Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Unread 07-30-2014, 08:55 PM
Alder Ellis Alder Ellis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 924
Default

re. soul-making, the obvious reference is Keats, life as a vale, not of tears, but of soul-making. But the heavy-duty philosophical reference would be Georges Gurdjieff, who insisted that humans are virtual automata that have been duped into imagining that they already possess such extraordinary achievements as consciousness, will, soul, and “I” (integral, permanent identity). But that, yes, with extraordinary efforts, having dispelled the imaginary achievements, you can get there.

Norman, this is interesting: “So there’s a judiciousness or discernment in consciousness, the creative decision to collapse a wave and make a way through.” The logical room for creativity consists of the situation where two or more possibilities exist, with perfectly equal likelihoods based on existing conditions, & one of them gets actualized. A random quantum fluctuation, or a creative achievement? Who’s to say? What is “random” in a deterministic universe?

For me, the concept of creativity inevitably goes back to a concept of God, a.k.a. The Creator, the Puller of the Rabbit of Existence out of the Hat of Nothingness. When you think about the fact that we, or anything, exist at all, from a certain angle, the idea of creativity shifts from a tiny speculative chink in deterministic armor to an awesome inescapable reality.

Creativity necessarily eludes scientific definition. If it could be pinned down by science, it would no longer be creativity, it would be yet another mechanism successfully analyzed and catalogued. The scientific goal is not to explain creativity, but to explain it away, because the existence of genuine creativity is antithetical to a scientific world-view. The practice of science is itself a creative activity, but science has no concept of creativity, only of mechanism.

That’s what I think, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Unread 07-31-2014, 01:03 AM
Janice D. Soderling's Avatar
Janice D. Soderling Janice D. Soderling is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 14,175
Default

#60 above
Quote:
The brain could just as easily be a way-station as an originating factory. Why not? Prove it otherwise
With respect, Norm, it isn't the job of the disbeliever to prove. That is the job of the believer.

#61
Quote:
The scientific goal is not to explain creativity, but to explain it away, because the existence of genuine creativity is antithetical to a scientific world-view. The practice of science is itself a creative activity, but science has no concept of creativity, only of mechanism.
Alder, I respectfully differ: the scientific goal is to seek explanation that can be repeated in independent experiment by others. Anyone with a scientific worldview will be the first to admit that there is more in our world that is unknown than is known. It is nonsense to assert that "the existence of of genuine creativity is anti-ethical to a scientific world view". That is an opinion, not a fact. That statement implies moreover that there is genuine and non-genuine creativity.


General. Yes, there is much phenomena in our world we find awesome and beyond our understanding. By the same token there exist many awe-inspiring phenomena that we now, but not earlier, do understand (a colorful sunrise, for instance, or why birds sing, everyone will have their own list). One can be moved by the hushed splendor of a starry night in the desert, of the shape of a frozen waterfall, of the soughing of the wind in the forest.

But the compulsion to unquestioningly hold query and thought hostage to metaphysical stirrings and to evoke the supernatural in quasi-explanation of the unexplained runs counter to everything science stands for.

I would be more inclined to believe that (just guessing, speculating freely) the vestiges of our reptile brain (or some other evolutionary mishap) dooms mankind to self-destruction, than to believe in a divine game-rigger of whatever persuasion he might be.

I am a layman, not a scientist. And we have strayed rather far from the article in Atlantic. But I notice once again that it doesn't take long for any discussion of the unknown to end with claims that some do indeed "know the unknowable" and, clutching the comfort blanket of God, they turn over and quickly fall asleep again leaving the responsibility for cleaning up the mess of war, inept politics, inequal distribution of wealth, starving children, bankrupt cities and yes, countries, in the hands of a Planner who knows exactly what he is doing and why, and doesn't want us to interfere, only to obey.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Unread 07-31-2014, 01:48 AM
Mary McLean Mary McLean is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 1,214
Default

For those who doubt the brain, a question: if it were possible to transplant brains and you swapped yours with your neighbour, where would you wake up? Does anyone believe that your consciousness wouldn't follow the lump of jelly?

Losing an arm would have a psychic effect, but that effect would be mediated by the brain, and you would still be you.

