• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Empirical Evidence and Arguments for God(s)

Nimos

Well-Known Member
How can you conclude this without a Consciousness to know brains? Have you ever seen a brain, alive or dead, without your consciousness being present?
No sure I understand what you mean, but I would argue that a thing without a brain would not be conscious, like a tree or plant for instance. What im saying is that the brain is needed before consciousness can exist. Do you know of anything that we would call conscious that doesn't have a brain?

Hahaha so now biological evolution includes no biological change? Woooooooooow.
No, clue what you mean?

That's actually a good straw man, pretending the UPR was just tool use. Unfortunately I've formally studied the UPR so doesn't really work on me haha.
I have never said that... or at least it should be fairly obvious that what I meant, is not that humans at specific point in time decide to do certain things, but rather that this is process which developed over many years, UPR is simply part of that.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Grabbing my laptop for the longer ones but...



Haha that's amazing. Are books you agree with also walls f gibberish?



I absolutely love when this happens! "This is so obviously wrong but I can't even give a single example as to why." I totally believe you have those refutations ;)



Lost you... As in you didn't understand? I don't think a lack of comprehension by others invalidates evidence...



Explicitly not.
Cool, so exactly what do we define consciousness as, then?


I love this! So anthropology, medicine, biology, psychology... Suddenly none of these are empirical because you don't like the conclusions I draw from them! In all my time the groups that deny science the most for contradicting their Faith's are creationists and atheists!
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
It would be impossible to say anything about brains or even gather evidence without consciousness. When have you seen or known of a brain without the presence of your Consciousness?

That does not answer the question. If we have no examples of consciousness outside otaht produced by a brain (or at least a rudimentary nervous system), then exists apart from that?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
That does not answer the question. If we have no examples of consciousness outside otaht produced by a brain (or at least a rudimentary nervous system), then exists apart from that?
According to some spiritual paths and religions, the mind is not in the brain, where the brain only acts as a receiver of signals, then it is the brain that translates it into thoughts :) Consciousness and mind is not same, in Buddhism, for example, you have eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, body consciousness( feeling the body) and so on. But in other spiritual paths it can be seen differently.

Hope i did not confuse anyone with this post :)
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
That does not answer the question. If we have no examples of consciousness outside otaht produced by a brain (or at least a rudimentary nervous system), then exists apart from that?

Here you beg the question. You presume that brain produces consciousness. How matter produces phenomenal consciousness?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
According to some spiritual paths and religions, the mind is not in the brain, where the brain only acts as a receiver of signals, then it is the brain that translates it into thoughts :) Consciousness and mind is not same, in Buddhism, for example, you have eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, body consciousness( feeling the body) and so on. But in other spiritual paths it can be seen differently.

Hope i did not confuse anyone with this post :)

Yes, I am aware of religious beliefs about consciousness. but good to post for clarification for others.
I am not addressing such beliefs, but what we actually have observed and can objectively verify through testing.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Yes, I am aware of religious beliefs about consciousness. but good to post for clarification for others.
I am not addressing such beliefs, but what we actually have observed and can objectively verify through testing.
So only scientific answer is what you looking for :) Sorry cant help you on that part
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Then why could I actually show evidence, and you just claim it?

You have shown me no evidence at all and in fact it IS you who's just claiming it.
The projection is strong in this one....

What I told you is a fact: 100% of evidence is suggestive of consciousness being produced by physical brains.
0% of evidence suggests that consciousness can exist absent a brain.

EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE we have of consciousness, came from a brain.

The only evidence you speak of is correlation between mind and brain states, which is expected in literally every metaphysical position. Even freaking solipsism.

Your entire argument is nothing but solipsism.
I am just going by the evidence. Your metaphysics is just superimposing things on brains in hindsight.
You start from the idea that consiousness somehow can exist absent a brain.
I don't. I start from the evidence of reality. And nothing in the evidence of reality tells me that we should go down that path. In fact, the evidence of reality is sending me in the opposite direction.

I love this question because it illustrates how confused materialism is

I'm not a materialist per say, actually.
And this isn't a materialistic claim either. It might be consistent with it, but I don't argue from a materialist position.

As I said: I start from the evidence, not a presupposition.
Materialist presupposition would, in this case, not start from the evidence as a blank slate either. It would start from the idea that everything can be reduced to the material.

Again: I don't.
When asking the question "what is consciousness"? I say, well, let's look at the data and try and find out.
The data tells me that brains produce consiousness. And unless you can come up with data that contradicts that, then I have no reason at all to conclude something different.

When have you ever seen or known anything about a physical brain at any time without relying on your own consciousness?

Yes, my brain needs to process information and reason towards the conclusion to conclude that consiousness seems to be produced by physical brains - or to conclude anything else for that matter.

What's your point?
You seem to be thinking you've hit some "aha, gotcha!" point, but I'm not seeing it.


Huh, and yet still can't provide one shred of "all the evidence". Not suspicious at all!!

I offer you every single instance of "consciousness" we have ever encountered and documented.
I guarantee you that each and every one of them comes from a physical brain.

You can also damage said brains and see the effects thereof manifested in what is called "consciousness".
You can also take some mind altering drugs and look at what influencing some of the brain chemistry will do to your consiousness.

If consiousness is something distinct from physical brains, how come it is altered (or even seizes to exist) when you mess with the physical brain (either by altering chemistry or downright damaging it)?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
You have shown me no evidence at all and in fact it IS you who's just claiming it.
The projection is strong in this one....

What I told you is a fact: 100% of evidence is suggestive of consciousness being produced by physical brains.
0% of evidence suggests that consciousness can exist absent a brain.

EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE we have of consciousness, came from a brain.



Your entire argument is nothing but solipsism.
I am just going by the evidence. Your metaphysics is just superimposing things on brains in hindsight.
You start from the idea that consiousness somehow can exist absent a brain.
I don't. I start from the evidence of reality. And nothing in the evidence of reality tells me that we should go down that path. In fact, the evidence of reality is sending me in the opposite direction.



I'm not a materialist per say, actually.
And this isn't a materialistic claim either. It might be consistent with it, but I don't argue from a materialist position.

As I said: I start from the evidence, not a presupposition.
Materialist presupposition would, in this case, not start from the evidence as a blank slate either. It would start from the idea that everything can be reduced to the material.

Again: I don't.
When asking the question "what is consciousness"? I say, well, let's look at the data and try and find out.
The data tells me that brains produce consiousness. And unless you can come up with data that contradicts that, then I have no reason at all to conclude something different.



Yes, my brain needs to process information and reason towards the conclusion to conclude that consiousness seems to be produced by physical brains - or to conclude anything else for that matter.

What's your point?
You seem to be thinking you've hit some "aha, gotcha!" point, but I'm not seeing it.




I offer you every single instance of "consciousness" we have ever encountered and documented.
I guarantee you that each and every one of them comes from a physical brain.

You can also damage said brains and see the effects thereof manifested in what is called "consciousness".
You can also take some mind altering drugs and look at what influencing some of the brain chemistry will do to your consiousness.

If consiousness is something distinct from physical brains, how come it is altered (or even seizes to exist) when you mess with the physical brain (either by altering chemistry or downright damaging it)?

Ah finally some evidence. Let's refute it.

As I've already said to others, it's impossible to know anything about or even ponder brains without minds. The idea of a brain without a mind isn't even valid, you wouldn't know about it if mind wasn't involved. Plus to really refute Consciousness without a brain you'd have to tackle things like gods and ghosts.

That doing things to the brain does things to the mind is actually expected in literally every position. That correlation is just a fact of reality. But it's not evidence for reduction when it's also evidence for dualism and idealism and panpsychism etc.

And.... That's it. "All the evidence" amounted to only two things refuted in seconds. What a position.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ah finally some evidence. Let's refute it.

Well, aren't we cocky :rolleyes:

As I've already said to others, it's impossible to know anything about or even ponder brains without minds.

Or minds without brains, for that matter.


The idea of a brain without a mind isn't even valid, you wouldn't know about it if mind wasn't involved.

And the same goes for no brain.

I'm seeing a pattern here.
It sounds like there is a very strong connection between minds and brains. It's almost as if they are one and the same thing. Almost. :rolleyes:

Plus to really refute Consciousness without a brain you'd have to tackle things like gods and ghosts.

