You Are Not Your Brain

[Brant Gaede]

The grey side is pretty bad too.

--Brant

[moralist]

Integrity is both learned and chosen.

That explains why no one starts out with it!

Good is not the natural human condition... rather it's the natural result of choosing to rise above the natural human condition.

Greg

[moralist]

The grey side is pretty bad too.

--Brant

... all 50 shades.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Good is not the natural human condition... rather it's the natural result of choosing to rise above the natural human condition.

Greg,

I have trouble with putting non-moral things within a moral measurement. I mean the phrase "rise above the natural human condition."

I believe the natural human condition is free will. Good and evil are always available to be chosen by people. That capacity and possibility is the natural human condition, not the end result of it.

A good man is one who exercises his natural human condition just as much as a bad man does. But he doesn't lose his status of being able to choose.

The good man is morally superior to the bad man because of the choices each makes, not because one rises above the natural human condition and the other stays there or maybe descends.

If good were no longer a choice, that would be "rising above" the natural human condition presuming that free will is morally defective. But in my thinking, free will is not morally defective nor innately not good.

Free will just is. It is innate.

What we do with it is good or evil. That capacity is innate.

I realize in Christianity, this is different. Man is born into sin inherited from Adam and Eve's choices. The newborn is innately a bad guy. A moral monster who must be redeemed. I don't hold that view. So we probably disagree on that point (knowing you, though, I'm not so sure ).

Setting that aside, I do agree with Christianity that we must constantly choose between good and evil and the choices can get real hard.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Good is hardwired into human beings because humans are social creatures with many other such needs than finding a mate. Man alone is a dead man. Bad thus is good corrupted. Good is also associated with love. Good and love go back and forth. Sticking in bad is like throwing sand into the gears of life. The conflict between good and bad is that between life and death. Over 6 1/2 billion living people show good has the upper hand in spite of all the friction. Bad is good only to the extent it causes good to re-enforce and re-assert itself. If there were no bad as we think of it good would have to rot enough into bad for good to get going again.

--Brant

that's why we need the Democratic Party

[BaalChatzaf]

Good is hardwired into human beings because humans are social creatures with many other such needs than finding a mate. Man alone is a dead man. Bad thus is good corrupted. Good is also associated with love. Good and love go back and forth. Sticking in bad is like throwing sand into the gears of life. The conflict between good and bad is that between life and death. Over 6 1/2 billion living people show good has the upper hand in spite of all the friction. Bad is good only to the extent it causes good to re-enforce and re-assert itself. If there were no bad as we think of it good would have to rot enough into bad for good to get going again.

--Brant

that's why we need the Democratic Party

Sociability is hard-wired (so to speak) into most humans. There are very few raw rock hard sociopaths who were born that way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Good is hardwired into human beings...

Brant,

If that's the case, I would say both good and evil are hardwired into human beings along with free will to operate them.

They do manifest in the lower brain (non-free will), too. Some people are natural sweethearts and others are born just plain ornery. But these are backdrops for the individual to work choice, like a general mood or temperament is in relation to an emotion.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I've heard of ornery sweethearts. Boy meets girl. Boy gets ornery with ornery girl. Boy and girl suddenly start kissing and tear off each other's clothes and partially jump under the covers simulating those well-known natural movements (from hundreds of movies) as the camera rolls, and rolls, and rolls. Isn't that "good"?

--Brant

that's entertainment!

[moralist]

Good is not the natural human condition... rather it's the natural result of choosing to rise above the natural human condition.

Greg,

I have trouble with putting non-moral things within a moral measurement. I mean the phrase "rise above the natural human condition."

I believe the natural human condition is free will. Good and evil are always available to be chosen by people. That capacity and possibility is the natural human condition, not the end result of it.

We're actually on the same page here, Michael...

What I meant by the natural human condition is not the power of choice itself... but the natural human propensity to choose evil..To choose good is to overcome the natural human condition of choosing evil.

I realize in Christianity, this is different. Man is born into sin inherited from Adam and Eve's choices. The newborn is innately a bad guy. A moral monster who must be redeemed. I don't hold that view. So we probably disagree on that point (knowing you, though, I'm not so sure ).

The original definition of the word sin doesn't have nearly as much negative connotations as how it is commonly used today. The politically correct word nazis have really worked that one over! The literal meaning of sin is "missing the mark" as in missing the bullseye of a target.

Technically, sin didn't enter into the world because Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit and then convinced Adam to eat it. They both already had the natural human proclivity to choose evil. They just didn't have the opportunity to choose it until it was offered to them. So we didn't get that from Adam and Eve. It's already built into every human. This is because the free will to choose good HAS to include the free will to choose evil.

Everyone inherits the unresolved personal emotional issues of their parents. Then when we become morally accountable adults it's up to us what we choose to do about them. There are two choices, let them end with us by our own personal resolution... or let them remain unacknowledged and unresolved and simply dump them onto the next generation.

Setting that aside, I do agree with Christianity that we must constantly choose between good and evil and the choices can get real hard.

Whether the choices are hard or easy all depends on what we grow to love.

Greg

[anthony]

Integrity is both learned and chosen.

That explains why no one starts out with it!

Good is not the natural human condition... rather it's the natural result of choosing to rise above the natural human condition.

Greg

The "natural human condition" is to see, listen and think, and to act in keeping with what one then knows.

No bad can come of acting truthfully to one's character and knowledge of human nature and man's nature. It's a given, there will be mistakes or unpredictable outcomes.

Bad is easy - and hard. 'All' it takes is suppressing what you have seen and known, in favour of the authority of others.

------------

Picture it being so, imagine that You ARE Your Brain, and no more.

Either 'you' would be a robotical logician, incapable of individual conviction, free will and principle.

Or, its perceived opposite, a being acting on every impulse, instinct and feeling, that arises in your brain.

Human calculator - or instinctual animal (and combinations of both, in conflict) are basically the only options traditionally presented, and they are traceable back to the same physicalist-materialism.

[Brant Gaede]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

[BaalChatzaf]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

[Brant Gaede]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

Okay, then. Are you apart from your brain-body?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

Okay, then. Are you apart from your brain-body?

--Brant

Nothing. I am precisely my physical corpus and its physical-biological functioning. There is no Out of Body self.

If am a materialist and a reductionist down to the subatomic level.

[moralist]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

Okay, then. Are you apart from your brain-body?

--Brant

Nothing. I am precisely my physical corpus and its physical-biological functioning. There is no Out of Body self.

If am a materialist and a reductionist down to the subatomic level.

If that was really the case, it would be impossible for you to argue with yourself... unless, of course, you never argue with yourself!

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

Okay, then. Are you apart from your brain-body?

--Brant

Nothing. I am precisely my physical corpus and its physical-biological functioning. There is no Out of Body self.

If am a materialist and a reductionist down to the subatomic level.

Ah, you go down. (Down, down, down.) Are you aware that consciousness goes up? (Up, up, up.) The body occupies the center of this up-down. You don't drive your human bus, however, on the highway of life thinking about the sub-atomic particles therein or with your eyes closed. Your formal philosophy, explicated here, is queer and worthless. Understandably, I assert, you disown philosophy although ironically affirming it every time you post on OL. You keep slipping it under the door and I keep saying, "Lookie, lookie, lookie!" Up or down, we're all in this together. Your position on this is purely ideological and pretend science.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

Okay, then. Are you apart from your brain-body?

--Brant

Nothing. I am precisely my physical corpus and its physical-biological functioning. There is no Out of Body self.

If am a materialist and a reductionist down to the subatomic level.

Ah, you go down. (Down, down, down.) Are you aware that consciousness goes up? (Up, up, up.) The body occupies the center of this up-down. You don't drive your human bus, however, on the highway of life thinking about the sub-atomic particles therein or with your eyes closed. Your formal philosophy, explicated here, is queer and worthless. Understandably, I assert, you disown philosophy although ironically affirming it every time you post on OL. You keep slipping it under the door and I keep saying, "Lookie, lookie, lookie!" Up or down, we're all in this together. Your position on this is purely ideological and pretend science.

--Brant

What you call consciousness is electro-chemical activity of the brain and nervous system. We are all wet machines.

[Brant Gaede]

The body argues with the brain and the brain with the body about who is what if not who rules what. What's next--divorce?

--Brant

the inmates rule

Yoo Hoo! Your brain is part of your body.

Okay, then. Are you apart from your brain-body?

--Brant

Nothing. I am precisely my physical corpus and its physical-biological functioning. There is no Out of Body self.

If am a materialist and a reductionist down to the subatomic level.

Ah, you go down. (Down, down, down.) Are you aware that consciousness goes up? (Up, up, up.) The body occupies the center of this up-down. You don't drive your human bus, however, on the highway of life thinking about the sub-atomic particles therein or with your eyes closed. Your formal philosophy, explicated here, is queer and worthless. Understandably, I assert, you disown philosophy although ironically affirming it every time you post on OL. You keep slipping it under the door and I keep saying, "Lookie, lookie, lookie!" Up or down, we're all in this together. Your position on this is purely ideological and pretend science.

--Brant

What you call consciousness is electro-chemical activity of the brain and nervous system. We are all wet machines.

Ah, yes. But activity to what effect? You see, you see out there but you also see in there--that is, you see you as you. Consciousness is kind of tautological in that you are conscious of being conscious. It's circular. The electro-chemical activity feeds into and supports that but it is not aware of consciousness nor is consciousness aware of--usually aware of anyway--the physiology of it all. No need for either such functionality so it's not there. The purpose of consciousness, of course, is survival and reproduction. After the kids are all grown consciousness is all gravy, but there you are blathering on about "wet machines" giving up fun for reductionism--sub atomic particles, fer Cris' sake! Hey! Look up at the stars!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Ah, yes. But activity to what effect? You see, you see out there but you also see in there--that is, you see you as you. Consciousness is kind of tautological in that you are conscious of being conscious. It's circular. The electro-chemical activity feeds into and supports that but it is not aware of consciousness nor is consciousness aware of--usually aware of anyway--the physiology of it all. No need for either such functionality so it's not there. The purpose of consciousness, of course, is survival and reproduction. After the kids are all grown consciousness is all gravy, but there you are blathering on about "wet machines" giving up fun for reductionism--sub atomic particles, fer Cris' sake! Hey! Look up at the stars!

--Brant

i

The only way I -see- "in there" is with an optical-electronic scanning device. Seeing is what the eyes do

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, yes. But activity to what effect? You see, you see out there but you also see in there--that is, you see you as you. Consciousness is kind of tautological in that you are conscious of being conscious. It's circular. The electro-chemical activity feeds into and supports that but it is not aware of consciousness nor is consciousness aware of--usually aware of anyway--the physiology of it all. No need for either such functionality so it's not there. The purpose of consciousness, of course, is survival and reproduction. After the kids are all grown consciousness is all gravy, but there you are blathering on about "wet machines" giving up fun for reductionism--sub atomic particles, fer Cris' sake! Hey! Look up at the stars!

--Brant

i

The only way I -see- "in there" is with an optical-electronic scanning device. Seeing is what the eyes do

Now you are being disingenuous. You cannot win an argument by this pretend-to-be stupid. Your "wet machine" should bitch slap you except it doesn't know, not being conscious, what you are doing with your neurons. It can't "see" your consciousness--you! It's a blind slave to its function. You could just as well be an elephant or a fish for all it could know.

--Brant

see (verb) to have the ability to see: to have the power of sight

to be or become aware of (something)

[BaalChatzaf]

i

The only way I -see- "in there" is with an optical-electronic scanning device. Seeing is what the eyes do

Now you are being disingenuous. You cannot win an argumelnt by this pretend-to-be stupid.

I am "literal minded" and I am probably smarter than you. I was pointing out to you that your location of "seeing in" was incorrect. You expressed your idea poorly.

[Brant Gaede]

The only way I -see- "in there" is with an optical-electronic scanning device. Seeing is what the eyes do

Now you are being disingenuous. You cannot win an argumelnt by this pretend-to-be stupid.

I am "literal minded" and I am probably smarter than you. I was pointing out to you that your location of "seeing in" was incorrect. You expressed your idea poorly.

You're smarter with the math. I'm not interested in math. I'm interested in your refusal to see some things honestly because if you don't that severely narrows down what we can talk about.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You're smarter with the math. I'm not interested in math. I'm interested in your refusal to see some things honestly because if you don't that severely narrows down what we can talk about.

--Brant

I see everything that I see honestly. It is part of my literality. I do not make happy suppositions. I see what I see and I call things by their proper names. I am incapable of spin.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, maybe if we change the subject . . .

--Brant

faint hope

[moralist]

What you call consciousness is electro-chemical activity of the brain and nervous system. We are all wet machines.

If what you claim is true, then there is no such thing as objective moral standards... and only dumb idiots looking for just the "right" psychotropics to ingest to control their behavior.

Escaping moral accountability is every liberal's wet dream, and it is the reason why they're failures in life.

Greg