Sure? I'm just aware of the already refuted, barely existent evidence for materialism.
1. I already informed you that I'm not arguing from a materialist position
2. just declaring things to be refuted, doesn't actually refute anything
I have yet to see a single example of a mind that exists absent a brain.
Why would I assume or believe that minds can exist absent a brain when literally all data points to the opposite and no data at all suggests that minds can exist absent a brain?
No, I don't "know" that minds can't exist absent a brain.
Just like I don't "know" that unicorns, leprechauns or orbitting teapots "can't exist".
But off course, the burden of proof is with those people who claim such things DO exist.
What knowledge do you have of brains that's not dependent on Consciousness? Not to mention now you have to refute the evidence of things like gods and ghosts now, minds without brains. Can you?
1. there is no evidence of gods and ghosts. there are only claims of such things. claims that fail to meet their burden of proof.
2. All the knowledge/data I have about minds and brains, suggests that they are one and the same. So according to the actual data at our disposal, it is quite senseless to try and seperate them and invoke them as being seperate distinct things that can exist independently from one another.
So you CAN disprove gods and ghosts definitely!
No, I can't disprove unfalsifiable models that make zero testable predictions about reality and which are indistinguishable from made-up fantasies.
Such models are potentially infinite in number, only limited by human imagination.
When a model is untestable and indistinguishable from made-up fantasies, it is entirely useless and to be ignored.
Also this is just silly. My desk has no brain and my consciousness is still tied to and aware of it.
That's indeed incredibly silly.
Ah so you believe correlation is causation, like any reasonable person
Not at all.
Correlation doesn't imply causation by any means.
But what we have here is more then mere correlation.
We DO have causational stuff going on here.
We can take drugs, altering brain chemistry, and it will have impact on our consciousness.
We can damage the physical brain, and it will have impact on our consciousness.
This is not mere correlation. This is causation. Testable and predictable causation. Take drugs = altered brainstate = manifests as an altered "mind".
Hell there's a strong connection between my desk and what I put on it, guess my desk creates my stuff.
As an analogy, that is so dumb and juvenile that it barely deserves this sentence as a response.
There's a strong correlation between radios and the music they play, so my radio must create the music. Not to mention the correlation between global warming and the decline of pirates...
You're seeing how irrational this is now yes?
I see how irrational your "analogies" are, yes.
I've already provided my arguments, evidence, AND citations
You provided bare claims.
At no point have you given us verifiable evidence that demonstrates that minds can exist absent a brain. Neither have you given us a single example of a mind that demonstrably exists absent a brain.
All you have, are declaration and bare claims. And irrational "analogies".
It's now on you to show why that doesn't meet the burden.
Already did that. You don't support claims with more claims. You need independently verifiable evidence instead.
I can't help but laugh when you folks honestly believe the burden of proof means you never have to do anything but say "nuh uh!"
I can't help but laugh when you folks honestly believe that trying to support claims with more claims, somehow meets the burden of proof of the claims in need of supporting evidence.
Making more claims does not support the original claim, nore does it meet the burden of proof. In fact, piling on claims will only result in an even bigger set of claims that have a burden of proof.
If you can't refuted the provided biological, anthropological, psychological, and medicinal science then why should we reject it? Cause "nuh uh"?
You provided no such thing. All you gave were claims.
If you disagree, go ahead and provide a link to the post where you think you have given independently verifiable evidence of minds being able to exist absent a brain.
"All the data" supports it, but you were only capable of providing two pieces of evidence that were immediately refuted?
I didn't gave you 2 pieces of evidence. I gave you billions. Every single conscousness that we know off, comes with a brain. There are no examples of consciousnesses that exist absent a brain. There is no test or evidence that minds can exist absent a brain.
Then there is the causational evidence I also mentioned like drugs and brain damage and how such things manifest in consciousness. There is a clear, direct, demonstrable, causational link between physical brain states and states of consciousness. It is undeniable.
And should we just reject my evidence provided because you say so? Is "Materialist says so therefore true" valid to you?
1. you didn't provide evidence, you provided claims
2. already told you 3 times now that I'm not arguing from a materialist position. Explained it as well.
You keep comparing science and logic to fantasy
No, that's what you are doing.
I'm pointing out that they aren't in the same category.
Gods and ghosts are indistinguishable from made up fantasies.
I don't need to tackle things that are indistinguishable from made up fantasies.
A physicist trying to explain gravity, doesn't have to tackle undetectable graviton fairies either when proposing a hypothesis for gravity. Because models that are indistinguishable from made-up fantasies, are entirely useless and meaningless. There's no reason at all to entertain them, or propose them for that matter.
You can believe whatever that is indistinguishable from made-up fantasies off course. But please don't pretend as if others have to address your nonsense when they are dealing with actual reality.
So you confirm that things are false cause you say so
No. Basic logic.
If minds are produced by brains, then mind states would be dependend on brain states.
So following that, it would mean that altering brainstates would result in altered mind states.
And that happens to be exactly what we observe.
, since it's an objective fact that this is also expected in other positions. Fideist.
How is that an "objective" fact?
I'm particularly interested in the "objective" qualifier.
Because I have a feeling that it is just subjective instead. What else could it be, since you're talking about an unfalsifiable position with no evidence, no demonstrability, no verifiability and nothing objective to observe and study?
I really don't want to waste any more time on someone who thinks my radio creates all music, my TV all shows, and believes that global warming is caused by the lessening of world pirates. Sorry man.
Then you are in luck, because I don't think that at all.
No matter your irrational conclusions, false analogies and strawmen arguments.
A claim with no support?? From a Materialist?! SHOCK AND AWE!!!
1. 4th time: I'm not a materialist
2. It seems to me you're the one who made a claim without supporting it. So here's your chance: explain how mindstates being determined by physical brainstates somehow "support" dualism.
Lol"I can't address your objections, so I'll just pretend they weren't valid!" You do that.
I can and did adress them. I explained how they were invalid. Pointing out logic flaws in an argument IS addressing said argument. When an argument is infested with logical fallacies, the only way to address said argument, is to point out the logical fallacies.
Including logical fallacies in an argument, renders the argument invalid and therefor also its conclusion. You know that, right? It sounds like you don't.
I mean I showed by evidence and argument why it's wrong, that's a refutation. You keep screaming "nuh uh!"
You didn't show verifiable evidence. You only made declarations.