I don't see this as a limit. The brain comprises not only your inherited tendencies toward creativity, madness, pedantry, etc, but also every memory you've ever made, all the knowledge and images and other sensory impressions you've absorbed, and the ability to create associations between them. It's beautiful.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Unread 07-31-2014, 03:08 AM
Claudia Gary's Avatar
Claudia Gary Claudia Gary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,115
Default

Mary,

I agree that in the case of such a brain swap one would probably wake up in one's own brain. That would prove the self's (soul's?) location -- but not its origin.

Norman,

I agree that the phrase "creative brain" shows a problematic assumption. I also agree with you on a number of other things.

Bill,

I'm happy to learn that you've tried meditating in an MRI, but sorry you had to go through that experience. Still, unless the effects of meditation on the resulting image were a specific focus of the study (and I got the impression that they were not), it is possible that those conducting the study would have missed it. But I agree with you (and others) that there is "something else." And I don't think religion is needed in order for the soul to exist.

All,

It seems to me that while science is likely to continue helping us understand phenomena (such as sunsets and starry nights, and brain waves), those of us who believe there is "something else" still need to accept some degree of uncertainty. A lot of things won't be proven by science during our own lifetimes, and some things never will be. There are also some things each of us "knows" but can't prove. That may be a problem for science, but it shouldn't necessarily be a problem for us as individuals.

Someone here (who?) suggested that the brain might be a sort of "way station." I don't know about that, but I would suggest that maybe it's merely a focal point for a larger consciousness. We learn starting in infancy to consider our own body and mind as ourself. This brain and body are simply what we have to work with as individuals. There is no user's manual for working outside of that framework. Some people have reported extracorporeal experiences. For the majority of us, that's a scary idea, because in general no one teaches you to expect it. Personally, I have NOT had the experience of "looking down at myself from the ceiling," but I know people who say they have, and I am not ready to dismiss them as insane. Then again, I suppose that anyone who has any experience that's not standard, or not covered in the "manual," may be faced with the dilemma of whether to believe it (and be alone with the knowledge) or whether to push it out of one's mind (so as not to feel alone, or insane).

Back to creativity: When poems and other works of art are considered "great," isn't it because they tend to connect us with a larger sense of being? Whether that connection is temporal, spatial, or both, it's a sense of being swept "upward" to a "higher level," and of being reminded that we are part of something larger.

We know that we are, literally, a part of something larger, in a societal and historical sense. We also know that we're part of something larger in terms of the physical universe.

So why would our spiritual essence, or soul (if one agrees that there is such a thing), be anything different from that?

Last edited by Claudia Gary; 07-31-2014 at 03:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Unread 07-31-2014, 05:11 AM
Matt Q Matt Q is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: England, UK
Posts: 4,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary McLean View Post
For those who doubt the brain, a question: if it were possible to transplant brains and you swapped yours with your neighbour, where would you wake up? Does anyone believe that your consciousness wouldn't follow the lump of jelly?

Losing an arm would have a psychic effect, but that effect would be mediated by the brain, and you would still be you.

I don't see this as a limit. The brain comprises not only your inherited tendencies toward creativity, madness, pedantry, etc, but also every memory you've ever made, all the knowledge and images and other sensory impressions you've absorbed, and the ability to create associations between them. It's beautiful.
Hi Mary,

First off, apologies if my addressing my previous post to your brain seemed sarcastic or patronising, it was intended to be light-hearted, but in retrospect was I think it was ill-advised.

The idea that I am my brain did make me smile, I think because logically it seems to be a category mismatch: I have a brain, so how can I also be my brain? And if I am my brain, what's all this other stuff that also seems to be me?

It does seems to that what makes me me, Matt, are many things including my brain. If I were to define me as the set or pattern of all my thoughts, feelings and behaviour, say, (or as the system which produces that set) it seems to me to be perfectly clear that the brain is not the only factor in what makes me me. Just staying within the body, there's the extended nervous system, including some rather interesting circuitry around the gut and the heart and the vagus nerve system. There's also the hormonal systems and other biochemical systems. All of these things influence behaviour, thinking, emotion, etc. It's not just the case that these influence the brain which is the 'real' control system. Rather, on any reasonable analysis of the "control system" of a human being, we would have to say that the brain is only part of a larger control system. Then of course, there's various environmental factors, as well as interpersonal factors, and cultural factors that are also part of the whole extended system that gives rise to our feeling, behaviours and thoughts.

