Philosophical Materialism

[FreezBee]

First, most look at a brief simple definition of Materialism such as the following, and attack or defend it in a simplistic way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

In philosophy the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance.

© source where applicable

Yes, this is indeed a simplistic definition, and the use of that definition indeed does imply that it is often difficult to discuss materialism, because many people know of no other definition -- and don't realize that the above definition doesn't necessarily exclude a transcendental deity.

The attack ends up to be the shotgun approach against naturalism in general with the muddling of terminology, which many traditional theists do include scientific naturalism with metaphysical naturalism as simply materialistic, or that scientific naturalism is the slippery slope to atheistic materialism. The problem with many of traditional theist perspectives is the battle ground is here with the explanatory value of the empirical nature of scientific naturalism, and goes no further.

The argument whether materialism is valid should emphasis whether it is justified to conclude that scientific naturalism is the foundation for the nature and cause of all existence, or is there a greater 'Source' some call God(s) beyond the empirical horizon. From a strict unbiased view of scientific naturalism no conclusion can be made either way.

Correct.

Since this is a philosophical argument the question would which view (There are more possible choices than a simplistic heads or tails argument could resolve.) would be the most persuasive explanatory argument for explaining the nature and origin of our existence beyond the empirical nature of scientific naturalism.

I do feel if one surveys the philosophy of materialism, like through the Stanford University philosophy site, one would have a better grasp of the complexity of the varieties of materialism and the differences in the explanations of the nature of our existence.

Yes, it doesn't necessarily take much for theists to broaden their horizon. Alas, many of them are unwilling to do so, since that would require them to reevaluate their own arguments.


- FreezBee

[JimL]

I really don't know. But since I'm a Christian and hold to revelation I suspect that only men have a immaterial mind (though animals are said to be souls in the Old Testament).

Why then do you suppose that the great apes have the ability to think and to learn and to make choices? Were they able to acquire these soul like abilities through evolution alone? If so why then should we think that these same, though more pronounced abilities, in man were created? It would be silly and self serving to follow the path of evolution and the increased complexity of the brain and its culmination into the mindlike character in species and to then assert a different process, an ipso facto creation, for those same though more advanced properties existent in human beings.

They are never said to have a "spirit."

And is there an intelligible difference in definition between the soul and the spirit?

And evolution it not relevant - it could be that we did not evolve but were created much as we are now. We could have been evolved and given this distinction somewhere along the line. A point that really separated us from all other animal life.

Well, rather you should say that evolution is not relevant to you because any evidence to the contrary of your position is refuted with a wave of the hand such as you have just done.

You see as a theist I can be more open minded than the materialist. I don't have to force everything into a naturalistic mold. "there are more things in heaven and earth..."

I think Seer that it is just the opposite. When one holds to a particular belief and is unable to accept the evidence in contradiction to that belief then it is that one who's mind is not open. He has to fit everything, evidentially true or not, into his belief mold.

No, and even though the mind is dependent on the brain now, it may not always be so. And if the brain does produce a immaterial mind that can then effect the physical you still have dualism. Emergent dualism, but dualism nonetheless.

You can not have your cake and eat it to. If this mind/soul of yours is dependent on the brain then it can not be self dependent. The brain itself obviously exists and not solely in humans, so it is not dependent on the mind, or what you term the mind/soul.
It isn't that the mind is dependent on the brain it is that the mind is none other than the brain itself. The mind is nothing more than a term denoting the workings of the brain itself, just as thoughts are not immaterial things, but it is just a term used to denote mental constructs of the brain.

No, it's not either or. Again, emergent dualism, is still dualism. We still have something non-physical effecting the physical. No matter it's source. True it is not substance dualism...

It is only dualism if you give to mind and thoughts an existence of their own such as you do when you apply the tag of soul to them. They are not emergent things, they are merely emergent functions of the brain.

[seer]

Why then do you suppose that the great apes have the ability to think and to learn and to make choices? Were they able to acquire these soul like abilities through evolution alone? If so why then should we think that these same, though more pronounced abilities, in man were created? It would be silly and self serving to follow the path of evolution and the increased complexity of the brain and its culmination into the mindlike character in species and to then assert a different process, an ipso facto creation, for those same though more advanced properties existent in human beings.

First, my dog makes choices. Most animals with a brain do - so? In our case we know that we 1) have immaterial thoughts and 2) these thoughts effect the physical process. Is this how other animals reason? I don't know - as far as mental abilities go we are light years ahead of even the highest functioning primate. So I don't know if the natural process alone could have or did produce the immaterial human mind.

And is there an intelligible difference in definition between the soul and the spirit?

We "soul" usually just refers to the being as a whole -animal or human. The "spirit" seems to be a quality that only humans have (excluding God and angels for this discussion). I suspect it has to do with the mind and it's moral abilities.

Well, rather you should say that evolution is not relevant to you because any evidence to the contrary of your position is refuted with a wave of the hand such as you have just done.

