Every time someone goes screaming "materialism" I like to have a chuckle

[1137]

There is nothing about the mind (thought processes) that has been shown to be anything but the outcome of natural processes in the brain.

If you can point to research papers that conclude that a mind can exist wothout a brain, it would be a good place to start. Please exclude hearsay arguments about NDE’s.

What scientifically verified instances of a mind existing without a brain are there? How was this mind able to communicate it’s existence without vocal cords, or hear without ears?

I like how you automatically assume your position, immediately exclude evidence that many use to harm materialism, and then completely fly by the fact that asking for physical evidence of something wholly immaterial is logically void. I love these thread

 

[1137]

It is hard to comprehend an honest mistake if you jump around from thread to thread. I can only respond to a post in a given thread.

I mean, one's beliefs should be consistent across threads.

 

[Milton Platt]

I like how you automatically assume your position, immediately exclude evidence that many use to harm materialism, and then completely fly by the fact that asking for physical evidence of something wholly immaterial is logically void. I love these thread

If you only have hearsay to support an extraordinary claim, you have no hope of convincing anyone who values evidence.

 

[Shad]

Got my users crossed!

K

What do you mean I ignore the science behind it?

The medical references show a natural effect on the brain thus effect on the mind. That is what you ignored.

The science, such as placebos without deception, does not support materialism.

Never said it did. I said medical knowledge support methodological naturalism which documents why placebos work which is merely triggering chemical responses.

This includes how we can empirically test, for ourselves, the property and therefore identity dualism between mind and brain.

You are using a philosophical view as if a medical and scientific one.

I actually only know of the UPR through my previous education in anthropology and academic papers I've read through the years. For instance: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Another: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438240802452676
Another: The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...nepage&q=upper paleolithic revolution&f=false

Seems like you didn't read a thing you linked. None support your view of UPR. All support my view.

 

[Shad]

Mind are capable of free will where nature and matter are deterministic.

QM blew this out the water decades ago. There is research being done on links between QM and the brain as classical physics fails as an absolute. QM is still within nature. Keep in mind nature and/or natural continues to expand the scope of topics it covers. Supernatural has lost scope and topics for centuries as the label was often used for little reason other than lack of knowledge and superstition.

 

[siti]

For instance, mind does not take up space whereas matter is spacial.

But we actually don't know that...either way at the most fundamental levels...and in any case, this is certainly not an adequate argument against materialism because energy does not "take up" space either but it is a fundamental aspect of a materialistic worldview.

Mind is only accessible to the individual who possesses it. Matter, in this case specifically brains, are universally accessible.

We don't know that either - anybody - with right equipment - can see my brain - but they certainly cannot access it in the same way that I do.(And God 'elp 'em if they ever did!)

Mind are capable of free will where nature and matter are deterministic.

We have no idea whether there is really any such thing as free will and nature is almost certainly not deterministic at the most fundamental levels but rather probabilistic.

Mind has subjective experience whereas matter does not.

Well that is arguable and almost certainly unprovable but in any case, I'm not sure it can be 100% consistent/compatible with this...

experience itself is the ontological primitive

...which for the record I agree with. I mean I agree that experience (the fact of not the content - i.e. the fact that I experience the world and certainly not the content of my experience of the world as I interpret it) is the ONLY fact I can be sure of. So where does that come from? How deep does it run in reality? Does everything that exists "experience" the world in some sense? Or does "experience" emerge miraculously from a fundamentally non-experiential world? Does an electron (for example) "experience" the "electromagnetic field" in which it finds itself? It certainly "responds" to a change in the magnetic or electrical properties of its surroundings - they (electrons) are doing that right now in front of my eyes as I am typing. So is that - an electron's "response" to its environment - fundamentally and qualitatively wholly "other" than my (mental) response to my environment - or is it just a matter of scale and complexity? Is it really all that different (except in scale and complexity) from the difference between the crude tools of the early stone age and the carved ivory ornaments and petroglyphs of the upper paleolithic? Does an electron "experience" the world with the tools at its disposal and we with ours - and is that the difference that makes all the difference? Or is there really something more fundamentally "real" about "mind" apart from "matter"? And even if there is - how could we ever "experience" it?

 

[HonestJoe]

Except we know what properties matter/energy have, and what properties minds have. So we know that the properties not only don't match but straight contradict.

Exactly what properties of the mind contradict the fundamental properties of matter/energy? What do you think are the fundamental properties of matter/energy and how can anything that exists contradict them?

So you think, for example, that a planet chooses to orbit it's star? That a flower chooses where it grows? The ocean decides to make waves?

