Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Origin of the Mind/Mental States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    The brain is complex! but "you are your brain" is what is in dispute.
    Yes, what is in dispute is that there is a ghost in the machine, a belief for which you haven't an ounce of actual evidence.

    No, the soul can think without a brain, is my position.
    Then please explain for what purpose your ghost needs the physical brain?

    I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.
    You're going to have to explain what you mean by the validity of human reasoning and why you think the what the human brain does is not reasoning.
    Now your negative claim that there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural needs defending.
    No, it doesn't, that the supernatural exists is a negative claim of yours, there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, and if it is your claim that there is empirical evidence, it is up to you to provide it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      But still, my thoughts are determined by the motions of atoms in my head?
      The “thoughts” of every sentient creature are determined by the evolved activity of the brain. How else?

      But the soul may live on, as evidenced by out-of-body experiences where people report events that happened when they were brain-dead, even events that happened outside their room.
      The “soul” likely does not even exist, let alone “live on”. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iences/386231/

      I don't assume it, there is evidence for it.
      There is no verified empirical evidence of the supernatural.

      But here you again assume the validity of reasoning to make your point about the validity of reasoning.
      I don’t know what you mean by “validly of reasoning”. Please explain.
      “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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Then please explain for what purpose your ghost needs the physical brain?
        The soul does not need a physical brain, but it uses the physical brain to think, if present, is my view here.

        Originally posted by lee_merrill
        I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.
        You're going to have to explain what you mean by the validity of human reasoning and why you think the what the human brain does is not reasoning.
        I mean the validity of reasoning to a valid conclusion, and the brain, as used by the soul, does reason. But you have not addressed my point here, and my evidence for the supernatural.

        No, it doesn't, that the supernatural exists is a negative claim of yours, there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, and if it is your claim that there is empirical evidence, it is up to you to provide it.
        So you may claim there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, without defending your claim?

        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)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          The “thoughts” of every sentient creature are determined by the evolved activity of the brain.
          Therefore there is no way to trust that my thoughts correspond to reality, and that my reasoning is valid. "He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream..." (Douglas Adams)

          The “soul” likely does not even exist, let alone “live on”. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...iences/386231/
          Source: The Atlantic

          As the only stage in an NDE that involves perceiving the physical rather than the spiritual world, an out-of-body experience has the most potential to convince skeptics. If you could prove that someone saw or heard things that brain science says they could not have seen or heard, you would have, at the very least, evidence that our understanding of the brain is even more incomplete than we thought, and at most, a sign that a conscious mind can exist apart from a living body.

          © Copyright Original Source


          Quite so.

          Source: The Atlantic

          Only 35 included accounts of details that the authors were able to verify as fully accurate with a source other than the experiencer. There was not a single clincher—an absolutely inarguable case of someone seeing something that only a disembodied spirit could have seen.

          © Copyright Original Source


          Though in "Heaven is for Real" the child saw his dad praying in another room, and met a sister later in the vision who said she had died before being born. This second fact was confirmed by his mother.

          And they discounted Maria seeing a tennis shoe outside a window, because she cannot now be called on to confirm this.

          Source: The Atlantic

          That one case is tantalizing. The patient, a 57-year-old man, described floating up to a corner of the room, seeing medical staff work on him, and watching himself be defibrillated. According to Parnia’s paper, several of the details he described checked out. What’s more, after triangulating the patient’s description with the workings of the defibrillator, the researchers think he may have seen things that happened for as long as three minutes after his heart stopped.

          © Copyright Original Source


          Well, that is intriguing, and it sounds like definite evidence of the supernatural.

          There is no verified empirical evidence of the supernatural.
          How do you know this, though?

          I don’t know what you mean by “validly of reasoning”. Please explain.
          I mean the validity of reasoning to a valid conclusion, as mentioned to Jim above.

          Best wishes,
          Lee
          Last edited by lee_merrill; 11-28-2018, 07:54 PM.
          "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)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            The soul does not need a physical brain, but it uses the physical brain to think, if present, is my view here.
            If the brain isn't needed by the ghost to think, then why does it exist?