Well no that was not my intention at all. I can just see God endowing man with special qualities with or without the evolutionary process. He is God after all...

I think Seer that it is just the opposite. When one holds to a particular belief and is unable to accept the evidence in contradiction to that belief then it is that one who's mind is not open. He has to fit everything, evidentially true or not, into his belief mold.

You mean like you are doing with naturalism? See you have one option, I have two. I have the possibility of both nature or God doing it, you only have the possibility of nature doing it. I am more open minded.

You can not have your cake and eat it to. If this mind/soul of yours is dependent on the brain then it can not be self dependent.

Jim where did I ever suggest that the mind was "self dependent?" I was speaking of emergent dualism - WHICH IS STILL DUALISM.

The mind is nothing more than a term denoting the workings of the brain itself, just as thoughts are not immaterial things, but it is just a term used to denote mental constructs of the brain.

But mental constructs are NOT physical, so they are not the brain, even if they depend on the brain. Like with my example of a dream in an above post - something exists that is first person private - not public. Thoughts really do exist and they are not physical, or local.

It is only dualism if you give to mind and thoughts an existence of their own such as you do when you apply the tag of soul to them. They are not emergent things, they are merely emergent functions of the brain.

Can you see my thoughts Jim? You could observe the electro-chemical process that produces them - but you can not see them, or experience them - I can.

[JimL]

First, my dog makes choices. Most animals with a brain do - so? In our case we know that we 1) have immaterial thoughts and 2) these thoughts effect the physical process. Is this how other animals reason? I don't know - as far as mental abilities go we are light years ahead of even the highest functioning primate. So I don't know if the natural process alone could have or did produce the immaterial human mind.

So you can see the progression from the more passive instinctual behavior to the more active mindful behavior to differing degrees in differing species which culminates in the human species but you refuse to believe the natural connection this process so clearly shows because.... Why? Upon what evidence do you set humans apart from the process, merely because we lead the pack. We are so much further evolved do to the larger size of our brains which is also the result of evolutionary processes. There is no secret in this. I could elaborate as to how our brains evolved to be larger than the other primates but that is just anecdotal to the discussion at this point. And upon what evidence do you subscribe to the notion of souls? What evidence can you put forward to support your belief in souls other than belief itself?

We "soul" usually just refers to the being as a whole -animal or human. The "spirit" seems to be a quality that only humans have (excluding God and angels for this discussion). I suspect it has to do with the mind and it's moral abilities.

Well this is a different definition for soul then you have been using so far in this discussion. If the soul is no more than a definition of the human being as a whole then it is an unnecessary term which could be applied to any species. Spirit then is the term you seem to be saying is the mind or interpreter and director of the brain. Do you have any knowledge of this spirit then and just how it interacts with the brain? I gave you my explanation as to how I believe the brain produces the mind does by interacting with itself.

Well no that was not my intention at all. I can just see God endowing man with special qualities with or without the evolutionary process. He is God after all...

You can see no such thing, it is merely your belief.

You mean like you are doing with naturalism? See you have one option, I have two. I have the possibility of both nature or God doing it, you only have the possibility of nature doing it. I am more open minded.

You don't have two options, your only option is to conform whatever facts science produces to your belief system. And my only option is to accept the facts as presented.

Jim where did I ever suggest that the mind was "self dependent?" I was speaking of emergent dualism - WHICH IS STILL DUALISM.

You stated that the soul is not dependent on the body when you suggested that when you die then you would be a soul independent of that body, if I remember correctly. But there is no such thing in my mind as emergent dualism. The mind and or thoughts are not, as I'v stated before, things, they are merely terms denoting the functions of the brain.

But mental constructs are NOT physical, so they are not the brain, even if they depend on the brain. Like with my example of a dream in an above post - something exists that is first person private - not public. Thoughts really do exist and they are not physical, or local.

The images that you see of the external world do not actually exist inside your brain either, they themselves are just mental constructs, they are not physical things or immaterial "THINGS", they are not a dual existence but are merely the neuronal activity taking place inside the brain. It is the way in which the brain interprets or processes the external world of reality.

Can you see my thoughts Jim? You could observe the electro-chemical process that produces them - but you can not see them, or experience them - I can.

Yes, that is because that is all that they are, the electro-chemical process, they are not things in themselves.

[seer]

So you can see the progression from the more passive instinctual behavior to the more active mindful behavior to differing degrees in differing species which culminates in the human species but you refuse to believe the natural connection this process so clearly shows because.... Why? Upon what evidence do you set humans apart from the process, merely because we lead the pack. We are so much further evolved do to the larger size of our brains which is also the result of evolutionary processes. There is no secret in this. I could elaborate as to how our brains evolved to be larger than the other primates but that is just anecdotal to the discussion at this point. And upon what evidence do you subscribe to the notion of souls? What evidence can you put forward to support your belief in souls other than belief itself?

