Because being in a 'state' of awareness necessitates 'acting' aware. Both 'state' and 'act' are describing qualities of the same term.

Maybe. I'm still not sure why they couldn't all be encompassed under the heading of 'consciousness'. Regardless, I'm unsure why you would feel the need to attach an immaterial mechanism (the soul) into the already obfuscated arena of consciousness.

While the two are linked, they aren't the same thing. A "state" sounds like something that would be true in a fixed moment of time (the gate is in an open state), but an act requires the movement of time (the opening of a gate requires time to advance -- because a gate that is opening and a gate that is closing look the same in a single instant of time).

You *could* do such a thing, but I would posit that it would be an incomplete description. A computer can be in a particular state, but it doesn't function as a computer except through the passage from one state to another.

The immaterialness follows from the immaterialness of experiencing.

I don't think the analogy quite holds because the gate doesn't require continuous action to keep its state, while consciousness *does* require a continuous 'act' to qualify. Maybe running would be a better analogy since as with consciousness the 'act' necessitates the 'state'. It would seem the 'act' of running and the 'state' of running are somewhat synonymous (or at least close enough to qualify).

The above analogy I gave should (hopefully) clear up why I feel this isn't a valid objection to the act/state duality of consciousness.

We obviously have very detailed material explanations for how our brain experiences, so why are you declaring it an immaterial process?

The state "open" may not, but the state of "opening" does. Running works, too.

I don't think you've honed in completely on what a state of being aware would be from a purely physical perspective. You would have (perhaps) a particular neuron or collection of neurons in a specific state, which would be that awareness. In an extremely oversimplified picture, when neuron X is in a particular state, it corresponds to "I'm aware of myself."

Who said the soul is a process?

Also, you're begging the question by stating that we know how the brain "experiences." We know how the brain responds to stimuli, but that's not the same as saying that we know how the brain experiences. We can go back to the computer analogy. We know how computers respond to stimuli (input from the keyboard or whatever), but we don't say that the computer is "experiencing" input (with the same meaning as when applied to human experience).

I would disagree with the example only because when neuron X is in a particular state (or more accurately all the necessary neurons are in a particular state), but not 'acting' you couldn't really say someone was conscious. For example, if you froze (in time) all the neurons in their 'aware' state they would no longer be aware because they're no longer acting.

In any event I think the state/act discussion is largely irrelevant to the main point and think we should move past it.

That's fair, but you didn't really answer the question. Why are you positing an immaterial *something* rather than saying "I don't know how we experience?" It seems an awful lot like an argument from incredulity.

I believe the biggest confusion ITT is due to the choice of very mechanical behavioral tests for a soul. (E.g. self-recognition in a mirror.) Let's test instead the self-recognition---and, indeed, self-transcendence---required to, say, write King Lear.

What if a humanoid robot responded to its hopelessly non-biological plight by writing a commensurable play? Could anyone really call it "soulless"?

I'm not using this immaterial self to explain *HOW* I experience. I'm using it to explain *THAT* I experience. Perhaps more precisely, to explain that *I* experience.

I saw V'Ger's planet, a planet populated by living machines. Unbelievable technology. V'Ger has knowledge that spans this universe. And, yet with all this pure logic, ...V'Ger is barren, cold, no mystery, no beauty. I should have known.

Known? Known what? ...Spock, what should you have known?

This simple feeling ...is beyond V'Ger's comprehension. No meaning, ...no hope, ...and, Jim, no answers. It's asking questions. 'Is this ...all I am? Is there nothing more?'

I'm still not understanding why you feel the need to use an immaterial *anything* to explain that fact that you experience. Again, it just sounds like an argument from incredulity. It sounds like you're saying "I don't know how to explain that *I* experience, so I'm going to guess a soul." or more accurately "I can't believe that *me* experiencing is a materialistic phenomenon, so I'm going to guess a soul."

Is this an inaccurate assessment?

You dont experience. There is experience, yes, but theres no you doing it. Theres no you experiencing experience.

Hogwash.

If there's no "you" then why do you have a name?

Why aren't you just a gelatinous mass merging into everyone else?

This is the one argument that simply cannot succeed. It is, in fact, the one thing of which I am absolutely sure. When you write something like this I can only shrug and move on to something else.

I responded to the paragraphs in reverse order. I passed on providing a definition of awareness because I assume you know what I mean and a definition is difficult to provide. For example, define red but not by naming objects which are red or talking about the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Define the color red itself, the perception and sensation of it. Convince me that when you see a traffic light, you perceive the same sensation that I do.


Science is wrong? Are you kidding? First, science is a human activity. Scientists are right or wrong. And they are wrong very frequently. So yes, it is quite possible that the scientists who believe the mirror test establishes self-awareness are wrong.


You want proof that I am self-aware? Well, I cannot prove it to you. That is my whole point, that demonstrating self-awareness is not possible. I know that I am self-aware, but I cannot construct the experiment that demonstrates that awareness in you.

You should have just stopped at "Hogwash", because at that point you had nailed it.

No, you dont know you are self aware. You believe you are self aware. What is the self that you are aware of?

It just takes a quick look to see that theres no you that is experiencing.

Splendour, I have you on ignore, but saw your post quoted by RLK

You do realise that a name is purely arbitrary and given to you by your parents right? There is no actual Splendour ( or whatever your real name is) that exists and lives life? A name is just a label.

Who is the "you" who believes that I am self-aware? That is me.

At this point, I am going to stop talking to you.

As I have said before in another thread, I can only see three possibilities:

1. You are not self-aware and truly have no idea what I am talking about.

2. You are self-aware but are too stupid to realize what I am talking about.

3. You are self-aware and are bright enough to know what is being discussed but the only tool you have to continue a debate is to dishonestly keep belaboring this point.

In all three cases there is absolutely no point in responding to you further.

I don't know. It would require a lot of thought. I am more of a Tennesee Williams fan, but if a computer wrote a play like "Glass Menagerie", it would be a change in the landscape. Of course, there are a lot of questions to be answered about the programming, etc. Could you program a computer to take all of the plays written on a subject, integrate them and regurgitate a simulation of those into a "new" play that created similar emotions. Could that be done by a machine that actually had no emotions?

You ask an excellent question which is difficult to answer.

The problem with programming a computer to DO anything is that it doesn't really answer the fundamental question of how self-awareness/consciousness could arise. This is why the most interesting experiment being worked on right now, imo, is the Blue Brain project.

I don't. I only said that by "mimicking" I was referring to the external behavior. I acknowledge that the external behavior does not confirm the internal perception.

From your point of view I could be unaware and mimicking behavior. But I do not infer self-awareness from my behavior. I experience it directly. I consider this last point beyond debate. If you do not know what I mean, I am reduced to the response that I posted to Neeeel.

I have to use the word "you", its built into the language. Just because we use the word "you", does not mean that theres an actual "you" that exists, lives your life, and owns your body. It is possible for a brain to hold beliefs, without there being a you, a self that is holding them. One belief that the brain holds is that it is a person, a self . this belief is false, all there is is the biological process. Memories, beliefs, thoughts, theres no you doing any of them, no ghost in the machine.

We use the words santa claus, we talk about him, what he does, what presents he brought us. Does that mean he exists?


you missed out

4. There is no actual self to be aware of, and what I am saying is the truth.

Scary, I know, and understandable that you wouldnt contemplate it for a second.

Let me ask you one "yes" or "no" question. This is independent of theology or neurology and implies no admission of significance or origin. It is simply a question of a phenomenon.

I have described my perception or awareness of "self" that I experience directly. Do you experience that phenomenon?

Just to be clear, can you show me where you described your perception or awareness of self that you experience directly, I dont know which post it is in.

I perceive a "self". I have an awareness of my own existence.

That should be adequate. If this does not correspond to anything you experience, just say no.

Do you experience that phenomenon? Yes or no?