In the light of this, I would say that it you took my brain and put it in another body -- thereby coupling it with another, different, complex system, the result would be something other than me. It might hold the belief that it was me, it might even be convinced, and there would be similarities sure: memories, habits of mind (though these would inevitably change I believe), but the overall package, I believe, would be a hybrid.

Now imagine a memory transplant. A mad scientists copies all my memories into someone else, overwriting theirs. That person now believes they are me, have my brain. They think "I know am Matt, why am I in this different body, maybe I've had a brain transplant?". Is that person me? Surely not. I guess we'd say that what's different is their their pattern of thinking, how they process those memories (also their body, physiology, emotional tendencies etc). I think we'd conclude from this that a) I are not my memories (or I am more than my memories), and the b) the conviction that "I am Matt" is not enough for someone to be Matt.

Now let's say some gives me various psychoactive substances and that changes my pattern of thinking, or perhaps I become severely mentally ill and believe that I am on a mission to save the world, or that I am controlling the weather? So should we say that this is not me any more, because my thinking patterns have been radically altered, or should that I am not (only) my thinking patterns.

Now, it may well be when you say "I am my brain" you mean that I am my conciousness as your second post can be taken to suggest. But it seems to me that conciousness is a bland flavourless thing. It is simply awareness. Devoid of content (if such a thing were possible), I could easily imagine that everyone's conciousness is the same. What gives it its flavour, I believe, is it contents. And the contents of conciousness would be thoughts, memories, volitions, emotions, sense impressions, expectations and the like. Now personally, I'd imagine a conciousness transplant to be very much like an eye transplant. It wouldn't make much difference to who I thought I was, I would still "see" the same things. So again, am I reducible to my conciousness?

So am I my body, my brain, my thoughts, my memories, my sense of being me, my emotions, my history, my relationships? I would say I am all of these things, but I'm ultimately not reducible to any of them. And that's the problem I have with a reductive claim like "I am my brain".

Now two disclaimers:

Firstly, I may have completely misunderstood what you are trying to say, and so the above may have no bearing on your point. In which case my apologies.

Secondly, my views may, of course, be mistaken! In which case, again, my apologies!

If you've read this far, I appreciate your patience. Thank-you for bearing with me!

All the best,

Matt
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Unread 07-31-2014, 05:22 AM
Brian Allgar Brian Allgar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 5,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Q View Post
So am I my body, my brain, my thoughts, my memories, my sense of being me, my emotions, my history, my relationships?
But Matt, with the exception of the body, all these things are functions of the brain.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Unread 07-31-2014, 05:22 AM
Janice D. Soderling's Avatar
Janice D. Soderling Janice D. Soderling is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 14,175
Default

Cross-posted with Matt and Brian.

Claudia, for the record (if there is one) I have had the "looking at oneself from the ceiling" experience and it was quite frightening. I am not inclined to give details other than to say that it was in no way related to drugs.

That said, I do indeed accept that there is an abundance of uncertainty existing today; indeed there exist more terra incognitas of knowledge than the opposite. I have much respect for others who place themselves in the uncertainty camp.

My quarrel, if it comes to that unpleasant word, is with those who profess certainty, but have no proof. An interpretation, made by oneself or by others, of any ancient collection of writings or oral tradition from various sources and of dubious authorship, or for that matter of the more contemporary Mormonic golden tablets, is not proof; it is opinion, guesswork, a hope, a delusion. Dogma based on vanished documents of revelation, which incidentally often echoes familiar bits and pieces found in earlier religious teachings and/or practice (such as the Koran, such as the New Testament, et al) is not proof. A personal conviction of the veracity of one's chosen brand of religion is not proof. I do not doubt the sincerity of a believer, I doubt the belief.

Whether the belief consists of a virgin giving birth to a god (this idea is found in the Greek mythology incidentally--as I'm sure you know without my telling it), or raising the dead, (as documents indicate that Apollonius of Tyrana did, contemporary religion consists to a great extent of mythological relics. Sadly I can't lay my hands on my Penguin copy of Apollonius at the moment. There exist many ancient writings which earnest believers of other religions have strived down the ages to destroy so as not to sow doubt or provide an opening for disobedience. Another strategy is to incorporate the old beliefs into the new religion.

