The faith that the brain is the source of mind doesn't hold up

[1137]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

1. The only evidence for physicalism is that doing things to the brain affects the mind. This is expected by everyone though, dualists for instance don't say the two aren't connected, it isn't exclusive to physicalism. It also forgets that correlation isn't causation. And the conclusion doesn't even follow, for instance if I break my TV and can't watch the news anymore, my TV still doesn't create the news.

2. We cannot rely on a faith that one day science will show the brain creates the mind.

3. Matter and minds have mutually exclusive properties and so cannot be reduced to each other.

4. Matter is only known through mind so we cannot reduce mind to matter.

5. The existence of consciousness is undoubtable but matter's existence can be doubted, so the first cannot reduce to the second.

6. Consciousness also affects the body the same way the body affects consciousness.

7. If we were deterministic mechanical processes we could not have the free will we possess.

8. Evolution doesn't explain how something with properties mutually exclusive to matter can exist.

9. Emergence doesn't explain the relationship between mind and matter because emergent things share properties of what they emerged from. For instance you can both see legs and "running," feel a leg and feel the air as they run by you.

10. Physicalism does not account for the existence of logical or mathematical laws as they are immaterial.

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

 

[Quintessence]

It's likely I'll mostly stay out of this thread, but I wanted to add in an observation.

Supposing physicalism is the One True Truth of metaphysical epistemology, it doesn't adequately address the realities of lived human experience. What I mean by that is the belief that, say, "anger" can be reduced down to "just neurons and hormones" (physical processes) simply does not reflect our actual lived experiences of being angry. This limits the utility of physicalism as a philosophical worldview - it depersonalizes lived experience too much to serve as a useful foundation for day-to-day living. It's mainly useful for the sciences or methodological naturalism. It has trouble with things like the fine arts, humanities, culture studies, relationships... because none of that reduces down in our lived experience to "just atoms and molecules."

 

[Twilight Hue]

The split brain: A tale of two halves - Nature

Since the 1960s, researchers have been scrutinizing a handful of patients who underwent a radical kind of brain surgery. The cohort has been a boon to neuroscience — but soon it will be gone.

www.nature.com

The mind is not a single entity either.

It's fascinating when one realizes the illusion that the brain is sourced to one mind, is actually multiple minds working together, or in this case contrary when separated.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why can’t I know how the movie is made and enjoy the story at the same time?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. The only evidence for physicalism is that doing things to the brain affects the mind. This is expected by everyone though, dualists for instance don't say the two aren't connected, it isn't exclusive to physicalism. It also forgets that correlation isn't causation. And the conclusion doesn't even follow, for instance if I break my TV and can't watch the news anymore, my TV still doesn't create the news.

2. We cannot rely on a faith that one day science will show the brain creates the mind.

3. Matter and minds have mutually exclusive properties and so cannot be reduced to each other.

4. Matter is only known through mind so we cannot reduce mind to matter.

5. The existence of consciousness is undoubtable but matter's existence can be doubted, so the first cannot reduce to the second.

6. Consciousness also affects the body the same way the body affects consciousness.

7. If we were deterministic mechanical processes we could not have the free will we possess.

8. Evolution doesn't explain how something with properties mutually exclusive to matter can exist.

9. Emergence doesn't explain the relationship between mind and matter because emergent things share properties of what they emerged from. For instance you can both see legs and "running," feel a leg and feel the air as they run by you.

10. Physicalism does not account for the existence of logical or mathematical laws as they are immaterial.

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

The truth is that there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain.

 

[Quintessence]

The truth is that there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain.

Only if one restricts what "evidence" means to the narrow confines of physicalist assumptions. Which, naturally, physicalists do in order to rationalize their own position. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ironic and predictable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Only if one restricts what "evidence" means to the narrow confines of physicalist assumptions. Which, naturally, physicalists do in order to rationalize their own position. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ironic and predictable.

Evidence would be either an argument that follows all the rules of logic, or facts discovered via scientific method. Things like religious texts are not evidence. Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[1137]

The truth is that there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain.

This doesn't even make sense, how can you even be aware of brains without consciousness? And why should we presuppose atheism and anti-spirituality/paranormal/etc.

 

[1137]

Evidence would be either an argument that follows all the rules of logic, or facts discovered via scientific method. Things like religious texts are not evidence. Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

So feel free to reject the evidence based logic of the OP. That's why it's here . Surely you aren't asking us to engage in presuppositionalism...

 

[Quintessence]

Evidence would be either an argument that follows all the rules of logic, or facts discovered via scientific method. Things like religious texts are not evidence. Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

So... again... folks will narrow the confines of what they consider evidence in to rationalize their perspective as true. Nothing new here. Remember, while you get to restrict what you consider evidence within the context of your own worldview you do not get to control how others consider these things.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This doesn't even make sense, how can you even be aware of brains without consciousness? And why should we presuppose atheism and anti-spirituality/paranormal/etc.

Why do you assume I am an atheist? I'm a theist. When it comes to the discussion of whether the mind is an emergent quality of the brain, or whether the mind is something separate from the brain, I'm an agnostic. I'm simply pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE that the mind can exist apart from the brain. Don't make it into something it's not.

 

[1137]

Why do you assume I am an atheist? I'm a theist. When it comes to the discussion of whether the mind is an emergent quality of the brain, or whether the mind is something separate from the brain, I'm an agnostic. I'm simply pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE that the mind can exist apart from the brain. Don't make it into something it's not.

You're a theist who thinks a consciousness needs a brain? So then where are the brains of the gods located?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So... again... folks will narrow the confines of what they consider evidence in to rationalize their perspective as true. Nothing new here. Remember, while you get to restrict what you consider evidence within the context of your own worldview you do not get to control how others consider these things.

Well of course. Anyone can have whatever opinion they want, for whatever reasons they wish. But not all opinions are created equal. Some are based on sound evidence, and others are not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You're a theist who thinks a consciousness needs a brain? So then where are the brains of the gods located?

Pardon? I thought we were talking about human minds. And I was very clear that I am an agnostic on this topic.

 

[1137]

So... again... folks will narrow the confines of what they consider evidence in to rationalize their perspective as true. Nothing new here. Remember, while you get to restrict what you consider evidence within the context of your own worldview you do not get to control how others consider these things.

Right? This is so common now. People will say evidence is insufficient, then when pressed cannot even give an objective standard to meet. It's literally "what agrees with my view is sufficient."

 

[1137]

Pardon? I thought we were talking about human minds. And I was very clear that I am an agnostic on this topic.

Minds in general haha. Did you want to dance or debate?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Right? This is so common now. People will say evidence is insufficient, then when pressed cannot even give an objective standard to meet. It's literally "what agrees with my view is sufficient."

Not at all. There are rules to logic that exist regardless of my personal opinion, and method to scientific inquiry that is unrelated to any personal opinion I have. I have been known to change my mind in the face of good evidence.

 

[1137]

Well of course. Anyone can have whatever opinion they want, for whatever reasons they wish. But not all opinions are created equal. Some are based on sound evidence, and others are not.

Precisely, with physicalism being the latter.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Minds in general haha. Did you want to dance or debate?

I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense to me.

 

[1137]

Not at all. There are rules to logic that exist regardless of my personal opinion, and method to scientific inquiry that is unrelated to any personal opinion I have. I have been known to change my mind in the face of good evidence.

Perfect, then you reject physicalism same as we do, as belief in it contradicts the logic and evidence. A happy ending!