Again Jim, Like I have been saying - we know that we have an immaterial mind. One that effects the the physical process. Do animals have such a immaterial function. There is no evidence that they do - rather than simply acting on instinct. Also, such a mind would be necessary for genuine freedom. If not, we are just acting on instinct - just on a higher level. And remember you are also acting on belief - that the evolutionary process could and did produce beings with mental and moral freedom.

Well this is a different definition for soul then you have been using so far in this discussion. If the soul is no more than a definition of the human being as a whole then it is an unnecessary term which could be applied to any species. Spirit then is the term you seem to be saying is the mind or interpreter and director of the brain. Do you have any knowledge of this spirit then and just how it interacts with the brain? I gave you my explanation as to how I believe the brain produces the mind does by interacting with itself.

I use "soul" because it is commonly understood. But it would rightly be the spirit. And I have no problem with your definition - I said early on that there would be a looping effect, but that the mind is something more than the brain.

You can see no such thing, it is merely your belief.

Well of course it is my belief. And?

You don't have two options, your only option is to conform whatever facts science produces to your belief system. And my only option is to accept the facts as presented.

And you want to comform all things to materialism? Of course you do. It is your belief system after all. You believe that empiricism is a valid way of finding truth. Yet we know that empiricism is irrational. Logically it does not work. Science depends on the uniformity of nature - but you can not "know" that nature will remain uniformed, or that it acted in the distant past as it acts today. You have faith that you are not living in the Matrix, or that the world was not created five minutes ago with the apperance of age and intact memories.

http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/questempiric.pdf

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/01/22/gang-of-pandas/

You stated that the soul is not dependent on the body when you suggested that when you die then you would be a soul independent of that body, if I remember correctly. But there is no such thing in my mind as emergent dualism. The mind and or thoughts are not, as I'v stated before, things, they are merely terms denoting the functions of the brain.

From personal experience I know that you are wrong. Thoughts are something different - and I have given away to prove it. And yes I believe the mind can survive the body - I'm a Christian for goodness sake.

The images that you see of the external world do not actually exist inside your brain either, they themselves are just mental constructs, they are not physical things or immaterial "THINGS", they are not a dual existence but are merely the neuronal activity taking place inside the brain. It is the way in which the brain interprets or processes the external world of reality.

But they do exist. I see them. Again, say I picture a boat in my mind. Can you open up my head and see my boat? No, you could see the electro-chemical activity that produces the picture, but you will not see the picture it's self. Something does exist that is immaterial and non-public.

[JimL]

Again Jim, Like I have been saying - we know that we have an immaterial mind. One that effects the the physical process.

No, we don't know that Seer. I will admit that the fact of the matter( pun intended ) is still up in the air. Although I argue vehemently my point of view, I do not know with any degree of certainty whether the mind is material or immaterial and neither can you or anyone else say this as a fact. I have given my view that the mind emerges from and is coexistent with the brain, as a function of it, and I have tried to explain how I believe this process takes place. You on the other hand believe the opposite to be true, that is that the mind is spiritual in nature and has a separate existence from the material brain. But what you do not do is explain on what grounds you believe this to be the case, other than you believe it to be the case. How, and at what point, does your immaterial mind interact with the material brain?

Do animals have such a immaterial function. There is no evidence that they do - rather than simply acting on instinct.

But this I think is a problem for your point of view. All animals do not act solely on instinct. There are differing degrees of consciousness in animals. I don't think that you will disagree with that. To what do you attribute that if your idea of an immaterial mind is only applicable to humans?

Also, such a mind would be necessary for genuine freedom. If not, we are just acting on instinct - just on a higher level.

I think it is time that you explain just exactly what you mean by "genuine freedom". Are there differing degrees of freedom in nature? I think so. It reaches it's highest point in the human species, but how do explain these differing degrees if it is not due to the process of evolution? If, once again, your immaterial mind is only applicable to humans?

And remember you are also acting on belief - that the evolutionary process could and did produce beings with mental and moral freedom.

I am acting on belief because as I said I am not certain, and the possibility therefore of spiritual existence is a valid option, but my belief is based on observation not revelation.

I use "soul" because it is commonly understood. But it would rightly be the spirit. And I have no problem with your definition - I said early on that there would be a looping effect, but that the mind is something more than the brain.

I don't understand your sense of the meaning when you suggest the looping effect. If the spirit is a separate entity from the brain then there is no need for a looping effect.
The looping effect is the brain interacting with itself not direct interaction with a separate and immaterial entity.

Well of course it is my belief. And?

The "and" is that you do not see what you claim to see. It is only a belief.

And you want to comform all things to materialism? Of course you do. It is your belief system after all.

It is not a matter of wanting to it is a matter of accepting what the evidence shows. In the end I may be wrong and you may be right, but the only one conforming the evidence to a belief system in this argument is the theist because there is no actual evidence for an immaterial substance.

