Dualism (Identity)

by dhw, Thursday, March 12, 2015, 22:56 (3543 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I asked Tony to explain the “third party independent interpreter” part of his computer/consciousness analogy.-TONY: [...] In order for the computer to do anything useful, it needs to receive input from, and operated by a user. That user is akin to consciousness. [...]-Thank you. The key word for me is independent, and that is the essence of dualism. You also say: “NDE's, OBE's and other 6th sense type phenomena all attest that this analogy is good” - again emphasizing that consciousness can exist independently of all the other factors. And so you appear to be arguing in favour of the dualism favoured by David. However, the more I study your beautifully laid out “recap”, the more convinced I become that you are as neutral as I am on the subject. I'll try to explain why I'm still confused:-TONY: So to recap:
•All life is comprised of 4 components: Energy, Information, Mechanics, and Consciousness.
•Consciousness is greater than and separate from, but dependent upon, the preceding three fundamental elements.-This is where I begin to find your scheme confusing. NDEs suggest that consciousness is NOT dependent on the energy, information and mechanics that are essential to LIFE. Our identity (inseparable from our consciousness, but not confined to it) may depend on all the information that we have collected throughout our lives - consciousness has to be conscious of something - but that is all.
 
•Removal of any of the three fundamental elements compromises the ability of Consciousness to function.-During life itself, this is true, because all kinds of influences (illness, drugs, alcohol etc.) can affect our consciousness, but according to NDEs, consciousness functions perfectly well without the energy and mechanics of life. (I'm not putting the case for an afterlife - I'm simply trying to understand how NDEs fit your analogy.)
 
•The existence of any of the three fundamentals individually or taken together does not explain consciousness because while removing one of the three fundamental elements compromises consciousness, it has been shown to function in a short term limited capacity without them. -If, as I assume, you are referring here to NDEs and other psychic experiences, you seem to be saying that the three fundamentals essential to life are actually irrelevant to our understanding of the nature or cause of consciousness, because it can exist independently. But then you qualify this (“short term limited capacity”) which suggests there is a kind of brief remission from dependence on the three fundamentals, and then it dies with the rest, which suggests in turn that it IS dependent on them!
 
•This model makes no assumptions about a universal consciousness because it would have to be, by necessity, independent of the physical form.-I agree. Your model allows for individual consciousnesses to be temporarily separate and independent, and that is all.
 
•Science can not explain the spark of energy that produces life or kickstarts consciousness.
•Science can not explain what happens to that energy after death.-Three hearty cheers from me. I would add that NOTHING can explain life or consciousness, and NOBODY can explain what happens after death because nobody knows what happens after death. We simply have lots and lots of theories. To sum up your analogy and your recap: we know nothing.-If my understanding of these arguments is correct (a big “if”?) I can't help feeling, Tony, that you would make a good agnostic!