1. the burden of proof is in your camp. YOU are the one that is claiming that a consciousness can exist absent a brain. Upto you to support that.

2. all the actual data supports the thesis that brains produce consiousness.

3. I don't have to tackle things that are indistinguishable from made up fantasies.

That doing things to the brain does things to the mind is actually expected in literally every position.

I disagree.
I expect such an outcome if the mind is produced by the brain.
I see no reason to expect such an outcome if the mind is something that exists distinct from a brain.

That correlation is just a fact of reality.

A fact that supports the idea that brains produce consiousness.

But it's not evidence for reduction when it's also evidence for dualism and idealism and panpsychism etc.

That states of consiousness are determined by physical brainstates, does not at all support the idea of dualism. Au contraire.

And.... That's it

Indeed, that's it. I didn't expect anything other then handwaving and more bare claims to support your initial bare claims.

"All the evidence" amounted to only two things refuted in seconds. What a position.

You didn't refute anything. You merely "declared" it wrong and then piled on with more bare claims.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
No I meant I lost agreement/interest in your long argument after realizing that the whole very long post appeared to be based on what I took to be a false supposition...that consciousness is an ontological primitive.

Your recommendation may be good advice. Now, do we have reason to believe Consciousness is not a primitive, or to refute the evidence that it is?

That does not answer the question. If we have no examples of consciousness outside otaht produced by a brain (or at least a rudimentary nervous system), then exists apart from that?

I can't say I fully get what you're asking, can you clarify?

Well, aren't we cocky :rolleyes:

Sure? I'm just aware of the already refuted, barely existent evidence for materialism.

Or minds without brains, for that matter.

How can you know that? 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?


the same goes for no brain.

So you CAN disprove gods and ghosts definitely! Please do! Also this is just silly. My desk has no brain and my consciousness is still tied to and aware of it. Seems like you're not comprehending the problem here...

I see a pattern here
It sounds like there is a very strong connection between minds and brains. It's almost as if they are one and the same thing. Almost. :rolleyes:

Ah so you believe correlation is causation, like any reasonable person. Hell there's a strong connection between my desk and what I put on it, guess my desk creates my stuff. 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?

the burden of proof is in your camp. YOU are the one that is claiming that a consciousness can exist absent a brain. Upto you to support that.

I've already provided my arguments, evidence, AND citations. It's now on you to show why that doesn't meet the burden. 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!" If you can't refuted the provided biological, anthropological, psychological, and medicinal science then why should we reject it? Cause "nuh uh"?

2. all the actual data supports the thesis that brains produce consiousness.

"All the data" supports it, but you were only capable of providing two pieces of evidence that were immediately refuted? And should we just reject my evidence provided because you say so? Is "Materialist says so therefore true" valid to you?

3. I don't have to tackle things that are indistinguishable from made up fantasies.

You keep comparing science and logic to fantasy, explains a lot about materialism :D



disagree.
I expect such an outcome if the mind is produced by the brain.
I see no reason to expect such an outcome if the mind is something that exists distinct from a brain.

So you confirm that things are false cause you say so, since it's an objective fact that this is also expected in other positions. Fideist.

[quote ]A fact that supports the idea that brains produce consiousness[/quote]

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.



That states of consiousness are determined by physical brainstates, does not at all support the idea of dualism. Au contraire.

A claim with no support?? From a Materialist?! SHOCK AND AWE!!!



that's it. I didn't expect anything other then handwaving and more bare claims to support your initial bare claims.

Lol"I can't address your objections, so I'll just pretend they weren't valid!" You do that.


You merely "declared" it wrong and then piled on with more bare claims.

I mean I showed by evidence and argument why it's wrong, that's a refutation. You keep screaming "nuh uh!"
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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

How can you know that?

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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Quick question, can I use this discussion as an example of Materialist philosophy?

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

You don't have to be a Materialist to argue for it, same with really any position. And you're right about number two! I'd take your own advise!


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?

I feel like I've already explained this isn't even a valid way of thinking about things. Again, how did you get all this data without dependence on consciousness? Are you not comprehending that we can doubt the existence of matter but not mind?