That’s a strawman (a conceptual one, not material one ). I never said everything natural is capable of making a (perceived) choice, I was saying it isn’t impossible for something natural to make a (perceived) choice.

"But **** science, it doesn't match my faith." Wow.

Exactly what science am I contradicting? You never quoted any science about the Upper Paleolithic Revolution you just made some cold assertions about it. My main point about that was that we don’t really know enough about what was going on in the minds of the people back then to make the kind of statements you did either way. What we do have is archaeological evidence of significant technological and social developments over a period of thousands of years.

 

[blü 2]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

The brain has been the subject of scientific study since the 18th century, but particularly since new tools became available in the 1990s. Brain research has revealed what has been called the most complex physical thing known in the universe, and while we can't pretend to have anything like a full grasp of it, progress has been steadily made.

It's all intricate biochemistry and bioelectricity. Nowhere has an alternative cause of mentation been detected. No phenomena have been observe that demand an explanation outside of that arena.

If you're right, why is that?

Surely the word 'immaterial' has no demonstrated meaning other than 'non-existent' / 'wholly imaginary'?

Yet even if we imagine an immaterial part of our mentation notwithstanding that obvious factor, then if such a thing were to exist then in our examinations of brain function we must detect the physical brain interacting with it, no?

The evidence of the interaction would be countless physical phenomena, identified because they have no apparent physical cause, but displaying a systematic and repeated presence relating to the various particular brain functions, no?

Yet we've never detected anything like that, correct?

And if we did, it would bring up a host of peculiar questions, like, How does the immaterial part function? Why does the brain need it? Why does it need a brain? The material part has all the emotions, the result of interaction between the brain and its hormones, but what is the exact division of labor between the material and immaterial parts? Which has the memory? Why can memory be impaired by brain injury? Which has the sex drive? Which withdraws your hand from the hot stove? Drives the car while you're talking to your passenger? Feels hungry? And decides to stop for a burger?

And since it's immaterial, hence wholly impervious to physics, how does it stay with the brain as we move around, as the earth rotates, as the earth moves in its orbit, as the sun moves relative to our galaxy, as our galaxy moves relative to other galaxies?

I'm seriously interested to hear your illumination of these points.

 

[viole]

Haha so if I unplug the tv mentioned above, cutting off it's "food source", all stations will cease to exist right?

Your analogy is obviously ridicolous.

First off, if I unplug materialistic power from the radio sender transmitters, then the radio station will die too. You have first to show me spiritual radio stations that just live on spiritual energy and trasmit to physical TVs before your case can get any plausibility.

Otherwise, I could invoke that a spiritual Mickey Mouse is embedded invisibly in our brains instead, and does the thinking for us, with the same exact evidence you have concerning your apiritual remote servers (slight chuckle).

Second, where are those spiritual transmitters? Must be very close. Since I become aware of anything i suddenly see within a few hundreds of milliseconds, then a rapid calculation of the time it takes to

- sense the object
- transmit it to the remote consciousness station
- elaboration on the spiritual consciousness server (plug here any other deepity of your choice)
- trasmission of the result to our sinapses

Together with the maximum speed information can be transmitted, should put your spiritual entity station, or whatever you believe in, somewhere between here and the moon.

So, where is it? Embedded in the spiritual fabric of our universe, and therefore invisible. Maybe communicating instantaneously via some entangled spooky action at a distance? LOL

Third: TV stations and TVs communicate via electromagnetic waves. Something pretty physical. Is that the same with your remote consciousness? How do spiritual things get the energy (the one you measure in joules) to excite the matter in our brains? Is there a sort of connector spiritual/physical between the two? ): ):

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

1/ The mind is the action of matter, neurons. So not contradictory but simbiotic.

2/ That's how we work.

3/ A virus can kill its host, does that mean its not a virus?

4/ doesnt really make much sense,
1) higher consciousness occured when the brain had developed enough. Its called evolution
2) please provide evidence for this, that is not how evolution works but it is analogous to how some believe god magic works
3) kill itself, yes.

 

[Polymath257]

For instance, mind does not take up space whereas matter is spacial. Mind is only accessible to the individual who possesses it. Matter, in this case specifically brains, are universally accessible. Mind are capable of free will where nature and matter are deterministic. Mind has subjective experience whereas matter does not.

Many properties of matter do not take up space. For example, temperature and pressure. Brains are only universally accessible if you can get through the skull and figure out how to understand what they are doing. And, since we have learned how to use brain scans in certain ways, we *have* been able to read minds, making the minds universally accessible.

You are assuming free will and/or determinism, which are very far from being demonstrated. And you are question begging when you claim that matter cannot have subjective experiences.

