why do we have a sense of self? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

why do we have a sense of self?

Debate Information

Is our sense of self just an evolutionary mental illusion; a mere survival adaptation?
Debate Details +



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • Yes... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1037 Pts
    I dunno. Let me play with this a while.
  • maxx said:
    Is our sense of self just an evolutionary mental illusion; a mere survival adaptation?

    Fair to call sense of self an attribute of consciousness?

    Oxford has consciousness defined as:
    "the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world."

    So to restate, is consciousness an evolutionary mental illusion? Would this be an argument that essentially says people are matter in motion?

    The opposite view then would be consciousness is a real thing not an illusion. 

    If I restated fairly, then I'll totally engage on the opposing side. This is a super interesting topic. 

    There are two means with which consciousness can be thought of. Either it's received by the brain or produced by the brain. At this stage we must agree to assume consciousness exists, otherwise we need to make a three part original statement.  That's fine with me but I wanted to lay out where I'm at given the current scientific literature and then drfer to you for where you'd most like to engage. If at all of course. 

    My stance would be that consciousness is real and is received by the brain. The current scientific theory I think has the best argument for what best describes reality is the "Orch-OR" theory. 

    Wiki has a solid starting definition to work with:

    "Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a biological philosophy of mind that postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules."

    Of note, the conventional view mentioned is one which the brain produces consciousness. Specifically, as a product of the connections. Basically it arises from the brain working. 


  • We possess a sense of self because we're created in the spiritual image of our Creator and have been endowed with certain communicable attributes of God, one of those being self-awareness and a relationship to Time, physics and the Spiritual. We intuitively know that this life and this body does not define who we actually are but we know that something infinitely greater than Time, this Earth, our decaying body, awaits and Time is not the epitome of our existence. The Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ explain the reality of the Spiritual within the Canon of Scripture and that knowledge is available through the Holy Spirit to everyone who believes that Jesus is God and Mediator for our sin.


  • AddledBrainAddledBrain 40 Pts
    edited October 15
    @Rickey, this question was asked in the Science category.  The questioner is looking for a scientific answer.  I suggest your response more rightly belongs in the Religion forum as nothing in your answer could be tested or evaluated scientifically.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 694 Pts
    edited October 15
    @AddledBrain ; Self awareness is beyond the limitations of science as self awareness finds its origin in the Spiritual Realm. Science cannot save you and science cannot answer questions that are beyond the natural world. You ask your question in futility because you seek an answer that is only found beyond the Realm of Time and beyond your understanding because you worship at the throne of naturalism. You are natural, carnal, without true knowledge and wisdom.


  • RickeyD said:
    @AddledBrain ; Self awareness is beyond the limitations of science as self awareness finds its origin in the Spiritual Realm. Science cannot save you and science cannot answer questions that are beyond the natural world. You ask your question in futility because you seek an answer that is only found beyond the Realm of Time and beyond your understanding because you worship at the throne of naturalism. You are natural, carnal, without true knowledge and wisdom.



    I think the Bible tells us God delights in sharing His creation with us. I think God made us intelligent and curious beings. I also think mathematics and laws of logic are a shadow of the "language" God spoke the universe into existence with. 

    It seems to me science and following Jesus don't have to be at odds with one another. Or is there a Biblical claim that all knowledge of how God designed the universe will be hidden? There are some inexpressible, hidden things. Some we can't even put into words. Sure. But, I very much think the science is strong to say neurons are real physical things which are created via physical processes and via thought processes. The more you use a particular pathway the strong it gets. Literally a bigger physical thing. The less you use one the smaller they get eventually dying. Weird... keep your thoughts on heavenly things,  meditate on the word of God, don't think about unclean things, etc. Jesus will renew your mind. 

    Well woah, we were beyond our ability to change. Then the Spirit changes our heart and we desire new things. New neural pathways form. Through the sanctification process, our minds are renewed. Could it be literally having more power of good thought supported by the Spirit causes, over time, these neural pathways to change. You literally rewrite your mind in relationship with God and think differently. I think this is a plausible ideas and a beautiful melding of science and the truth found in scripture. 

    Furthermore, if we have a spiritual counterpart, then our brain must be receiving not producing consciousness. Amazing that a secular theory supports just that idea... What an amazing idea. Whatever in the world the quantum realm really is (meaning we have some idea but we mostly know how to use the math to do cool things). It’s so cool to think it could be some interaction there inside our cells (where DNA and the library of information to design life is) that is how our thoughts are brought to this physical reality. 

    God designed nature. Just because there are theories that say nature didn't need God, doesn't mean God and nature are at odds. God called his creation very good once we were added. People and nature together. With us ruling over the earth in relationship with Him. I dont know. Seems logical to me he'd let us be fufilled by chasing down these answers ourselves rather than just sit in a God tutorial on nature all the time. God loves to partner with us. It's the most ridiculous thing ever. We're nothing. And yet it's true. 

    Sorry for the rant but I just think it's disenguous to always be dumping stuff like this on any topic that the Bible even tangentially touches on. Science and God aren't rivals. Science is literally simply trying to understand how God did it (and let the flood of non-believer comments commence). 

    There's nothing wrong with people trying to talk out what might be a true description of reality, especially when the Bible is not clear. In addition to everything Jesus did for us, He provided a model of how we are to interact with the Father and with our fellow humans. Loving the Lord God with, among other things, all your mind. Well mine doesn't turn off and wants to understand everything. Whats more Jesus didn't just drop into a city, drop some Torah on those people and leave.
    He met them where they were. Didn't compromise but didn't force. Didn't threaten. He pointed them to the Father. We don't convert anyone anyway. All things flow through Christ. We open ourselves to the Holy Spirit so we can show others. For the others, it's their choice between them and God and the Spirit which does the work. We gain nothing when evangelizing. We gain nothing when someone accepts Christ. We glorify God no matter what when done properly. We, if the other is saved, have simply offered an arrow to a free gift. That's nothing to boast in or hold over anyone. 

    One more thought as we keep bumping in to each other and I'm not going to simply spam you and keep bothering you. I've said my peace it's on you to pray and ask if there's any merit. Or do nothing. Either way. I want to say that we need to think even more about the culture. 

    Jesus lived at a time that no one just had a Bible in their home. You went to synagogue and they would read from some of the scrolls they had. They likely knew more but it's not like they had binded Hebrew Bible's just laying around. 

    How much scripture did the average Jew know. Probably some. Probably not as much as those today with the access we have. How about gentiles. Well, likely very little. Especially for cases like Paul going through Asia. 

    And yet, they never just slapped down scripture and said repent I'm God! Why? And then why do that today. My thought it perhaps that's even LESS necessary. I mean, we really live in a new age. Even in the 90s, I could read the Bible laying around my house or maybe one of the ones at church, the library, or a friends. They were around but it was pretty much King James and NIV. And study Bibles were for preachers. 

    Now, I have an app on my phone which gives me English, Hebrew, and Greek with a built in lexicon and dictionary. Insane! Theres videos of sermons and teaching lessons. There's blogs and podcasts. Theres published deep academic study. Google anything Bible related and the free resources are incredible, let alone if you want to drop some cash. I feel like this is notable. 

    Yes, colloquial Christianity, perhaps call it Religianity, is theologically flawed. But even then, the people need not listen to us. I was transformed when I finally started reading and studying my Bible. A person might have got me interested, but it was really diving in I was converted. After claiming to be a Christian for two decades I finally was. We have to do things differently. We have to act thoughtfully to not encourage stereotypes of those legalistic and tradition-laden professors of Christianity who exhude bad fruit. And the sad thing, truly reading my Bible, I thought I was studying a different religion. The modern church is NOTHING like the church in Acts. You know. The one that spread Christianity over the whole world not just a tri-state area for 15 years. 

    No one is surprised by these verses. No one hasn't heard these over assumed theories and overused tactics. They know. What they haven't seen is a rational person who can meet them where they are at, raise different view points, point them towards Jesus, then agree to love them regardless of what they do. I dont get that from the way you post. The Bible is authoritative, but you can't stand on that platform with it. You simply need to point the person to the platform. And sometimes get on your hands and knees and let them stand on your back to see it. Not force them to look. You can't force anyone to love God. Love is freely given. We need to approach them as Christ taught us. As instructed in 1 Peter 3:15. To share the hope we have in our heart with gentleness and respect. 
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @JustinC




    The current scientific theory I think has the best argument for what best describes reality is the "Orch-OR" theory. 