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".

Ok? This seems random...

But off course, the burden of proof is with those people who claim such things DO exist.

True! Then when they provide testable evidence supported by a minimum of four scientific fields and logical conclusions from it, it's on the dissenter to show why it doesn't hold up.

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.

Right, I forget that like equally rational positions like flat Earth and Creationism, ignoring evidence makes it cease to exist. You got me.

Btw if I ignore the evidence for evolution will you become a creationist? Orthat only works for you?

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.

Yes, you keep saying "all the data" the presented something expected in really every metaphysical position and that was it. You keep claiming there's data without showing it. See how my OP has citations? Do that.

No, I can't disprove unfalsifiable models that make zero testable predictions about reality and which are indistinguishable from made-up fantasies. :rolleyes:

I mean I'm not even sure what you're talking about, I was talking about gods and ghosts which are both easily falsifiable by proving materialism and make plenty of predictions. Do you just... Not have anything?

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.

I mean I literally explained how the model can be tested even by an individual in their own house, then provided 21 sources of further information related to the ideas. Can you address ANY OF IT.

That's indeed incredibly silly.

I'm sorry you think reality and fact are silly, makes sense though. Can you explain how you're aware of your desk without consciousness please? Stop avoiding this question.



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.

Right, just like how when I turn my TV off the shows stop coming through. That's straight causation. So by your logic my tv creates all TV shows

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.

Yep. The dualists, idealists, pansychics, and even solipsists accept this fact to and it's expected in every single one of those positions. If brain makes mind they'll be connected. If brain receives mind they'll be connected. If brain IS mind they'll be connected. Can't support ONE when it doesn't contradict and is expected in ANY.

As an analogy, that is so dumb and juvenile that it barely deserves this sentence as a response.

It's what you believe tho.

I see how irrational your "analogies" are, yes.

So they're irrational except when you believe them? Wut? C'mon man, if the conclusions drawn from YOUR LOGIC are irrational then YOUR LOGIC is irrational, QED.

ou 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".

I like how "evidence I can literally test myself and the finding if biology, psychology, anthropology, and medicine" are bare claims to you. It says so much about your faith. Also of course the analogies are irrational, they're reductions to absurdity based on YOUR LOGIC.


Already did that. You don't support claims with more claims. You need independently verifiable evidence instead.

I like how you're so rational that you think I'm apparently every single cited scientist from my OP just making things up and getting them into papers under fake names.

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.

Don't laugh at yourself man, it's ok.

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.

I mean I've explained this like ten times, we have no way to even investigate that question. You can't verify ANYTHING without reliance onConsciousness.

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.

Well you gave 2. Yes, we can give drugs to a billion people and see consciousness change but that's still a single piece of evidence for materialism - affecting brain effects mind.

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 nobody denies it. We deny it's proof of materialism because we expect an identical outcome.

Gods and ghosts are indistinguishable from made up fantasies.

Then can I see all the evidence for other made up fantasies? I literally grew up in a haunted house where we once had the cops helps us trying to debunk a haunting. You just screaming that they're fake won't do much haha. You've called the cops on a back yard unicorn before?

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.

I agree, but look. If the brain receives mind they will also correlate. If the brain is created by mind, they will also correlate. And you're straight ignoring the fact that the opposite is also true, mind states can affect brain states. This is actually explained in the scientific citations you pretend don't exist in my op such as Placebos without deception and self regulation/cognitive appraisal. Read them.

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?

Holy crap you're dense. Even if we're talking about some BS like flat Earth it would be an objective fact that they expect earth to be flat. Maybe you should actually look into the alternatives of materialism and see what they say? I get you want to pretend you're not a Materialist, but you seem entirely I aware of the alternatives.


Then you are in luck, because I don't think that at all.
No matter your irrational conclusions, false analogies and strawmen arguments.

Then stop applying that identical logic to mind/brain when you realize it's irrationality.

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.

Maybe actually ****ing read the op where I explain this in full :D

You didn't show verifiable evidence. You only made declarations.

Materialist or not can I just say again how thankful I am for you arguing on their behalf right now? This is literally gold. Entire fields of science are my own declarations because logic. It's truly amazing and really clearly illustrates the irrationality and fideistic nature of this position. Please keep responding.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Quick question, can I use this discussion as an example of Materialist philosophy?

No.

You don't have to be a Materialist to argue for it, same with really any position

Materialism is a label that specifically points to specific presuppositions, which I do not have.
How many times must I repeat it, before you'll accept my position that I am telling you is my position?

I feel like I've already explained this isn't even a valid way of thinking about things.

Then you are holding a self-contradictory position.


Again, how did you get all this data without dependence on consciousness?

Depending on consciousness to analyse the world, in no way shape or form means that consciousness therefor exists as a seperate entity, distinct from physical brains, like you are claiming. Not even remotely.

Ok? This seems random...

Nothing random about pointing out that the unfalsifiable by definition can't be falsified AND that logically not being able to falsify the unfalsifiable doesn't, in any way, lend credence to the unfalsifiable proposition.


True! Then when they provide testable evidence supported by a minimum of four scientific fields and logical conclusions from it, it's on the dissenter to show why it doesn't hold up.

You didn't provide such evidence at all. You expressed opinions informed by your religious beliefs. The experts of said scientific fields don't share your beliefs at all.

Right, I forget that like equally rational positions like flat Earth and Creationism, ignoring evidence makes it cease to exist. You got me.

Wait, did you just claim that the earth is flat and that there is evidence for that????

Yes, you keep saying "all the data" the presented something expected in really every metaphysical position and that was it. You keep claiming there's data without showing it. See how my OP has citations? Do that.

I already gave you that data. Every single example of consiousness known to mankind. They all come with a physical brain. A physical brain of which the state has direct impact on the state of consiousness.
That suggests the latter is produced by the first. In no way does that suggest that they are independently existing entities.

I mean I'm not even sure what you're talking about

I know. It's actually the core of your problem.


I was talking about gods and ghosts which are both easily falsifiable by proving materialism and make plenty of predictions. Do you just... Not have anything?

What testable predictions are made by ideas concerning gods and ghosts?

I'm sorry you think reality and fact are silly, makes sense though. Can you explain how you're aware of your desk without consciousness please? Stop avoiding this question.

Once more: that consiousness is how we analyse the world, in no way means that consciousness is a thing that can exist on its own. Nore does it inform us about where consciousness comes from or even what it is.

All it tells is, is just that consciousness is how we are aware of the world. That's it.

Right, just like how when I turn my TV off the shows stop coming through. That's straight causation. So by your logic my tv creates all TV shows

False analogy. You can't change the course of a TV show by changing wires in your TV.
But you CAN change the course and state of a consciousness by changing the wiring (chemistry) in the brain.

Yep. The dualists, idealists, pansychics, and even solipsists accept this fact to and it's expected in every single one of those positions.

Only arbitrarily.
In the idea that the mind is produced by the brain, then that would be a necessary prediction.
As in: if altering the brain did NOT trigger an alteration of the mind, then the "mind produced by brain" idea would be falsified.

But you can't say the same of those other "positions". At all.
So if this would NOT falsify the models, then altered mind as a result of altered brains isn't supportive of those positions at all.

It's just another case of painting the bullseye around the arrow. All ad hoc rationalisations.


If brain makes mind they'll be connected. If brain receives mind they'll be connected. If brain IS mind they'll be connected. Can't support ONE when it doesn't contradict and is expected in ANY.

And if brain and mind is NOT connected, then only the "brain IS mind" will be falsified.
So it is nonsense that this is "expected" by dualism. If it were, then finding a mind that isn't impacted by brain states WOULD falsify dualism. But it wouldn't. In fact, au contraire. IF we would find such an example, then dualists would be all up in the air claiming that this is evidence in support of their proposition.

The ironic part, is that I would actually agree with them at that point.....

It's what you believe tho.

No. I think I know better then you what I believe and don't believe, mr mind reader.

So they're irrational except when you believe them? Wut?

No. They are irrational because of their contents.

C'mon man, if the conclusions drawn from YOUR LOGIC are irrational then YOUR LOGIC is irrational, QED.

"If", yes. But it wasn't. So no.

I like how "evidence I can literally test myself and the finding if biology, psychology, anthropology, and medicine" are bare claims to you.
When you just claim it, they are just claims, yes.
Funny how actual biologists, medical doctors/researchers, psychiatrists etc don't actually agree with you at all. Show me a single peer reviewed paper where it is said that the mind and the brain are two distinct entities that can exist independently from one another.

You can't, because there aren't any, because the science doesn't support that view at all.

It says so much about your faith

I'm an atheist. I don't do faith.

I mean I've explained this like ten times, we have no way to even investigate that question. You can't verify ANYTHING without reliance onConsciousness.

Once more: irrelevant.
I can't walk without my legs, but that doesn't mean that my legs are independent entities that can exist and function without the rest of my body.

The brain/mind isn't any different. Pointing out that the mind is what we use to analyse the world, doesn't tell you what the mind is and certainly not where it originates.

Well you gave 2. Yes, we can give drugs to a billion people and see consciousness change but that's still a single piece of evidence for materialism - affecting brain effects mind.

Not materialism. Instead, just the idea that minds are produced by physical brains.
How many times must I repeat to you that I don't start from materialist presuppositions, before you'll comprehend it?

And nobody denies it. We deny it's proof of materialism because we expect an identical outcome.

Not materialism.
And I already explained how your "expectation" is arbitrary. Because observing the opposite wouldn't falsify your claim at all. Au contraire. Observing the opposite would make guys like you throw arms in the air and scream "eureka, we have evidence for dualism!". And I would actually agree.

So no. You don't EXPECT that outcome. Instead, you OBSERVER that outcome and then come up with ad hoc rationalisations for it. When the opposite wouldn't falsify your position, then the current data doesn't validate your position either.

On the other hand, observing the opposite WOULD falsify the position that minds are produced by brains.

Then can I see all the evidence for other made up fantasies? I literally grew up in a haunted house where we once had the cops helps us trying to debunk a haunting.

:rolleyes:

You just screaming that they're fake won't do much haha. You've called the cops on a back yard unicorn before?

If you call the cops in Belgium for "ghosts haunting your house", you'll either get fined for pranking and wasting their time, or they'll send an ambulance instead to take you to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation.

I agree, but look. If the brain receives mind they will also correlate.

This is a claim that requires evidence. Again, this is just ad hoc rationalisation. You only say this because it is what we observe. If tomorrow we observed the opposite, you'ld call it evidence for dualism, wouldn't you? Be honest now...

Observing the opposite would falsify the idea of minds being produced by brains.
It would NOT falsify dualism.

This means that our current observations by no means are expected by dualism.
If they are truelly expected then observing the opposite would falsify the idea.



And you're straight ignoring the fact that the opposite is also true, mind states can affect brain states. This is actually explained in the scientific citations you pretend don't exist in my op such as Placebos without deception and self regulation/cognitive appraisal. Read them.

The placebo effect etc is pretty well understood. It's basically delusion and it does not at all show what you think it shows. It provides no evidence for dualism at all. As any medical expert worth his salt will tell you.

I get you want to pretend you're not a Materialist, but you seem entirely I aware of the alternatives.

If you accuse me of lying one more time, I will report you.
I have told you and explained at least 5 times now that I'm not a materialist nore start from material presuppositions.

Maybe actually ****ing read the op where I explain this in full :D

I did. There's no evidence for dualism there.
I see lots of claims, opinions and religiously infuenced beliefs.

Materialist or not can I just say again how thankful I am for you arguing on their behalf right now?

I'm not. Stop lying.

This is literally gold. Entire fields of science are my own declarations because logic.

No scientific field supports dualism. Not a single one.

It's truly amazing and really clearly illustrates the irrationality and fideistic nature of this position. Please keep responding.

Lie one more time and the discussion is over.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
This will be my last response out of self respect.

No.



Materialism is a label that specifically points to specific presuppositions, which I do not have.
How many times must I repeat it, before you'll accept my position that I am telling you is my position?

Yeah, like the mind reducing to the brain? Are you now saying that's NOT your position?

epending on consciousness to analyse the world, in no way shape or form means that consciousness therefor exists as a seperate entity, distinct from physical brains, like you are claiming. Not even remotely.