You believe that empiricism is a valid way of finding truth. Yet we know that empiricism is irrational. Logically it does not work. Science depends on the uniformity of nature - but you can not "know" that nature will remain uniformed, or that it acted in the distant past as it acts today. You have faith that you are not living in the Matrix, or that the world was not created five minutes ago with the apperance of age and intact memories.

The scientific method obviously has its issues but you have only it to thank for everything you know about the natural world as far as it goes. You would not even know of the mysterious nature of the world if science had not made it known to you. So to say it is irrational and that it does not work is ridiculous on its face.

From personal experience I know that you are wrong. Thoughts are something different - and I have given away to prove it. And yes I believe the mind can survive the body - I'm a Christian for goodness sake.

If you mean from subjective experience then maybe you do and maybe you don't, but at any rate it is not evidence any more than the convoluted testimony of the christian prophets is evidence to the unbelievers.

I must have missed your way of proving that thoughts are immaterial THINGS. Could you run that proof past me again?

But they do exist. I see them. Again, say I picture a boat in my mind. Can you open up my head and see my boat? No, you could see the electro-chemical activity that produces the picture, but you will not see the picture it's self. Something does exist that is immaterial and non-public.

You think you see them, but you do not. There is no Cartesian theater inside your head where images are presented to a ghostly audience. There is nothing but total darkness inside your head and the images that you think you see in there are no more than the electro-chemical processes that are taking place.

[seer]

No, we don't know that Seer. I will admit that the fact of the matter( pun intended ) is still up in the air. Although I argue vehemently my point of view, I do not know with any degree of certainty whether the mind is material or immaterial and neither can you or anyone else say this as a fact. I have given my view that the mind emerges from and is coexistent with the brain, as a function of it, and I have tried to explain how I believe this process takes place. You on the other hand believe the opposite to be true, that is that the mind is spiritual in nature and has a separate existence from the material brain. But what you do not do is explain on what grounds you believe this to be the case, other than you believe it to be the case. How, and at what point, does your immaterial mind interact with the material brain?

Jim, I have made it clear that I believe that the mind is emergent from the physical brain, and at this point in history depends on that physical brain. But I do believe that the mind is "spritiual" in nature i.e. that it is generally moral and religious. So I don't think we have a disagreement on how the mind interacts with the brain.

But this I think is a problem for your point of view. All animals do not act solely on instinct. There are differing degrees of consciousness in animals. I don't think that you will disagree with that. To what do you attribute that if your idea of an immaterial mind is only applicable to humans?

Really? Are you suggesting that animals have free will? That they can act on propositional truths?

I think it is time that you explain just exactly what you mean by "genuine freedom". Are there differing degrees of freedom in nature? I think so. It reaches it's highest point in the human species, but how do explain these differing degrees if it is not due to the process of evolution? If, once again, your immaterial mind is only applicable to humans?

At this point we have no idea if animals have a immaterial mind, we know that we do. And why do all features of humanity have to be attributed to the process of evolution? Why try to hammer everything into that materialistic box?

I don't understand your sense of the meaning when you suggest the looping effect. If the spirit is a separate entity from the brain then there is no need for a looping effect.
The looping effect is the brain interacting with itself not direct interaction with a separate and immaterial entity.

Jim, how many times do I have to say this? I believe mind/spirit is dependent on the physical - at this point in time. The mind is EMERGENT. But as a Christian who believes in a Creator I don't know if this will be the case in the future.

It is not a matter of wanting to it is a matter of accepting what the evidence shows. In the end I may be wrong and you may be right, but the only one conforming the evidence to a belief system in this argument is the theist because there is no actual evidence for an immaterial substance.

Well actually there is evidence - my thoughts. BTW - is gravity material or immaterial?

The scientific method obviously has its issues but you have only it to thank for everything you know about the natural world as far as it goes. You would not even know of the mysterious nature of the world if science had not made it known to you. So to say it is irrational and that it does not work is ridiculous on its face.

Science reasons by "affirming the consequent" this is always a formal fallacy - logically. Or by induction - which is also a fallacy. Which is fine, it still at times works. But like my point with the Matrix we all believe things that we can not prove.

I must have missed your way of proving that thoughts are immaterial THINGS. Could you run that proof past me again?

One more time - I picture a boat in my mind. You can open up my head and see the physical process that produces that thought picture but what you can't see if the picture I see.

You think you see them, but you do not. There is no Cartesian theater inside your head where images are presented to a ghostly audience. There is nothing but total darkness inside your head and the images that you think you see in there are no more than the electro-chemical processes that are taking place.

Then why can't you see the boat that I see?

[JimL]

Jim, I have made it clear that I believe that the mind is emergent from the physical brain, and at this point in history depends on that physical brain. But I do believe that the mind is "spritiual" in nature i.e. that it is generally moral and religious. So I don't think we have a disagreement on how the mind interacts with the brain.

Okay, sometimes I am a little slow on the uptick. But it is a difficult idea to follow. If you agree with me the the mind is emergent from the brain how do you explain it's being an existent thing in and of itself? Where and what is it before it emerges from the brain? You are also co-opting it seems the evolutionary process in order to fit it to your self existent mind/spirit hypothesis. As the brain of man has evolved in time so too has the mind evolved along with it. So in what sense do you claim that they are not one and the same thing? I just don't see your reasoning as to why you differentiate between the brain/mind as two separate entities when they obviously evolve and function together as one entity?

Really? Are you suggesting that animals have free will? That they can act on propositional truths?

No, I am not suggesting that animals can act on propositional truths. I am saying that the higher animals, so to speak, have more of a mind like nature, are freer to act than the lower, less mind like animals, which are more passive in nature. You can teach a dog to do tricks, not so with the purely instinctive creatures. I am suggesting that there is an pattern in nature which shows the evolution of the mind from a passive to an active state which culminates in man.

At this point we have no idea if animals have a immaterial mind, we know that we do. And why do all features of humanity have to be attributed to the process of evolution? Why try to hammer everything into that materialistic box?

What we have, is no idea that man has an immaterial mind, even though you insist that we do. Anything is possible of course, but a material mind, though still conjecture, is conjecture which is based at least on reality, on that which can be observed, whereas an immaterial mind is conjecture which is based on, I don't know, religious notions I guess.

Jim, how many times do I have to say this? I believe mind/spirit is dependent on the physical - at this point in time. The mind is EMERGENT. But as a Christian who believes in a Creator I don't know if this will be the case in the future.

Yes, I understand, you needn't say it again, and the idea of spirit has been around for a long time as an idea conceived of in the minds of men, but it has never shown itself to have any real existence otherwise. But, who knows?

Well actually there is evidence - my thoughts. BTW - is gravity material or immaterial?

Well you believe that your thoughts are things in themselves, but tell me where do those thoughts exist when you are not having them? And gravity is a term describing the force produced by the curvature of spacetime but it is also thought to consist of material particles called the graviton which has not yet been found. I think!

Science reasons by "affirming the consequent" this is always a formal fallacy - logically. Or by induction - which is also a fallacy. Which is fine, it still at times works. But like my point with the Matrix we all believe things that we can not prove.

Thats true, science is never definite in it's answers but it has brought us a long way nevertheless. Would we be better off without it? I think not.

One more time - I picture a boat in my mind. You can open up my head and see the physical process that produces that thought picture but what you can't see if the picture I see.

Thats because the picture you imagine that you see is not real, it is nothing more than
than brain activity. If the imagined boat is a real existent thing and if your thoughts are real existent things then when you stop imagining and stop thinking where do those real existent things exist? And another problem which you have not yet explained is, how if the mind is an immaterial thing, does it interact with a physical brain.




Then why can't you see the boat that I see?[/QUOTE]

[seer]

Okay, sometimes I am a little slow on the uptick. But it is a difficult idea to follow. If you agree with me the the mind is emergent from the brain how do you explain it's being an existent thing in and of itself? Where and what is it before it emerges from the brain? You are also co-opting it seems the evolutionary process in order to fit it to your self existent mind/spirit hypothesis. As the brain of man has evolved in time so too has the mind evolved along with it. So in what sense do you claim that they are not one and the same thing? I just don't see your reasoning as to why you differentiate between the brain/mind as two separate entities when they obviously evolve and function together as one entity?

Jim I did not say that the mind/spirit is self existent - not presently. It may be in the future if God deems it so. And at this point neither of us know if the evolutionary process did or could create an immaterial mind.

No, I am not suggesting that animals can act on propositional truths. I am saying that the higher animals, so to speak, have more of a mind like nature, are freer to act than the lower, less mind like animals, which are more passive in nature. You can teach a dog to do tricks, not so with the purely instinctive creatures. I am suggesting that there is an pattern in nature which shows the evolution of the mind from a passive to an active state which culminates in man.

Well again, neither of us knows if animals really do think like we think. Is there real freedom involved or do they simply display a more compilcated form of instinct.

What we have, is no idea that man has an immaterial mind, even though you insist that we do. Anything is possible of course, but a material mind, though still conjecture, is conjecture which is based at least on reality, on that which can be observed, whereas an immaterial mind is conjecture which is based on, I don't know, religious notions I guess.

But I observe thought pictures every day.

Well you believe that your thoughts are things in themselves, but tell me where do those thoughts exist when you are not having them? And gravity is a term describing the force produced by the curvature of spacetime but it is also thought to consist of material particles called the graviton which has not yet been found. I think!

1.Of course thoughts are things in themselves (but not material things, that is the point). Do you have thoughts? Can't you picture a boat in your mind? And when you are not generating them they are gone.

2. There is no evidence that gravatons exist. And as far as gravity being produced by curvature of spacetime - this has to happen around heavy objects like planets and stars. But as Stephen Hawkins tells us gravity had to exist before planets and stars existed. It was what originally brought particles together to create planets and suns after the hot big bang. We really are clueless... You can't even claim that gravity is a "natural" force.

Thats because the picture you imagine that you see is not real, it is nothing more than than brain activity. If the imagined boat is a real existent thing and if your thoughts are real existent things then when you stop imagining and stop thinking where do those real existent things exist?

So thoughts are not real? Is that what you are saying? See Jim, this is exactly why I believe the mind is something different. No you can't see my thoughts, yet I do.They are not material. Some thing is there that is not public (not for all to see).

And another problem which you have not yet explained is, how if the mind is an immaterial thing, does it interact with a physical brain.

If you deny that thoughts can have a looping effect on the physical brain then free will is out the window. We are back to one set or physical processes driving another set of physical processes. Again Jim, take the ghost out of the machine and the machine is all you have left.

[JimL]

Jim I did not say that the mind/spirit is self existent - not presently. It may be in the future if God deems it so. And at this point neither of us know if the evolutionary process did or could create an immaterial mind.

Well, I do not think that you are making sense Seer. The mind/spirit is either a self existent thing that interacts with the physical brain or it is nothing more than the brain itself. It is either a separate entity that interprets the brain or it is nothing more than the brain interpreting itself. You can't have it both ways. Thats why your argument is so difficult to follow.
It is not known exactly how the mind evolves because it is not testable, but I gave you an hypothesis as to how this comes about, how the mind emerges from the brain, through the looping effect where the brain interacts with itself. This doesn't make the mind something other than the brain, it is merely another step in the evolution of the brain itself, where a new function emerges. What you are doing is merely co-opting this newly emergent function of the brain and claiming, aha, this emergent function is an immaterial and separable entity from the brain, it is the spirit of god which is connected to man. That is fine if that is what you want to believe but if you are going to argue the point at least give a cogent description as to how you arrived at this hypothesis. The idea that an immaterial mind can interact with a physical brain defies the laws of physics. And if you say again that the mind is not a separate existence, but that it could be one day if God wishes to make it so, that is not an argument but nothing more than an empty claim.

Well again, neither of us knows if animals really do think like we think. Is there real freedom involved or do they simply display a more compilcated form of instinct.

Did anybody suggest that animals think like we think? If you are unable to distinguish between species, the passive instinctual behavior from the more active mind like behavior as we go up the evolutionary path, and the evolutionary progression of the mind therein, or if you just refuse to acknowledge that difference, and that evolution, then I have to assume that you are not trying.

But I observe thought pictures every day.

Do you really? Do you actually observe your thoughts? Do your theories look like words running across your brain. Because your brain is capable of producing imaginary images in the mind does not make them real existences.

1.Of course thoughts are things in themselves (but not material things, that is the point). Do you have thoughts? Can't you picture a boat in your mind? And when you are not generating them they are gone.

AS above. But I will add, If the images do not exist unless the brain is generating them then it only follows that they are not real existences.

2. There is no evidence that gravatons exist. And as far as gravity being produced by curvature of spacetime - this has to happen around heavy objects like planets and stars. But as Stephen Hawkins tells us gravity had to exist before planets and stars existed. It was what originally brought particles together to create planets and suns after the hot big bang. We really are clueless... You can't even claim that gravity is a "natural" force.

Thats is true, they have not yet found the graviton, but it is surmised that just as every other force is made of particles so to is the gravitational force and it only makes sense that because gravity being the weakest of all the forces its particle is beyond our present abilities to observe. You may be clueless on this matter Seer, but tell me one reputable scientist that does not believe in the gravitational force and its responsibility for the formation of stars? Gravity can be thought of as the force behind bodies falling through the curvature of space, but it can also be thought of as a gravitational field, a force field of gravitons pulling those bodies.

So thoughts are not real? Is that what you are saying? See Jim, this is exactly why I believe the mind is something different. No you can't see my thoughts, yet I do.They are not material. Some thing is there that is not public (not for all to see).

It depends on what you mean by real. They are mental images, not real images, not real existent things any more than a linguistic theory devised in your brain is a real existent thing. You can look at a tree, see it, know that it is real, not only subjectively within your head but objectively outside your head. Which is the reality, the external tree or the electro-chemical process stimulated by it inside the pitch blackness of your brain? Now close your eyes and imagine the same tree. The same electro chemical process that produced in your brain an image of an observed reality can with your eyes closed produce a purely mental image of the same reality, but it is not the images that are real, they are merely the electo-chemical process taking place inside your brain, there is no real picture in there.

If you deny that thoughts can have a looping effect on the physical brain then free will is out the window. We are back to one set or physical processes driving another set of physical processes. Again Jim, take the ghost out of the machine and the machine is all you have left.

No, it is one physical process that transcends itself as is seen as you follow the evolutionary pattern of the ascending mind through the lesser to the higher animals culminating and emerging in the self conscious human species.

[seer]

Well, I do not think that you are making sense Seer. The mind/spirit is either a self existent thing that interacts with the physical brain or it is nothing more than the brain itself. It is either a separate entity that interprets the brain or it is nothing more than the brain interpreting itself. You can't have it both ways. Thats why your argument is so difficult to follow.
It is not known exactly how the mind evolves because it is not testable, but I gave you an hypothesis as to how this comes about, how the mind emerges from the brain, through the looping effect where the brain interacts with itself. This doesn't make the mind something other than the brain, it is merely another step in the evolution of the brain itself, where a new function emerges. What you are doing is merely co-opting this newly emergent function of the brain and claiming, aha, this emergent function is an immaterial and separable entity from the brain, it is the spirit of god which is connected to man. That is fine if that is what you want to believe but if you are going to argue the point at least give a cogent description as to how you arrived at this hypothesis. The idea that an immaterial mind can interact with a physical brain defies the laws of physics. And if you say again that the mind is not a separate existence, but that it could be one day if God wishes to make it so, that is not an argument but nothing more than an empty claim.

Jim, much of what we are discussing are mere musings. Nothing is in stone. As far as the immaterial mind effecting the brain defying the laws of physics - have you ever look into quantum entaglement. Or wave/particle duaity? There are things in the universe that we can explain by physics, but nevertheless happen. And if the emergent mind was truely spiritual, something different from other animals then why would we expect to explain it by physics

Do you really? Do you actually observe your thoughts? Do your theories look like words running across your brain. Because your brain is capable of producing imaginary images in the mind does not make them real existences.

This is where the materialist usually ends up - denying that thoughts exist. I agree that the brain is capable of producing images - but where do these images exist? How is it possible that I see and experience something (my images) that can't be seen and experienced by others. Again Jim, if you map my brain when I'm dreaming all you see is the electro-chemical process - I see vivid images. This tells us two things,1) These images are not material(or you would see them too), 2)They are real, I really do see them - in full color.

AS above. But I will add, If the images do not exist unless the brain is generating them then it only follows that they are not real existences.

Jim, that does not follow. When a generator stops generating electricity it does not mean that the electricity did not exist. Now you can deny that thoughts don't exist until you are blue in the face - but I KNOW what I see/experience.

Thats is true, they have not yet found the graviton, but it is surmised that just as every other force is made of particles so to is the gravitational force and it only makes sense that because gravity being the weakest of all the forces its particle is beyond our present abilities to observe. You may be clueless on this matter Seer, but tell me one reputable scientist that does not believe in the gravitational force and its responsibility for the formation of stars? Gravity can be thought of as the force behind bodies falling through the curvature of space, but it can also be thought of as a gravitational field, a force field of gravitons pulling those bodies.

Again Jim, you can surmise all you want, there is no "evidence" that gravitons exist. And what exactly am I clueless about?

It depends on what you mean by real. They are mental images, not real images, not real existent things any more than a linguistic theory devised in your brain is a real existent thing. You can look at a tree, see it, know that it is real, not only subjectively within your head but objectively outside your head. Which is the reality, the external tree or the electro-chemical process stimulated by it inside the pitch blackness of your brain? Now close your eyes and imagine the same tree. The same electro chemical process that produced in your brain an image of an observed reality can with your eyes closed produce a purely mental image of the same reality, but it is not the images that are real, they are merely the electo-chemical process taking place inside your brain, there is no real picture in there.

There you go denying the existence of thoughts again. You say there is no real picture, but I see a real picture. It is not a material picture, I agree, but it is a picture nonetheless - an immaterial one. That is the point

No, it is one physical process that transcends itself as is seen as you follow the evolutionary pattern of the ascending mind through the lesser to the higher animals culminating and emerging in the self conscious human species.

Again, if immaterial thoughts don't exist, and don't have an effect on the physical process we are left with the physical process - to which we are slaves.

But James, we are covering old ground - you may have the last word. Peace...

[seer]

One last point on the mind or consciousness, by one of the world's foremost Professor of theoretical physics, Leonard Susskind:

http://calitreview.com/790


"My own view (on consciousness) is similar to Richard Feynman’s when he was asked whether the conceptual puzzles of quantum mechanics confused him. He said that quantum mechanics was so puzzling that he wasn’t even sure if there was a puzzle. There are other questions like that—questions that you can’t even imagine what an answer could be like. “Why does mathematics work?” “Why does logic work?” “What is the purpose of the universe?” “What is the connection between mind and matter?” As I said, these seem like legitimate questions, but you can’t imagine what answers would be like. My sense is that consciousness is one of those questions.

Incidentally, I don’t mean to imply that these questions will never get answers; just right now I don’t have a clue. But then again I am not a licensed cognitive scientist.

So to assume that consciousness can emerge from a strictly mechanical process is just that - an assumption.

[shunyadragon]

One last point on the mind or consciousness, by one of the world's foremost Professor of theoretical physics, Leonard Susskind:

http://calitreview.com/790


"My own view (on consciousness) is similar to Richard Feynman’s when he was asked whether the conceptual puzzles of quantum mechanics confused him. He said that quantum mechanics was so puzzling that he wasn’t even sure if there was a puzzle. There are other questions like that—questions that you can’t even imagine what an answer could be like. “Why does mathematics work?” “Why does logic work?” “What is the purpose of the universe?” “What is the connection between mind and matter?” As I said, these seem like legitimate questions, but you can’t imagine what answers would be like. My sense is that consciousness is one of those questions.

Incidentally, I don’t mean to imply that these questions will never get answers; just right now I don’t have a clue. But then again I am not a licensed cognitive scientist.

So to assume that consciousness can emerge from a strictly mechanical process is just that - an assumption.

Yes these issues at present are unresolved, and legitamate questions, but . . . to assume consciousness cannot emerge from a strictly mechanical process is likewise, just that - an assumption.

[JimL]

One last point on the mind or consciousness, by one of the world's foremost Professor of theoretical physics, Leonard Susskind:

http://calitreview.com/790


"My own view (on consciousness) is similar to Richard Feynman’s when he was asked whether the conceptual puzzles of quantum mechanics confused him. He said that quantum mechanics was so puzzling that he wasn’t even sure if there was a puzzle. There are other questions like that—questions that you can’t even imagine what an answer could be like. “Why does mathematics work?” “Why does logic work?” “What is the purpose of the universe?” “What is the connection between mind and matter?” As I said, these seem like legitimate questions, but you can’t imagine what answers would be like. My sense is that consciousness is one of those questions.

Incidentally, I don’t mean to imply that these questions will never get answers; just right now I don’t have a clue. But then again I am not a licensed cognitive scientist.

So to assume that consciousness can emerge from a strictly mechanical process is just that - an assumption.

It is true, it is a puzzle that has not been answered absolutely, but that is no reason to posit an immaterial spirit/mind where there is no evidence of any such thing just in order to fill in that gap in our knowledge. The brain/mind dualism in my own way of thinking is pretty much a non sequitur. You believe that because you think that you see an image in your mind that that image itself has some kind of real existence, that these images exist with the spirit/mind in some immaterial realm. But to me this is nonsensical, If there is reality to this immaterial realm then when the brain presents an image to the mind, to the spiritual self, then that spirit/mind in which you insist these images exist as a reality should not only mirror the image itself but should also have intuitive knowledge of the image as well, which is not the case. Take for instance the picture in your head of a boat. When this image is presented to your mind, that image is all that the mind is aware of, it is not aware of any propositional truths about the boat, except and until of course this information just like the image of the boat itself is generated from the brain. If we had a spirit/mind then not only would the image of the boat be apparent to that mind but also knowledge of propositional truths about that image would be apparent as well, and they are not. If in this immaterial realm of yours knowledge of the object is not co-existent with the object itself then it is not a world of reality. The image that you think you see as well as any propositional truths about that image are not existent immaterial things existing in an immaterial spirit/mind but are brain states. This is my opinion and I realize that you disagree but I think too that you have really made no case for your position other than to say that you see the image therefore the image is an immaterial existent thing.

[aegis]

It is true, it is a puzzle that has not been answered absolutely, but that is no reason to posit an immaterial spirit/mind where there is no evidence of any such thing just in order to fill in that gap in our knowledge. The brain/mind dualism in my own way of thinking is pretty much a non sequitur. You believe that because you think that you see an image in your mind that that image itself has some kind of real existence, that these images exist with the spirit/mind in some immaterial realm. But to me this is nonsensical, If there is reality to this immaterial realm then when the brain presents an image to the mind, to the spiritual self, then that spirit/mind in which you insist these images exist as a reality should not only mirror the image itself but should also have intuitive knowledge of the image as well, which is not the case. Take for instance the picture in your head of a boat. When this image is presented to your mind, that image is all that the mind is aware of, it is not aware of any propositional truths about the boat, except and until of course this information just like the image of the boat itself is generated from the brain. If we had a spirit/mind then not only would the image of the boat be apparent to that mind but also knowledge of propositional truths about that image would be apparent as well, and they are not. If in this immaterial realm of yours knowledge of the object is not co-existent with the object itself then it is not a world of reality. The image that you think you see as well as any propositional truths about that image are not existent immaterial things existing in an immaterial spirit/mind but are brain states. This is my opinion and I realize that you disagree but I think too that you have really made no case for your position other than to say that you see the image therefore the image is an immaterial existent thing.

Hi Jim,

Are you talking about Kant's critique of pure reason?