Posh Tottys latest blog post… 10 things I thought today

Nice work!

Liz@thisfullhouses latest blog post… Uh-oh, looks like I’m wading in the shallow end of forty-something!

Kate Gibbons

Autopsy reveals child was tied
http://childabuseaustralia.wordpress.com/

Nepharias last blog post..Twists and Turns

Local wedding vendors’s last blog post..Find The Perfect Custom Princess Wedding Dress

Maddy’s last blog post..Social skills for typical kids

-Jan

Blog Hopping
Shannan

Shannan’s last blog post..The Road to Today

My point with the analogy was that conscious processes require, at least according to ALL evidence, a particular type of functioning biology. True enough that perceptions and thoughts are not the same (which is why we use different words for them), but they do not differ in their dependence on an biological substratum, which is the issue in question.

Much like a colorblind person being taught of the existence of the distinction between red and green, or much like you or me being taught about ultraviolet wavelengths, we can understand them from a third person perspective. But lacking the correct perceptual apparatus wired into our own brains, we will never perceive them. The conscious experience is independent upon the correctly functioning biological component, although the ultraviolet wavelengths themselves are not.

You die, brain stops working, no more thoughts, no more perceptions, no more _you_, world keeps chugging along. That’s the simplest interpretation of all available evidence, and so obvious.

You’re right…our previous exchange does speak volumes. As for your current post regarding perception of color: that is not a good analogy. Basically what you’re saying is that if there is no mechanism for perception of color, then color does not exist. True. Same as the old “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” No, it doesn’t. Does that also mean if there were no life on this planet, Earth would not exist? That depends on your philosophical beliefs (and possibly your belief of intelligent life on other planets)However, the brain’s perception of outside stimulus through a sense organ is not the same as an internal thought that requires no external stimulus at all. In fact, deaf, blind children can learn to understand what “red” or “blue” is even though they’ve never seen it.
NJDrummer

“If you object that that’s not thought, well I’d say in one sense you’re right, seeing as “thought” is the label we give specifically to the internal (reported by the person possessing those neurons that are transmitting) experience of these processes.”

And you followed that with:

“So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules???”

I think that exchange speaks volumes.

Consider this. “Red” isn’t a thing made of molecules. But “red” _is_ the name we give to the internal experience of interactions between types of molecules (ones that reflect light of a certain wavelengths and ones organized into an eye-brain system). You can discuss “red” as not being the same as its physical substrata, but without them, there is no “red”. “Red” can be considered separately, but cannot _exist_ separately. Same with any other noun denoting a process or product consciousness. Some people wish it were otherwise, and I wish I had a million dollars.

So you’re sayig that thoughts are material “things” made of molecules??? Neurotransmitters are the vehicles for impulses of the brain. Although they may “carry” thought (remember I said MAY; more precicely information) from one part of the brain to another neurotransmitters are not thoughts. Similarly, gravity waves “carry” or transmit gravity, they are not however gravity.
NJDrummer