So, you are failing to consider that mind might be a property or a process in matter, as opposed to matter itself. You claim that mind cannot be accessed, but that may well simply be a technological issue (and, in fact, that is precisely what the evidence points to it being). You assume free will for minds and determinism for matter, where neither of those is known to actually be the case.

Certainty is unquestionable, objectively true knowledge. One of the few, if not the only examples of certainty, is Self-existence. Not that the body exists, or the brain exists, but "I" exists. It is what experiences (and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup argues that experience itself is the ontological primitive). That "I" perceives the brain, the body, the external world.

This is the case only if your starting point is solipsism. I cannot, for example, know that *you* exist, in that case. So, once again, the question isn't about fundamental nature, but methods of knowledge. Yes, we need to be conscious to know anything: that is how our brains work. So what? That does not establish that our minds are non-physical, only that we only acquire knowledge through interaction with the rest of the world.

Was this not you?

"But this was a burst of technological creativity - it says nothing at all about the "advent of higher consciousness".

Well, there is no proven link between the burst of technology you speak of and any change in consciousness. At most, it seems like someone stumbled on an idea that became popular. Consciousness certainly existed well before that point.

 

[Polymath257]

I've literally explained property dualism dozens of times, including in this thread.

Are you now saying you are some sort on panpsychic? Do you believe all matter is conscious, especially in the way it applies to humans?

No, my position is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon when networks of information processing get complicated enough. Our brains are a fine example. But we see similar things in the brains of other animals.

Ok. Show me where in nature, without higher consciousness, something technologically advanced in my home would exist. A garden with a laptop, a tree growing tvs. Even something like a planet choosing its orbit or pondering its existence.

Choosing and pondering are defining aspects of consciousness, so your condition negates the question. But, for example, my cat clearly ponders the location and attack mode he will use for his toy. Technology also requires complex interactions, although evolution can provide some amazingly complex systems. Do the physical systems in life have enough complexity to satisfy your desires?

Luckily I have both and materialism has neither. Yet you remain one...

The problem is that bad philosophy leads to wrong conclusions where being more skeptical of logical leaps and looking at the actual evidence can clarify things.

In general, as far as I can see, philosophy is best done over drinks with friends, but not considered a serious way to investigate truth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As always the "mind reduces to the brain" absurdity has risen up again. And as always I discussed my evidence against it at length only to be met with cries of "you haven't presented anything!" So where one such materialist, as usual, couldn't even address the points enough to acknowledge their existence, I'll repost them for their peers. Can't wait to see how differently it goes this time!

1. The mind and matter have wholly contradictory properties and so must be wholly separate things by the Law of Identity.

2. We're certain of consciousness and rely on it for all knowledge of matter. Can't reduce what we know to what we only know through it.

3. The human mind can question, manipulate, and go against nature to extreme degrees and so cannot be of nature. Empirical evidence includes medicine, cognitive therapy, self regulation, placebos, technological advancements, etc.

4. The Advent of higher consciousness during the Upper Paleolithic Revolution contradicts biologocal evolution in that it (1) occurred when we were already biologically modern, (2) effected the entire species at one time, and (3) is capable of what we discussed in #3.

Again, Beloved of Set . . . amen!

 

[1137]

In general, as far as I can see, philosophy is best done over drinks with friends, but not considered a serious way to investigate truth.

Real scientists vs. New Atheists on philosophy

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

. . . guts gore all over the floor if you please. It remains that you are misrepresent me in a dishonest and unethical way. While your at it iron your pants.

He might wish to spay some water on them first, what with the fire and all....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Real scientists vs. New Atheists on philosophy

Argument from Authority Logical Fallacy. Oh well.

 

[atanu]

Can you expand on this? I'm very interested in Vendanta.

You can refer to the following post:

Consciousness and Mind according to Vedanta

 

[blü 2]

Real scientists vs. New Atheists on philosophy

Thanks for that.

How come all the guys on the left were dead by 1976 and all the guys on the right are still around?

Have we learnt nothing since 1976?

Not least about how the brain works?

 

[1137]

Thanks for that.

How come all the guys on the left were dead by 1976 and all the guys on the right are still around?

Have we learnt nothing since 1976?

Not least about how the brain works?

If science had somehow made Philosophy unimportant you'd have a point. Sadly we can see that this is because academia has a severe bias towards scientism/materialism and has for a few decades. Those on the left were trained before such a bias was introduce, those on the left after. So really we're looking at actual scientists vs indoctrinated materialists.

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean, one's beliefs should be consistent across threads.

Still not clear. My beliefs are very very clear and consistent form thread to thread. I have always considered Methodological Naturalism the foundation of science, and neutral rejecting any assumptions and conclusions that claim nor conclude a materialist belief,