness. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The fact we can measure an individual's consciousness is a first step. We just need to refine our definition and create tools for higher resolution measurements. So far, the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be a gradient and there is no telling how far it extends. But following the path past the smallest organisms who express self-preservation down to the level of replicating proteins it gets unclear where to draw the line between what is alive and conscious and what is not. Once we create a reliable model to explain the phenomenon we will be on our way.

To say there will be a way to measure a universal consciousness because we can measure electrical and chemical activity in various cases of unconsciousness is like saying we will be able to predict the future by feeling the bumps on your head.

The only problem I have with that Cosmos article is…for all intents and purposes, they seem to be measuring the signs/indicators of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

And as useful as a tool like that can be, it still doesn’t address some fundamental issues.

What kind of pain are we talking? There are different types of pain. For example, Symptomatic pain is for the use of man, pointing to problems in the body, as well as off the brain through a painful shock if the body was catastrophic damage. Muscle pain after exercise brings joy and clears the mind. Heartache, even an absolutely healthy person can cause cancer.

In fact, all things are relative. We forget that when we try to understand or explore of God, it's like chimps will attempt to explore human. Each of us is God for billions others, and not stupid, sentient beings.

woodchip wrote:To say there will be a way to measure a universal consciousness because we can measure electrical and chemical activity in various cases of unconsciousness is like saying we will be able to predict the future by feeling the bumps on your head.

Terrible analogy, and wrong anyway.

Spidey wrote:The only problem I have with that Cosmos article is…for all intents and purposes, they seem to be measuring the signs/indicators of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

We also don't measure the fundamental forces of nature directly, we measure phenomenon. Why treat consciousness differently?

Spidey wrote:And as useful as a tool like that can be, it still doesn’t address some fundamental issues.

Spell them out. It is a new avenue of research. There is a long road ahead, but where it leads looks pretty darn cool.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:The only problem I have with that Cosmos article is…for all intents and purposes, they seem to be measuring the signs/indicators of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

We also don't measure the fundamental forces of nature directly, we measure phenomenon. Why treat consciousness differently?

That's true...we shouldn't...

But the fundamental forces obey known laws and can be used to calibrate the observation.

Example if I place 1 volt across 1 ohm I know for a fact I will have 1 amp, therefore I can calibrate my meter accordingly.

I doubt we are anywhere close to quantifying consciousness, or creating any laws that govern it.

(Database ate my post. Weird, it's showing up on the reply screen (listed below with all the other comments), but it's not showing up on the actual thread. Check it out, hit reply and scroll down, see how it shows i posted both before AND after Spidey? But in the thread proper, the first post isn't showing up)

When you do a knee reaction test and it jumps, the specific signal that makes your knee jump doesn't reach your brain, it only goes to the spinal column and then straight back to your knee. I suppose it's possible that the spinal column feels "pain". Without knowing, i admit we have to be open to that possability that our body is made up of a lot of sepearate consciousnesses experiencing Total locked-in syndrome. ie: they have no way of communicating and telling the outside world that they exist. Like the final scene in the movie Being John Malcovich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
You get cool stuff like this, it makes you wonder if the brain is actually a series of individual interconnected consciousnesses, not just one. Perhaps we are legion
Maybe what we experience as consciousness, is in reality just the only consciousness in our heads which is actually aware of the outside world. Maybe the rest of the guys up in there don't realize there's an outside world.

Spidey wrote:The only problem I have with that Cosmos article is…for all intents and purposes, they seem to be measuring the signs/indicators of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

Be careful not to beg-the-question though. You're assuming there's something more than just signs/indicators, but there might not be. You might keep searching for that homunculus forever, running through the forest, looking under every rock, wondering where the forest's single magical source is. But there might not be one, forests could just be an emergent property of trees.

Snowflakes are amazing. One may think they had a supernatural source, a god made each individual beautiful one, but really they're just made by physics, or as Vision might put it: they are a property of the universe itself. The universe doesn't need help to be beautiful, it's quite capable of creating beauty all on it's own

I don’t believe in the supernatural, why would a life force have to be supernatural?

Spidey wrote:I doubt we are anywhere close to quantifying consciousness, or creating any laws that govern it.

I'll definitely agree since I follow all the cutting edge news related to this field and no one has yet come up with a good working definition of consciousness. But just to bring it back to your original question "What feels pain?" -- we have not even agreed on the definition of "what."

If it is possible for microorganisms in my body to direct my intentions, it becomes even more difficult to define "the self." It may be that pain is experienced by "this discrete number of independent phenomena that happen to reside in the body known as 'vision'."

