You accused both sides of not listening. I'm part of the side that listens, but don't mistake rejecting your conclusions for not listening.
If by accusing both sides you mean that I've formulated a personal opinion based upon personal experience then yes I accuse both sides. However the statement was meant as a general observation not specific to our conversation and admittedly not relevant to this specific conversation. Here's what I said....
"I assure you that's not the case but since either way cannot be proven my statement was meant and shall remain a personal opinion with no baring on this discussion."
I'm part of the side that listens, but don't mistake rejecting your conclusions for not listening.
Ironically this statement too hints at leveling since it is unproven opinion but I will be content to assume your being honest.
Ok, but I think it is worth a separate thread, so if you agree to it I'll start a new thread and tag you in it.
Sounds good.
I dont see how that is implied. Suppose if you created an AI robot. It too would be a sentient puppet in spite of being entirely physical.
It has been well studied and known how the physical aspects of the brains functioning can be shown to reflect the manifestation of specific awareness in a person however the question of the origin of coherent conscious awareness in humans not only hasn't been answered, no one to my knowledge has presented a way to even begin answering that question. It is called the hard problem of consciousness. There is no known way to account for the epiphenomena of consciousness to be attributed to the physicality of the brain.
As far as AI goes, it is artificial intelligence because it cannot be shown to be sentient of its own accord. No AI program in existence has yet shown sentient action apart from a sentient beings initial input...though some scientists like to tout that they are close.
That robot may be a puppet, but not a sentient one. Anyway you've simply moved the question to a thing based on something other than biology.
You still have the question of present coherence based on future knowledge. For instance, how do we make meaningful sentences in our conversations? Are you aware of the sentence you will say in its entirety before you say it? Do you put together the sentence on the fly one word after another? How will you start the sentence so it is relevant to the situation? How would you know since many words can be used in many different situations? Somehow the future is coherent and the past is our awareness of that coherence. In order for that future to be coherent some sentience has to be aware of the present all at once, not linearly, and pass that information into our awareness (our perceived present) which would then be its past.
I dont see why the subconscious brain has to be aware in order to set in motion awareness.
Your not alone, no one else can either but it seems something must be aware to deliver awareness.
If something weren't which we get our coherence from then how can you guarantee coherence instead of chaos? Especially if were talking about abstractions which do not rely on sensory input. Appropriate linguistic response is not an innate instinct. Coherence requires simultaneity.
I doubt that awareness is delivered as a complete package
That's the conundrum. It must be in order to be coherent.
I'm inclined to think of it more being like an electrical impulse from the subconscious brain setting off electrical activity in the conscious region of the brain.
Okay but how does that impulse know its headed in correct direction without a preexistent map to follow? Perhaps your saying it just shoots off and hopes it hits the appropriate target to start the appropriate thought? Over and over and over again?
Think of conciousness analogously being like the way an induction coil sets off petro-chemical activity in a motor
If there wasn't a consciousness planning out a preexisting firing order and timing for those induction coils can you imagine what it would do to that motor? Wouldn't work very well would it.
The only receivers the brain comes with are eyes, ears, nose, taste receptors, touch sensory receptors. Therefore it seems clear enough that the brain's consciousness arises from how it processes these inputs.
That is a matter in contention. And its not clear at all. Hopefully the above has somewhat shown that to you.
The fact that the brain has no mechanism for processing spiritual to electrochemical inputs (ie the reciever isn't there).
What would such a "receiver" look like so that we may look for it? I mean really, how do you know what to look for let alone if something is there to find? Its already been shown that the brains function can be disrupted via electromagnetic waves. The quantum wave isn't physical nor detectable. Yet its function is imperative to reality. The human brain has been called the most complex system in the known universe. That's quite a complexity and we're nowhere near understanding how the thing functions as far as awareness is concerned.
The fact that the way brains process their inputs can be altered by altering brain structure (one wouldn't expect this to occur if conciousness was recieved complete.)
Why not? Humans are currently tethered to the physical. Whatever creates awareness within us has to work within those constraints. That is that our physical natures can effect the way we receive our awareness of reality and the self.
By the way, the whole point is our consciousness isn't received complete, we simply act as if it is.
when brains are anasthesatised conciousness temporarily ceases (one wouldn't expect this to occur if the source of conciousness was external, rather the second that anaesthetic wears off one would expect re-connection with the source of awareness would reveal all the fine details of what has been going on in the absence of brain activity).
A few problems with this,
1 Our awareness ceases. That says nothing about what provides us coherent awareness when we are aware ceasing nor making us aware of what it provides continuing.
2 Brain activity is not absent during anesthesia.
Exceptions have been documented by medical professionals. Some patients have a sense of awareness even under general anesthesia and even are able to provide evidence of experiences they shouldn't have been capable of having. Conversations, observations of activities within the operating room etc.
Nevertheless, as I've said, humans are tethered to physicality. The fact that our awareness may reflect the manipulation of that physicality says nothing about what provides coherent awareness to begin with. It may very well be that whatever gives us conscious awareness also gives us the awareness to reflect what is being physically manipulated in order to provide an agenda for reality.
Another leap, even if spirits exist and are the source of conciousness that is no reason that an All-knowing Omnipotent spirit exists
Friend, all of life is a leap in one way or another. I never claimed proof of existence of such a being. I simply said it speaks of God "to me".