    Indeed , you must be right Deepak Chopra is a fan LOL of your poster boy Hameroff .......


    Discover Magazine .....


    Hameroff seemed to find his firmest footing through pop culture. He embraced support from Deepak Chopra, an author and New Age guru of quantum consciousness theories. He was also featured in What the Bleep Do We Know?, a film that angered scientists for pushing a quantum mysticism that underlies our nuts-and-bolts existence.



    Along the way in 2006, Hameroff gave a talk that encapsulated his relationship with the scientific community. At a conference called “Beyond Belief” that was packed with leading luminaries from many disciplines, he presented his theories on everything from consciousness to a quantum mechanics-based “spirituality.” At the end, prominent physicist Lawrence Krauss spoke from his seat in the audience. “From a physics perspective,” he said, “everything you said is nonsense.



    Basically what Hameroff is saying is ..... 

        1.don't understand consciousness.

        2.I don't understand quantum physics.

        3.Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics!

    Plaffelvohfen
  • Dee said:
    @JustinC




    The current scientific theory I think has the best argument for what best describes reality is the "Orch-OR" theory. 


    Indeed , you must be right Deepak Chopra is a fan LOL of your poster boy Hameroff .......


    Discover Magazine .....


    Hameroff seemed to find his firmest footing through pop culture. He embraced support from Deepak Chopra, an author and New Age guru of quantum consciousness theories. He was also featured in What the Bleep Do We Know?, a film that angered scientists for pushing a quantum mysticism that underlies our nuts-and-bolts existence.



    Along the way in 2006, Hameroff gave a talk that encapsulated his relationship with the scientific community. At a conference called “Beyond Belief” that was packed with leading luminaries from many disciplines, he presented his theories on everything from consciousness to a quantum mechanics-based “spirituality.” At the end, prominent physicist Lawrence Krauss spoke from his seat in the audience. “From a physics perspective,” he said, “everything you said is nonsense.



    Basically what Hameroff is saying is ..... 

        1.don't understand consciousness.

        2.I don't understand quantum physics.

        3.Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics!

    So Roger Penrose also has no idea? And you argue like it's solved.

    Of course others disagree, many go the other way. Do you have an original thought about this or do you simply look to find people who support your conclusions?

    This is a very rigorous paper which delves into the math and physics as well. This paper, there's more, was published in the Physics of Life Reviews:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188#:~:text=In the Orch OR theory,the action of the universe.

    Where's your contention with it? Or is the word of your your favorite scientists infallible?
    DeePlaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    edited October 15
    @JustinC

    So Roger Penrose also has no idea? And you argue like it's solved.

    Ahhh back to your appeals to authority....


    Discover Magazine .....

    But the Penrose-Hameroff model of what you’d call quantum consciousness was a scientific non-starter. Leading experts dismissed the new model outright. Quantum effects, the criticism went, are notoriously difficult to maintain in the lab, requiring ultracold temperatures and shielding to protect against even the mildest interference. Critics said living things are simply too “warm, wet and noisy” to allow significant quantum effects to persist. What’s more, neuroscientists argued, the Penrose-Hameroff model offered no testable hypothese


    Of course others disagree, many go the other way. Do you have an original thought about this or do you simply look to find people who support your conclusions?


    . Do you have an original thought about this or do you simply look to find people who support your conclusions?



    This is a very rigorous paper which delves into the math and physics as well. This paper, there's more, was published in the Physics of Life Reviews:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188#:~:text=In the Orch OR theory,the action of the universe.

    Where's your contention with it? Or is the word of your your favorite scientists infallible?


    Show me your testable hypothesis ......Maybe Deepak can supply one?


    Discover Magazine....

    But the Penrose-Hameroff model of what you’d call quantum consciousness was a scientific non-starter. Leading experts dismissed the new model outright. Quantum effects, the criticism went, are notoriously difficult to maintain in the lab, requiring ultracold temperatures and shielding to protect against even the mildest interference. Critics said living things are simply too “warm, wet and noisy” to allow significant quantum effects to persist. What’s more, neuroscientists argued, the Penrose-Hameroff model offered no testable hypotheses.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Dee said:
    @JustinC


    Quote
    "Ahhh back to your appeals to authority...."
    -- LOL well yeah. I've never done research on the human brain. Don't we kind of have to appeal to some authority in this discussion? What's more how is your response citing Discover and Krauss not doing the same thing? 