No, it means empirically we can never reduce consciousness to anything we know through it because consciousness is foundational to all knowledge. I never said this alone proves duality, just that it can't support material reduction.


Nothing random about pointing out that the unfalsifiable by definition can't be falsified AND that logically not being able to falsify the unfalsifiable doesn't, in any way, lend credence to the unfalsifiable proposition.

I like how you failing to falsify it makes it unfalsifiable haha. That's cute.



You didn't provide such evidence at all. You expressed opinions informed by your religious beliefs. The experts of said scientific fields don't share your beliefs at all.

Should I just quote it all again to prove how laughable you are? Will do. I'll even leave just the purely empirical.

SOME References
2- Axiom of Consciousness Axiom of Consciousness - Objectivism Wiki
3- Ontological Argument for Idealism by Bernardo Kastrup
4 to 7- Skepticism and Content Externalism Skepticism and Content Externalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
8- Making Medicines
Making medicines
9- Powering a Generation
Powering A Generation: Generating Electricity
10- How to Practice Self Regulation
How to Develop and Use Self-Regulation in Your Life
11- Cognitive Appraisal
Cognitive Appraisal
12- Placebos Without Deception
Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome
13- Framework of the UPR
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
14- Modern Humans Take the World
Was the Upper Paleolithic the Height of Artistic Brilliance?
15- UP Technology, Art, Culture
Paleolithic technology, culture, and art
16- Hierarchy of Needs
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
17- The Electrical Patterns of Life
The Electrical Patterns of Life; The Work of Dr. Harold S. Burr | Men & Women of Medicine | World Research Foundation
18- Harold Burr's Biofields
http://www.energymed.org/hbank/handouts/harold_burr_biofields.htm
19- Electromagnetics of Life (PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0xWf76krbzIG2DWHWuOP4q&cshid=1569537305106

Wait, did you just claim that the earth is flat and that there is evidence for that????

Not at all, was just pointing out that "brain=mind" is about as evidenced and reasoned as flat Earth - not at all.


I already gave you that data. Every single example of consiousness known to mankind. They all come with a physical brain. A physical brain of which the state has direct impact on the state of consiousness.
That suggests the latter is produced by the first. In no way does that suggest that they are independently existing entities.

1. And you know this free of consciousness how?
2. I like how you straight ignore the opposite is also true. Like if one effecting the other is evidence one causes the other, isn't both affecting each other evidence that both exists? Or do you just use different logic for what you reject like a good dishonest person?

What testable predictions are made by ideas concerning gods and ghosts?

How about the ones in the OP? Telos in life, interaction with humans across time and culture, aspects within material nature that can question and go against it - you know, what we see now.

Once more: that consiousness is how we analyse the world, in no way means that consciousness is a thing that can exist on its own. Nore does it inform us about where consciousness comes from or even what it is.

That's true, it just says that to the best we can empirically tell consciousness is always present.

False analogy. You can't change the course of a TV show by changing wires in your TV.
But you CAN change the course and state of a consciousness by changing the wiring (chemistry) in the brain.

Really? I can't make it faster or slower? Can't change the color? Can't change the language? Hell did you play/watch that Black Mirror choose your own adventure movie? And if we're just brains, how can you reject determinism?

Only arbitrarily.
In the idea that the mind is produced by the brain, then that would be a necessary prediction.
As in: if altering the brain did NOT trigger an alteration of the mind, then the "mind produced by brain" idea would be falsified.

While I'm proud to see you using basic logic, I can't imagine how many times I need to say this correlation isn't rejected by anyone lol. There's a great article by Kastrup, a famous scientist who used to work at CERN, fully cited up in my OP on this topic you should check out.

But you can't say the same of those other "positions". At all.
So if this would NOT falsify the models, then altered mind as a result of altered brains isn't supportive of those positions at all.

Why? You don't comprehend two separate things can affect each other?

And if brain and mind is NOT connected, then only the "brain IS mind" will be falsified.
So it is nonsense that this is "expected" by dualism. If it were, then finding a mind that isn't impacted by brain states WOULD falsify dualism. But it wouldn't. In fact, au contraire. IF we would find such an example, then dualists would be all up in the air claiming that this is evidence in support of their proposition.