No one knows! (yet)

Spidey wrote:I don’t believe in the supernatural, why would a life force have to be supernatural?

I agree. Supernatural does not exist. There is a strange phenomena that are still poorly understood. The simplest example of how completely blind people can ride bikes. It would seem that this is impossible. But the development of the so-called supernatural powers is achieved by training. For example, each of us is capable of echolocation. Make an experiment. Close your eyes and often make a clicking noise with your tongue. You will be able to calmly to move into any unfamiliar room blindfolded without bumping into walls and objects, just focusing on the echoes, which will be reflected from the objects.

woodchip wrote:A universe wide consciousness (universal) is not a form of spiritual belief?

yes, but not requiring any theism to support it.
For the record, my view is that consciousness is purely a byproduct of our neurochemistry. Thus, not just the brain, but the entire nervous system. The brain is just the computer processing the data.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:A universe wide consciousness (universal) is not a form of spiritual belief?

yes, but not requiring any theism to support it.
For the record, my view is that consciousness is purely a byproduct of our neurochemistry. Thus, not just the brain, but the entire nervous system. The brain is just the computer processing the data.

I think consciousness is in all living creatures. And in both humans and amoeba. Apparently, the consciousness - that feeling own "I" in a particular environment existence based accumulated life experience. Human child has less consciousness than experienced jellyfish, in my opinion. Consciousness is like a set of life experiences and abilities of the brain. This is a very flexible thing that can turn a man into an animal, and at the same time make the animal so smart that it can communicate with the person realizing it without words.

I would agree only to the extent that many species are too undifferentiated in terms of nervous system to develop anything of a conscious state. And, also that man, with the most highly differentiated nervous system, would have the greatest complexity of consciousness. At least, potentially speaking.

I think you guys are giving "pain" more weight than it possesses.
Why can't pain simply be a concept like time.
Nerves react to conditions we have named 'pain' just like our cognitive self measures time. Without a person to experience the passing of time...or the pain...it doesn't exist.

So what feels pain? Most sentient beings do, it is an uncomfortable condition telegraphed by our nervous systems. Nothing more, nothing mysterious about it.

Or am I missing something here? I went back and did a speed read...

vision wrote:

Burlyman wrote:Read the book of Exodus and see how even the Israelites doubted God no matter what they saw.

I still need to see something. Please pray to your god have have one of his angelic servants reveal himself to me. That's all it takes. I'll be a lifelong believer then. I can't rely on 2nd or 3rd hand information when it comes to something as serious as faith and a soul, can you? Seems unwise.

I don't believe you. ^_~

It's not unwise, it's just human psychology. Like I said you'll get all the proof you need since you are too lazy to find it on your own like I did. You've had your whole life to learn these things. So the locusts will be your "proof."

The greatest myth ever told was that myth is just myth.

I don't even bother with skeptics.

Burlyman wrote:I don't even bother with skeptics.

Yeah, because superstition and religious dogma are more "valuable." Looking forward to finally seeing these mystical things you keep talking about.

Pain is caused by electrically charged unpaired electrons

vision wrote:

Burlyman wrote:I don't even bother with skeptics.

Yeah, because superstition and religious dogma are more "valuable." Looking forward to finally seeing these mystical things you keep talking about.

Man will always be superstitious and suspicious when he sees an unfamiliar unusual. Unusual phenomena are housed fear in people's minds. To get rid of the fear of strange phenomena, some people go to church, and other people become researchers.

flip wrote:Pain is caused by electrically charged unpaired electrons

This proves once again that all living beings have the general structure of DNA, and therefore pain have absolutely all living beings, regardless of whether it is a living being a tree or human.

sigma wrote:Man will always be superstitious and suspicious when he sees an unfamiliar unusual. Unusual phenomena are housed fear in people's minds. To get rid of the fear of strange phenomena, some people go to church, and other people become researchers.

I like this.

And If you believe that a wise man doesnt research his beliefs then you are a fool

You're mistaken. Superstitious belief, which is usually not "researched" with any scientific method, is a person's belief that the "truth" of what that person has witnessed in the world can be directly attributed to the act of some supreme being, because they haven't GOT better explanation. It's also usually a belief created out of fear of the unknown and the unexplained, probably because they didn't, wouldn't, or couldn't, research it.

"Wise"

Careful there Krom, by the same argument you could discount the existence of time. But then again, perhaps that's what you're aiming for.

There are two distinct realms here, the mechanical and metaphysical. It what's called sine qua non. You need one to get the other.