    Quote
    "Discover Magazine ....."
    -- So, your appeal to authority found within a magazine? And again how do we discuss either side without an appeal to some authority in the area? Your logic eludes me here. 

    Quote
    "But the Penrose-Hameroff model of what you’d call quantum consciousness was a scientific non-starter. Leading experts dismissed the new model outright. Quantum effects, the criticism went, are notoriously difficult to maintain in the lab, requiring ultracold temperatures and shielding to protect against even the mildest interference. Critics said living things are simply too “warm, wet and noisy” to allow significant quantum effects to persist. What’s more, neuroscientists argued, the Penrose-Hameroff model offered no testable hypothese"
    -- oh wait "leading experts" cool must be true. 



    Quote
    "Do you have an original thought about this or do you simply look to find people who support your conclusions?"
    -I haven't seen one from you at all? Why the standard for me?


    This is a very rigorous paper which delves into the math and physics as well. This paper, there's more, was published in the Physics of Life Reviews:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188#:~:text=In the Orch OR theory,the action of the universe.

    Where's your contention with it? Or is the word of your your favorite scientists infallible?


    Show me your testable hypothesis ......Maybe Deepak can supply one?
    -- Show me a testable hypothesis for the competing model. These are things at the edge of our modern understanding and we are far from figuring it all out. And why do you keep bringing up Deepak? You're the only one talking. Oh well thought you might engage in a real scholarly way. I guess you're so informed you only need to cite magazine articles to make your point. Ill pass on that discussion but thanks for trying. 

  • @JustinC ; I do sincerely wish you would mind your own business and pursue the spiritual in your way and allow me to pursue same in my own. I am not interested in your opinion concerning styles of apologetic defense...personally, I'm sick and tired of sissy Christianity. I am conversing with my Lord's enemies...you placate them, that is your business. Tend to your own.

    Second, evolution is not science, it's a demonic strategy to proselytize atheists. There is nothing scientific about Darwinian evolution as it does not conform to the scientific method/empiricism but is based solely upon man's inferences and suppositions concerning the past of which they have no concrete knowledge and subsequently infuse their bias and worldview into an equation that justifies that demonically based worldview and the prejudice of a less than honorable "science" community insisting that our Creator does not exist. You're defending this, you're bordering on compromise as an apostate (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Have nothing to do with this lost and dying World but trust only in what the Holy Spirit has said (1 John 2:15; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8). 

    The body of mankind is finite and the body of decaying flesh is nothing but dust void the spirit. Neurological pathways formed are incidental to the will of the spirit that is temporarily constrained by the flesh but the flesh is eternally inferior to the spirit. We, mankind, are spirit encapsulated within a body of decaying flesh and those who seek knowledge of the spiritual through examination of the body will NEVER arrive at truth. That is my point.

     

  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @JustinC

    Hey imbecile I’m not appealing to any authority I told you your poster boys position is flawed because .....


    Basically what Hameroff is saying is ..... 

        1.don't understand consciousness.

        2.I don't understand quantum physics.

        3.Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics!



    See that? That’s having an opinion on the matter as I never made any statements regarding the truth of the matter just the fact that your particular position is illogical read above and weep 

    You’re absolutely hopeless at comprehending basic statements it’s no wonder people like you and Chopra always get the wrong end of the stick 




    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyD said:
    @JustinC ; I do sincerely wish you would mind your own business and pursue the spiritual in your way and allow me to pursue same in my own. I am not interested in your opinion concerning styles of apologetic defense...personally, I'm sick and tired of sissy Christianity. I am conversing with my Lord's enemies...you placate them, that is your business. Tend to your own.

    Second, evolution is not science, it's a demonic strategy to proselytize atheists. There is nothing scientific about Darwinian evolution as it does not conform to the scientific method/empiricism but is based solely upon man's inferences and suppositions concerning the past of which they have no concrete knowledge and subsequently infuse their bias and worldview into an equation that justifies that demonically based worldview and the prejudice of a less than honorable "science" community insisting that our Creator does not exist. You're defending this, you're bordering on compromise as an apostate (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Have nothing to do with this lost and dying World but trust only in what the Holy Spirit has said (1 John 2:15; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8). 