            I mean the validity of reasoning to a valid conclusion, and the brain, as used by the soul, does reason. But you have not addressed my point here, and my evidence for the supernatural.
            Why do you assume that reason is not a function of the physical brain. How do you think the brainless ghost does it?

            So you may claim there is no empirical evidence of the supernatural, without defending your claim?
            Yes, we can, because you can provide no empirical evidence. I'm not claiming the existence of something, you are, therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence for that claim.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Therefore there is no way to trust that my thoughts correspond to reality, and that my reasoning is valid.
              Any argument is "valid" if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The problem for you is to arrive at the "truth" or "reality" of the premise. I do it via empirical verification, you do it via unsubstantiated faith-beliefs.

              Source: The Atlantic

              As the only stage in an NDE that involves perceiving the physical rather than the spiritual world, an out-of-body experience has the most potential to convince skeptics. If you could prove that someone saw or heard things that brain science says they could not have seen or heard, you would have, at the very least, evidence that our understanding of the brain is even more incomplete than we thought, and at most, a sign that a conscious mind can exist apart from a living body.

              © Copyright Original Source


              Quite so.

              Source: The Atlantic

              Only 35 included accounts of details that the authors were able to verify as fully accurate with a source other than the experiencer. There was not a single clincher—an absolutely inarguable case of someone seeing something that only a disembodied spirit could have seen.

              © Copyright Original Source


              Though in "Heaven is for Real" the child saw his dad praying in another room, and met a sister later in the vision who said she had died before being born. This second fact was confirmed by his mother.

              And they discounted Maria seeing a tennis shoe outside a window, because she cannot now be called on to confirm this.

              Source: The Atlantic

              That one case is tantalizing. The patient, a 57-year-old man, described floating up to a corner of the room, seeing medical staff work on him, and watching himself be defibrillated. According to Parnia’s paper, several of the details he described checked out. What’s more, after triangulating the patient’s description with the workings of the defibrillator, the researchers think he may have seen things that happened for as long as three minutes after his heart stopped.

              © Copyright Original Source


              Well, that is intriguing, and it sounds like definite evidence of the supernatural.
              I once met by chance a well-known Australian clairvoyant at a party in the city of Sydney. He said he had an appointment the following day with a doctor from the hospital at which I then worked on the outskirts of Sydney...an Indian who was quite superstitious. I knew that this doctor was sitting for all important exams that week to gain his specialist psychiatry certificate. So I told the clairvoyant everything I knew about my colleague, which was a lot and asked him to “foresee” success in the exams. The doctor passed with flying colours. He told me about his trip to the clairvoyant who, he said, "told me things about myself he couldn’t have possibly known”. I didn’t enlighten him that I was the source of the information.

              My point is that there are likely to be natural explanations for otherwise seemingly inexplicable occurrences.
              Last edited by Tassman; 11-28-2018, 11:59 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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Any argument is "valid" if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The problem for you is to arrive at the "truth" or "reality" of the premise. I do it via empirical verification, you do it via unsubstantiated faith-beliefs.
                And the problem for the naturalist is that they must assume the validity of reasoning in order to argue for the validity of reasoning!

                My point is that there are likely to be natural explanations for otherwise seemingly inexplicable occurrences.
                Source: The Atlantic

                And it’s true that the scientific explanations, while plausible, aren’t conclusive.

                © Copyright Original Source


                At this point there are arguments on both sides of the NDE debate, we'll see what develops from here.

                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)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  If the brain isn't needed by the ghost to think, then why does it exist?
                  So we can act in our body?

                  Why do you assume that reason is not a function of the physical brain. How do you think the brainless ghost does it?
                  I don't know how I think, brain or not! And if reason is a function of the physical brain, then my thoughts are the sum of mindless atoms, and I have no reason to trust them.

                  Yes, we can, because you can provide no empirical evidence. I'm not claiming the existence of something, you are, therefore it is up to you to provide the evidence for that claim.
                  I am providing evidence, and you are simply making a claim without evidence. And I thought that the atheists were holding themselves to be the champions of evidence, and truth!

                  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)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    So we can act in our body?
                    If the immaterial ghost can move the material brain, then it could move the material body without use of the brain. So, that answer doesn't make any sense.

                    I don't know how I think, brain or not! And if reason is a function of the physical brain, then my thoughts are the sum of mindless atoms, and I have no reason to trust them.
                    Well, that's true Lee, you have no idea how a brainless ghost thinks/reasons. Do you also think that it sees without eyes, hears without ears, or feels without a body? Yes, you, i.e. your brain, does have reason to trust it's thoughts, so long as they are reasonable thoughts. You, i.e. your brain, isn't always right, is it? So, ask yourself, if you're reasoning is not always right, what is it that makes you trust your reasoning?

                    I am providing evidence, and you are simply making a claim without evidence. And I thought that the atheists were holding themselves to be the champions of evidence, and truth!
                    What evidence, I haven't seen you provide an ounce of evidence? The fact that you believe there to be a ghost in your head operating your brain and body isn't evidence that there is.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      If the immaterial ghost can move the material brain, then it could move the material body without use of the brain. So, that answer doesn't make any sense.
                      Your statement is what doesn't make sense. A soul isn't moving the brain it is using it. The brain would be the interface between the mental and material world. And since the rest of the world isn't a brain, how would the soul move it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Your statement is what doesn't make sense. A soul isn't moving the brain it is using it. The brain would be the interface between the mental and material world. And since the rest of the world isn't a brain, how would the soul move it?
                        The soul is using the brain to do what?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          And the problem for the naturalist is that they must assume the validity of reasoning in order to argue for the validity of reasoning!
                          We don't feel the need to "argue for the "validity of reasoning". We just do it.

                          At this point there are arguments on both sides of the NDE debate, we'll see what develops from here.
                          No, at this point there are merely anecdotal accounts of NDE's, no verifiable evidence.
                          Last edited by Tassman; 11-30-2018, 12:50 AM.
                          “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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            The soul is using the brain to do what?
                            Interface with the body and the world.


                            Hey what if this entire world is a computer simulation and we are sitting in VR chairs somewhere outside and our bodies are just avatars and we are controlling them from outside like in the Matrix?

                            There is a very real scientific hypothesis that this might be the case.

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

                            How can you tell if it is or not?

                            And if you can't tell if that is really the case or not, how can you say that it is not the same thing but with spirits and the material world?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Interface with the body and the world.
                              Why should the brain be the only complex material object in the universe to have an interface with an immaterial realm of being such as a soul? There is no credible evidence that this is the case...how could there be a point of connection between the material and the immaterial entities?

                              Hey what if this entire world is a computer simulation and we are sitting in VR chairs somewhere outside and our bodies are just avatars and we are controlling them from outside like in the Matrix?

                              There is a very real scientific hypothesis that this might be the case.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

                              How can you tell if it is or not?
                              It could well be the case, but we would have no option other than to live out our lives on the assumption that we are real entities living in the real world.

                              And if you can't tell if that is really the case or not, how can you say that it is not the same thing but with spirits and the material world?
                              The difference is that a simulated universe is a material component of the natural universe whereas “spirits” are by definition supernatural.
                              “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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                And the problem for the naturalist is that they must assume the validity of reasoning in order to argue for the validity of reasoning!
                                Meaningless drivel. We all rely on the validity of human reasoning to one extent or another.

                                Review the basics here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


                                Source: The Atlantic

                                And it’s true that the scientific explanations, while plausible, aren’t conclusive.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Incomplete taken out of context as the nature of science and scientific knowledge. Science fortunately does not rely on the nature of scientific knowledge being conclusive. That is an unfortunate conclusion of some theological beliefs. Science relies on the falsification of theories and hypothesis which is more reliable based on objective verifiable evidence.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X