Mind is not reduceable to brain

[metacrock]

Before reading all of this you really should read my essay on Mind not reducible to brain to get a good background,



Empirical Data:


There is No Empirical Data that proves reducibilitySome empirical data supports claim:


Irreducibilityhttp://modernpsychologist.ca/the-min...-to-the-brain/http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrashhttp://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=200

[firstfloor]

[metacrock]

yes everyone who has ant intelligence at all agrees with your ideology except those who don't very meaningful. Clearly it's not just a ,matter of saying I don't know how it's done because I documented positive reasons why it can't be the case.

Bear in mind that brains are something very new in our experience and imagination. We do not know how they work in detail. But they definitely do produce consciousness and they are embodied and in the world and all these things in combination are required for conscious experience

.

how do you distinguish between producing it and allowing access to it? how do you know it[s one and not the other; ever heard the trem supervene? Your argument is like saying everyone knows hard and soft ware are the same, the only people who don't accept that are those pesky old soft ware believers but we know they are wrong because everyone knows it.

go look up the word "ideology" that's what you are brain washed into.

How would a dualist explain the action of alcohol?

I don't remember seeing you at the dualist meetings. how do you know about them?

[Jim B.]

The problem is a conceptual one, not an empirical one. There are good arguments to the effect that consciousness could not even conceivably be reducible to physical concepts. Brains are probably necessary to enable or facilitate consciousness, but that doesn't mean reduction. And just because you accept irreducibility doesn't mean you're necessarily a dualist

[seer]

And just because you accept irreducibility doesn't mean you're necessarily a dualist

I would think that you would at least have to accept some kind of emergent dualism - no?

[Jim B.]

I would think that you would at least have to accept some kind of emergent dualism - no?

Or substance monism. So substance dualism isn't the only alternative to physical reductionism.

[seer]

Or substance monism. So substance dualism isn't the only alternative to physical reductionism.

OK, but you don't hold to substance monism - correct?

[firstfloor]

yes everyone who has ant intelligence at all agrees with your ideology except those who don't very meaningful. Clearly it's not just a ,matter of saying I don't know how it's done because I documented positive reasons why it can't be the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-...b_8160914.html

[metacrock]

We know that the brain produces consciousness because we know how to stop it or manipulate it in about the same way as you would tune a radio receiver.

No you don't. you know how to limit access and that may make it seem you terminated it but you don't know that. If you take hammer and beat the crap out of a monitor it won't show the software anymore that doesn't prove hardware is software.

\that's utterly stupid. my own experience of waking consciousness tells me that. My body can be hurting and my mind can feel good or not limit mu focus to the pain, My body is not my mind. I can change my level of awareness and become aware of new aspects of the same old phenomena and that[s not just a physical response. I can will myself to do it and I can will myself to ignore it,You can't answer the hard problem you can't answer binding, you can't answer veto power you can't answer any of the six things.

so typical of reductionists to ignore the evidence. I documented thingss six things you have not answered them.


(1) that's just the bait and switch you've been washed to surrender your free will to the cult. free will and consciousness is not brain function, you are only talking about brain function you are jot even discussing consciousness.

(2) no matter how many elements you name that[s the easy problem. you can't answer the hard problem until you do you re not even discussing the right issue

[metacrock]

your link:


(1) that proves spirit is real

(2) it's still the bait and switch because it's trying to present something it can proves in place of something it can't

(3) old reductionist trick limit reality to what you can prove and assert there's nothing more.


It doesn't follow that there is nothing more just you can prove some aspect. the hard problem is the acid test

[firstfloor]

If you take hammer and beat the crap out of a monitor it won't show the software anymore that doesn't prove hardware is software.

[metacrock]

I don't you understand my argument. you think I believe in some ghost in the machine, you can't understand modern theological concepts because you are hung up on thinking you are superior to believers. It is not necessary to my argument that mind be so totally independent to of brain that it could exist without it, Perhaps it can exist without brain but the mind of a biological organism can't originate without a brain. It might continue after death without one. It is not necessary to my argument that analogies be perfect.

You are begging the question when you said no examples. (1) I've already proven there are in the ameba. (2) I've proved that it's not reducible so we don't need an example

[firstfloor]

(1) I've already proven there are in the ameba. (2) I've proved that it's not reducible so we don't need an example

You obviously have no idea of how rigorous a proof really is.

[metacrock]

You obviously have no idea of how rigorous a proof really is.

ok "proof" in the pragmatic sense. See Kant Critique of practice reason.

[metacrock]

there is no scientific equipment that allows one to see the lack of a spirit. That assertion is made entirely by ruling it out dogmatically as a matt4er of ideology and them assuming the reduction of mind to brain function totally unwarranted. Notice in that psychology today article they didn't turn to any sort of data to prove the lack of a spirit, they argued for it by attacking the coherence of the concept. btw that means they using consciousness the mind and reason rather than science.