    The body of mankind is finite and the body of decaying flesh is nothing but dust void the spirit. Neurological pathways formed are incidental to the will of the spirit that is temporarily constrained by the flesh but the flesh is eternally inferior to the spirit. We, mankind, are spirit encapsulated within a body of decaying flesh and those who seek knowledge of the spiritual through examination of the body will NEVER arrive at truth. That is my point.

     

    As I said fair enough. I saw someone citing scripture and behaving in a way Jesus literally said not to. I pointed you to the Scriptures and advised some prayer. No opinion. Simply wrestle with these and see if you agree. I'd hope another Christian would do the same thing for me if they thought i was in error. 

    If you want to engage further I'm beyond interested. If not, then I simply hope you're not further perpetuating stereotypical behaviors of modern Christians which are pushing people away from God while simultaneously acting in direct defiance to the word of God. 

    I just think the mindset of "Lord's enemies" is dangerous and misleading. Can God not handle his own? But I thought the Lord loves each person you call an enemy and wants to see them saved and in the Kingdom of Heaven? 

    I dont seek to give some style of apologetic defence. I finally began to truly study scripture a few years ago and was shocked at how much Jesus speaks on the type of stuff I used to be surrounded on. Same goes for this self help Jesus mega church model that's everywhere. They're wrong too. They water down the Gospel to make sure they're "seeker friendly". Which stands in opposition to the very real and very direct ways Christ tends to expose all of us. Jesus wasn't Barney. But he also wouldn't have been a dude with a megaphone yelling at everyone. 

    He would go into a group of the worst people. And would show them love and kindness and stay firm on the message of the gospel. Which is hard to hear. To acknowledge you're a wretch. To acknowledge you need to give up control of your life entirely. 

    You're standing on the side of truth and simply informing those on the other side they're wrong and will "burn in Hell" otherwise which is a metaphor anyway. Unless this fire somehow gives off no light. What I don't see is someone stepping over the line to go get these lost souls. And that's what we've been called to do. Ill pray for you, but will cease to offer anything until otherwise asked. God bless and go in peace!
  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    everyone. this debate has nothing to do with religion. it is a question i asked in a science platform.@JustinC
  • maxx said:
    everyone. this debate has nothing to do with religion. it is a question i asked in a science platform.@JustinC
    Did you want to pick up with my first response? I stayed away from the context of religion within it. Copying for ease of reference:

    Fair to call sense of self an attribute of consciousness?

    Oxford has consciousness defined as:
    "the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world."

    So to restate, is consciousness an evolutionary mental illusion? Would this be an argument that essentially says people are matter in motion?

    The opposite view then would be consciousness is a real thing not an illusion. 

    If I restated fairly, then I'll totally engage on the opposing side. This is a super interesting topic. 

    There are two means with which consciousness can be thought of. Either it's received by the brain or produced by the brain. At this stage we must agree to assume consciousness exists, otherwise we need to make a three part original statement.  That's fine with me but I wanted to lay out where I'm at given the current scientific literature and then drfer to you for where you'd most like to engage. If at all of course. 

    My stance would be that consciousness is real and is received by the brain. The current scientific theory I think has the best argument for what best describes reality is the "Orch-OR" theory. 

    Wiki has a solid starting definition to work with:

    "Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a biological philosophy of mind that postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules."

    Of note, the conventional view mentioned is one which the brain produces consciousness. Specifically, as a product of the connections. Basically it arises from the brain working.

  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @JustinC

    Hilarious two so called Christians disputing what’s Christianity and what it teachings are all about as both have totally different views on such , but of course Mr arrogant J is as usual the only ‘true ‘ Christian every other Christian is in error

    A clear demonstration of what a book of complete and utter BS the Bile is as every single Christian has there own view on what is the “correct “ interpretation 


  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    we are but a collection of mixed  messages, signals, and thoughts processes in which taken together contributes to the ideal of a self. We only "think" we have a self; possibly in the same way we can program a computer into thinking that it has a sense of self. No matter how long it thinks it has a sense of self, no mater how much it tells you that it does, it is just an illusion. Self is an subjective illusion;  even the reality that we believe that we see is an illusion. @JustinC
  • Dee said:
    @JustinC

    Hilarious two so called Christians disputing what’s Christianity and what it teachings are all about as both have totally different views on such , but of course Mr arrogant J is as usual the only ‘true ‘ Christian every other Christian is in error

    A clear demonstration of what a book of complete and utter BS the Bile is as every single Christian has there own view on what is the “correct “ interpretation 


    Arrogant = provide scripture as a suggestion and siggest prayer. I have my opinions, I said nothing else. 