As far as the soul is concerned, one of the books in my library which I value most is Eugene Marais's "The Soul of the Ape". I recommend it, but as food for thought, not as dogma.

If anyone doubts that we are not still in a medieval, even primitive, state of mind because of religion or because evolution hasn't taken us far enough yet, or a combination of the two, explain to me, anyone, why major parts of the populations of the western world condone torture that stops short only at drawing and quartering, and why young jihadists continue to decapitate their religious opponents and become suicide bombers. And why even as you read this, the two-faced promise by a deity concerning a strip of desert land is causing the deaths and maiming of innocent children.

For Ismael, Abe's firstborn, God promised Ismael's mother:

Quote:
And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.
But once Abe had a legitimate son, God changed his mind--as old men often do--and decided to give that land to Isaac's son Jacob.

God promised:
Quote:
13 And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
Or so some claim. Lots of wills are falsified or revoked.

And for this ancient tribal superstition, modern weapon technology makes possible that children die daily on each side of man-made borders while their mothers are praying to "god" for succor.

But I digress.

Last edited by Janice D. Soderling; 07-31-2014 at 06:27 AM. Reason: chronology of the divine promises was awry. Sorry. And some clarification of unclear reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Unread 07-31-2014, 06:17 AM
Mary McLean Mary McLean is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 1,214
Default

Matt -- undeniably there would be changes post-transplant. The brain would be bathed in a different soup of nutrients and hormones (especially if it were trans-gender), and a whole host of sensory perceptions might change. The new body might be colourblind, or sensitive to a different range of sound frequencies. But all of these new factors would affect the self (mind, consciousness) through their action on the brain.

I've tried to attach a picture of my brain waving hello :-)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	brain2.jpg
Views:	132
Size:	33.1 KB
ID:	804  
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Unread 07-31-2014, 06:18 AM
Matt Q Matt Q is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: England, UK
Posts: 4,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Allgar View Post
But Matt, with the exception of the body, all these things are functions of the brain.
Brian,

Yes, but not solely functions of the brain, surely? Are your emotions only a function of your brain? Surely they're also a function of your physiology, biochemistry, hormones and the "neural network in your gut" etc. And, of course, emotion is a function of thought and environment, and many emotionally positive and negative thoughts are also a function of the outside world, of culture. If I insult you and you get upset is your emotion solely a function of your brain, or is it a function of brain plus world? If something heavy falls on my foot and I get angry ...

Anyway, perhaps I should have made a more exhaustive list of what constitutes self as I did in my original post. I was trying to argue on two fronts here. The idea that we are our conciousness being one of them. The idea that we are our brain being another. And both, really, addressing the idea that we are reducible to any our parts, rather than being complex system. So, my strategy was to functionally divide the brain up in order to show that I'm not reducible to any it's components.

Now of course, what I'm arguing against may well be missing the point of the arguments being presented. Wouldn't be the first time!

Matt
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Unread 07-31-2014, 06:45 AM
Matt Q Matt Q is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: England, UK
Posts: 4,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary McLean View Post
Matt -- undeniably there would be changes post-transplant. The brain would be bathed in a different soup of nutrients and hormones (especially if it were trans-gender), and a whole host of sensory perceptions might change. The new body might be colourblind, or sensitive to a different range of sound frequencies. But all of these new factors would affect the self (mind, consciousness) through their action on the brain.
Mary,

Your argument here seems to take your conclusion as it's premise. If you accept that you are your brain, then it's reasonable to claim that you (your self) will would adapt to the new body.

If, however, you don't accept that the brain = self, then it's not reasonable to claim that you, your self, will adapt the new body, since you would not accept that it was your self that had been transplanted in the first place.

Does that make sense?

So it seems much will depend on how we agree to define self in the first place. And maybe our disagreement is simply a definitional one ...

Matt
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	brain wave.jpg
Views:	103
Size:	7.4 KB
ID:	805  

Last edited by Matt Q; 07-31-2014 at 07:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,840
Total Posts: 270,803
There are 1662 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online