I mean if brain and mind are not connected then nothing makes sense. That's like pondering what if the sun were blue - it's obviously false. But yes, in dualism we expect brain to affect mind. I don't get why this is so hard to comprehend.

When you just claim it, they are just claims, yes.
Funny how actual biologists, medical doctors/researchers, psychiatrists etc don't actually agree with you at all. Show me a single peer reviewed paper where it is said that the mind and the brain are two distinct entities that can exist independently from one another.

I mean I have. I'd start with Kastrup if you still haven't bothered to read ****, it's academic peer reviewed and fully cited paper but is actually for idealism. Your mind and brain can be the same without the brain being first :)

You can't, because there aren't any, because the science doesn't support that view at all.

Then you should have used this time to refute the science and/or conclusions drawn from it ‍♂️

I'm an atheist. I don't do faith.

Aw that's hysterical, you don't even know what faith is beyond the biblical definition. Of course you have faith sweetie, we all do. Now you've just entered self delusion.

Once more: irrelevant.
I can't walk without my legs, but that doesn't mean that my legs are independent entities that can exist and function without the rest of my body.

That's a good example, because your legs have physical material properties. Minds don't. Are you finally grasping the concept?

Also, if I cut off your legs you actually think they'll cease to exist and not just be there, separate? My god, so reasonable.

Not materialism. Instead, just the idea that minds are produced by physical brains.
How many times must I repeat to you that I don't start from materialist presuppositions, before you'll comprehend it?

That's materialism genius. Have you studied philosophy for even give seconds?

If you call the cops in Belgium for "ghosts haunting your house", you'll either get fined for pranking and wasting their time, or they'll send an ambulance instead to take you to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation.

I mean obviously we didn't, we called the police for someone watching in our window. Spend 2 solid hours trying to make that shadow go away.

This is a claim that requires evidence. Again, this is just ad hoc rationalisation. You only say this because it is what we observe. If tomorrow we observed the opposite, you'ld call it evidence for dualism, wouldn't you? Be honest now...

Again you are too daft to understand theoreticals. I'm not claiming anything on this one, I'm explaining what positions believe. If you were an honest seeker and f truth you'd already know what other positions believe and expect.

This means that our current observations by no means are expected by dualism.
If they are truelly expected then observing the opposite would falsify the idea.

I guess my explanations of dualism with full citations from science and based on modern evidence are refuted cause the guy who can't even study the basics says so.

The placebo effect etc is pretty well understood. It's basically delusion and it does not at all show what you think it shows. It provides no evidence for dualism at all. As any medical expert worth his salt will tell you.

See how you just scream this instead of refuting the literal scientific source if shared? Your right, it IS kind of like delusion. Belief with no physiological change cause physiological change, mind affecting brain. But sure, the evidence that both exists and affect each other isn't evidence both exist and affect each other hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


If you accuse me of lying one more time, I will report you.
I have told you and explained at least 5 times now that I'm not a materialist nore start from material presuppositions.

If I was arguing for christ, saying he's the sun of God, quoting the Bible, using Christian arguments, but screaming I'm not Christian... Would you think I'm Christian or not?

No scientific field supports dualism. Not a single one.

Keep saying it it'll become true! At this point since you still won't address any of the science I accept it's cause you can't and accept your concession.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member

Cool.

Pick one, summarize it and then explain how it supports dualism.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That's... What the entire op is.

No. The OP does not zoom in on one of these with a clear summary and explanation. Instead it just lists them, claiming they support your claims.
The part of the OP above the list of reference, I already addressed in post 13

Study some philosophy before trying again please.

Philosophy doesn't help in understanding neurology.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
No. The OP does not zoom in on one of these with a clear summary and explanation. Instead it just lists them, claiming they support your claims.
The part of the OP above the list of reference, I already addressed in post 13



Philosophy doesn't help in understanding neurology.

Actually logic is needed to interpret anything. Really shows the depth of your understanding.

For the tenth time, read the Kastrup one then.
 
Top