    We mean different things when we use this word. 

    I never said the other person wasn't a real Christian. Just that they weren't following certain commands of Jesus. There is a difference. Grow up.
  • maxx said:
    we are but a collection of mixed  messages, signals, and thoughts processes in which taken together contributes to the ideal of a self. We only "think" we have a self; possibly in the same way we can program a computer into thinking that it has a sense of self. No matter how long it thinks it has a sense of self, no mater how much it tells you that it does, it is just an illusion. Self is an subjective illusion;  even the reality that we believe that we see is an illusion. @JustinC
    Yes this is a summary of the unproven idea that the neural connections firing are what give rise in the brain. This is one of the biggest problems (maybe is) in consciousness.

    What makes the scenario above more likely than consciousness being received by the brain?

    "Even the reality we see is an illusion." This is a very strong claim. What is your basis for this claim? 


  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    Our brains interprets reality only to the point of the information it gets from our senses. Does that dead fish really smell like that?  No. It’s just molecules our noses picks up and then our brain decides. Did that tree really make a sound when it fell? It just created vibrations and it took an ear to help turn those vibrations into something a brain can understand. There are people whose senses lie; they may smell color or see music. Their brain understands reality differently. Other animals see reality different than we do. That is just basically what brains understand about reality, not what it may really be. If I attempt to go any deeper, I would have to delve into quantum mechanics @JustinC
  • AddledBrainAddledBrain 40 Pts
    edited October 17
    Yes, @Rickey.  That is exactly why you should put your comments in the "Spiritual Realm" forum and leave the science forum to those who want to discuss science.  You're contaminating this specific forum with non-science.  Let's try to act responsibly and respectfully.
  • Re : "...consciousness is real and is received by the brain." -- @Justin

    Justin, do you mean "conceived" by the brain ?
    Happy_Killbot
  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    There is a difference between consciousness and self. @AddledBrain
  • AddledBrainAddledBrain 40 Pts
    edited October 18
    Re : "There is a difference between consciousness and self."

    Could you please expand on your answer, @maxx, by characterizing your meaning of those terms  ?  How do you mean them to respond to my question ?


  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    a life form can have consciousness with out having a sense of self; it can be aware of its surrondings and live a life, yet still not have a true sense of self.@AddledBrain
  • AddledBrainAddledBrain 40 Pts
    edited October 18
    I'm sorry for being so dense, @max.  Are you saying I should have said : "'Self' is conceived by the brain, not 'consciousness'" ?  If so, I would agree although, consciousness is conceived as well.  I was not the poster that chose the term, but @Justin, and I was responding to his post.  My question to Justin was between the terms "received" and "conceived" not between "consciousness" and "self".  I only wish these discussions weren't so cryptic.
  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    all living animals have consciousness yet a sense of self; of knowing that, i am a being  is not in all living beings. I was just pointing out there is a difference. At some point in ancient history, humans, elephants, other members of the primates, some birds, and maybe dolphins all became aware that they are a living being; that they have a sense of self. Most animals do not for they simply rely upon instinctive behavior.
    @AddledBrain
  • AddledBrainAddledBrain 40 Pts
    edited October 18
    @max, was your original statement to me, "There is a difference between consciousness and self," directed to me as a response to my preceding question to Justin ?

    I tend to agree it's been found that most humans, as a part of their mental makeup, as well as that of a very few other animals, have a sense of self.  I just don't understand how it fits into this conversation, nor your reason for directing my attention to it.
  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    actually, i was agreeing with you in your reply to justin; i was also elaborating. Our sense of self, the ability to know we are a being and are aware of ourselves may have contributed to the creation of religion; if we exist, then something else must exist that created us. A sense of self and awareness in our brains gave us more ability to wonder what other beings may be out there, as well as more curiosity and reasoning about the world around us. It is also quite possible that other animals who have this sense of self may have some sort of ideal about a higher power, but in a more limited way. This sense of self we have is probably one of the strongest survival adaptations that we have.@AddledBrain
  • @maxx: Got it now.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch