Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[JimL]

Interface with the body and the world.

But the soul, according to you guys, is apparently a mind in its own right, so what actual purpose would a physical brain serve?

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?

Again, what specific purpose would the physical brain serve in such a scenario?

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

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

Well, there are many possibilities, but the simulation isn't something that you believe in, so why use it as point of argumentation?
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?

Because if that were the case, there is no reason to believe that the controller of the simulation would be immaterial. The amazing Kreskin didn't really bend the spoons with his mind.

[lee_merrill]

So, ask yourself, if you're reasoning is not always right, what is it that makes you trust your reasoning?

I trust that I can be shown the fault in my reasoning. But if human reasoning is simply the motion of atoms in my head, I can't trust that that will produce valid reasoning, reasoning has no solid foundation.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

We don't feel the need to "argue for the "validity of reasoning". We just do it.

This almost confirms that for the naturalist, reasoning has no foundation.

No, at this point there are merely anecdotal accounts of NDE's, no verifiable evidence.

Well, the evidence for NDEs is always going to be anecdotal, but that doesn't mean we can't examine them scientifically.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I trust that I can be shown the fault in my reasoning. But if human reasoning is simply the motion of atoms in my head, I can't trust that that will produce valid reasoning, reasoning has no solid foundation.

Blessings,
Lee

Yes, despite your objections human reasoning is simply the motion of 'electrons in our heads,' not atoms, regardless of whether there is a higher authority that justifies our reasoning.

The history of human reasoning has shown human reasoning is flawed without the support of objective verifiable evidence. When objective verifiable evidence is ignored and avoided, fallible human reasoning has no bounds of self-justification, conflict and contradictions.

[JimL]

I trust that I can be shown the fault in my reasoning. But if human reasoning is simply the motion of atoms in my head, I can't trust that that will produce valid reasoning, reasoning has no solid foundation.

It's called objective evidence Lee, without the which you could neither be said to be reasoning, nor trust your reasoned beliefs. You're thinking is that the brain, rather than functioning on its own, needs an operator, but you're not thinking about how that operator itself does it, how the mind, the soul, or whatever you want to call it, functions. And again, a distinct mind doesn't make sense, if we had distinct minds, we wouldn't even have the need of a brain..

[Tassman]

This almost confirms that for the naturalist, reasoning has no foundation.

Valid reasoning for “the naturalist” is grounded in empirically verified true premises. This as opposed to the reasoning of the supernaturalist, who’s ‘reasoning’ is grounded in unsubstantiated beliefs.

Well, the evidence for NDEs is always going to be anecdotal, but that doesn't mean we can't examine them scientifically.

To date no scientific examination has obtained supportive evidence of NDE’s .

[Sparko]

But the soul, according to you guys, is apparently a mind in its own right, so what actual purpose would a physical brain serve?


Again, what specific purpose would the physical brain serve in such a scenario?

Well, there are many possibilities, but the simulation isn't something that you believe in, so why use it as point of argumentation?
How can you tell if it is or not?


Because if that were the case, there is no reason to believe that the controller of the simulation would be immaterial. The amazing Kreskin didn't really bend the spoons with his mind.

Jim, discussing philosophy with you is like discussing politics with a pig.

[JimL]

Jim, discussing philosophy with you is like discussing politics with a pig.

Bye bye then.

[One Bad Pig]

Jim, discussing philosophy with you is like discussing politics with a pig.

[Sparko]

[lee_merrill]

Yes, despite your objections human reasoning is simply the motion of 'electrons in our heads,' not atoms, regardless of whether there is a higher authority that justifies our reasoning.

It's called objective evidence Lee, without the which you could neither be said to be reasoning, nor trust your reasoned beliefs.

Ah, but here you assume the validity of reasoning in order to explain our reasoning.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Valid reasoning for “the naturalist” is grounded in empirically verified true premises.

But empirical verification is hardly a foundation for reasoning. What measurements can you take to verify your argument here?

This as opposed to the reasoning of the supernaturalist, who’s ‘reasoning’ is grounded in unsubstantiated beliefs.

No, the validity of reasoning has to be a first principle. Call that an article of faith if you want, but you cannot prove the validity of reasoning.

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

But empirical verification is hardly a foundation for reasoning.

Valid reasoning is grounded in logic based upon a true premise; a true premise requires verification. Without a true premise your argument cannot be a sound argument.

No, the validity of reasoning has to be a first principle. Call that an article of faith if you want, but you cannot prove the validity of reasoning.

How do you "prove the validity of reasoning"?

[JimL]

Ah, but here you assume the validity of reasoning in order to explain our reasoning.

No, what I'm assuming is the validity of an objective empirical reality upon which the validity of our reasoned conclusions are based. Even you need assume that, otherwise there is nothing for your distinct conscious mind to reason about.

[Sparko]

No, what I'm assuming is the validity of an objective empirical reality upon which the validity of our reasoned conclusions are based. Even you need assume that, otherwise there is nothing for your distinct conscious mind to reason about.

Do you believe they will ever be able to upload a mind into a computer/robot so you can live forever?