Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Origin of the Mind/Mental States

  1. #41
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    423
    Amen (Given)
    183
    Amen (Received)
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    You're simply making assumptions, i.e. that mechanistic reasoning is not real reasoning.
    The validity of reason does need to be an axiom, a first principle.

    It's your argument that has no valid basis for reasoning, because unlike the materialistic perspective, you have no explanation as to how you are defining an immaterial mind, how it works, how it reasons, or basically anything about it.
    You're saying the materialistic perspective explains how the mind reasons? But any such explanation must assume the validity of reason at the outset, which is a circular argument.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  2. #42
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,580
    Amen (Given)
    2281
    Amen (Received)
    1586
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Yes, but knowing the rules of calculus and astrophysics would not seem to confer a survival advantage.
    Any verifiable knowledge is of more survival value than unevidenced belief which cannot be verified or even agreed upon.

    But the argument still stands, if reason comes from non-reason, it cannot be trusted.
    Reason arises from knowledge of the universe and how it works. It does not derive from a metaphysical premise which cannot be shown to be true.

    J. B. S. Haldane said: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
    Why wouldn’t he believe they are “true” if they are supported by the shared experience of others and verified by testing and experiment?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  3. #43
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,313
    Amen (Given)
    1270
    Amen (Received)
    1280
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    The validity of reason does need to be an axiom, a first principle.


    You're saying the materialistic perspective explains how the mind reasons? But any such explanation must assume the validity of reason at the outset, which is a circular argument.
    The validity of reason is dependent first upon how you're defining reason. How are you defining reason?

  4. #44
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    423
    Amen (Given)
    183
    Amen (Received)
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Any verifiable knowledge is of more survival value than unevidenced belief which cannot be verified or even agreed upon.
    Well, I agree.

    Reason arises from knowledge of the universe and how it works.
    Can you prove this? Without assuming the validity of reasoning.

    Why wouldn’t he believe they are “true” if they are supported by the shared experience of others and verified by testing and experiment?
    Well, they seem true. But once you've proposed a mechanical explanation of reason, you've completely explained why I act as I do, including all my thoughts. They all are a result of non-reasoning processes, which disconnects my thoughts from reality. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

    Best wishes,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  5. #45
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    423
    Amen (Given)
    183
    Amen (Received)
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    The validity of reason is dependent first upon how you're defining reason. How are you defining reason?
    The process of reasoning, evaluating arguments and coming to a valid conclusion. Like what we are doing here...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  6. #46
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,580
    Amen (Given)
    2281
    Amen (Received)
    1586
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I agree.
    Strange! I thought you based your “knowledge” on an unverifiable belief in the Judeo/Christian deity and his alleged revelation.

    Can you prove this? Without assuming the validity of reasoning.
    Can you prove your claim that “if reason comes from non-reason, it cannot be trusted”? No you cannot. This is an assumption.

    Well, they seem true. But once you've proposed a mechanical explanation of reason, you've completely explained why I act as I do, including all my thoughts.
    We have 'will', i.e. a desire or impulse to act based upon our reasoning processes. But “will”, although it seems to be free-will, cannot be described as 'free will'. It arises from our unconscious processes and memories which translate to thought and action.

    Can you justify a valid alternative?

    They all are a result of non-reasoning processes, which disconnects my thoughts from reality.
    What do you mean by “reality?”

    Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.
    What goes "out" depends on what comes "in" according to the quality of our socialisation and acculturation during our formative years.
    Last edited by Tassman; 11-12-2018 at 10:41 PM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #47
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,522
    Amen (Given)
    1232
    Amen (Received)
    4329
    To quote:

    “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for our thoughts. But if our thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? " C.S. Lewis
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  8. Amen lee_merrill amen'd this post.
  9. #48
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    423
    Amen (Given)
    183
    Amen (Received)
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Strange! I thought you based your “knowledge” on an unverifiable belief in the Judeo/Christian deity and his alleged revelation.
    No, I seek good evidence for the supernatural, I think there is some.

    Can you prove your claim that “if reason comes from non-reason, it cannot be trusted”? No you cannot. This is an assumption.
    reason implies reason (something everyone will agree to)
    Therefore not-reason implies not-reason (by negating both sides of the equation and reversing the terms, modens tollens)

    We have 'will', i.e. a desire or impulse to act based upon our reasoning processes. But “will”, although it seems to be free-will, cannot be described as 'free will'. It arises from our unconscious processes and memories which translate to thought and action.
    So we don't have free will? Your typing is just as determined as my reply? But this is insanity, people can really choose.

    Can you justify a valid alternative?
    Yes, since the view of determinism leads to a contradiction, to insanity.

    What do you mean by “reality?”
    I mean what is really true.

    Best wishes,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  10. #49
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,580
    Amen (Given)
    2281
    Amen (Received)
    1586
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    No, I seek good evidence for the supernatural,
    Why would you do that?

    I think there is some.
    This is wishful thinking. Time and again substantive evidence for the supernatural is promised and fails to materialize. Ever!

    reason implies reason (something everyone will agree to)
    Yes.

    Therefore not-reason implies not-reason (by negating both sides of the equation and reversing the terms, modens tollens)
    This has nothing to do with ‘reason’, which is to think, understand and form judgments via a process of logic.

    So we don't have free will? Your typing is just as determined as my reply? But this is insanity, people can really choose.
    Yes people choose. But you are claiming that people freely choose which is contrary to the evidence. It does not take into account a lifetime’s accumulation of memories and experiences lodged in our sub-conscious, which have a major effect on our decision-making processes.

    Yes, since the view of determinism leads to a contradiction, to insanity.
    The “contradiction” is claiming the existence of libertarian free-will despite the evidence to the contrary. There’s no “insanity” in accepting reality, quite the reverse...denying it is delusional thinking.

    I mean what is really true.
    How do you determine “what is really true"?
    Last edited by Tassman; Yesterday at 10:27 PM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •