Origin of the Mind/Mental States

[Tassman]

It's reductio ad adsurdum, the alternative is insanity.

The reverse is true. Claiming that transactions occur at some sort of undefined dualistic interface between an immaterial soul and material body is what passes as a reductio ad absurdum. “Insanity” is delusional thinking maintained despite a total lack of substantive evidence, e.g. angels, gods and the like.

Creatures of instinct do not have human reason, which is far beyond what animals can do.

Was “human reason” beyond the many other humans that once walked the planet including Homo neanderthalensis, with whom we Homo sapiens overlapped and interbred? Or Homo erectus, who survived two million years, which is far longer that the mere 200,000 years we have been around. Did they too have souls, or do these imaginary entities only belong to God’s favourite humans, i.e. us?

Then why are we arguing, if this whole discussion is predetermined?

We too contribute to what is otherwise a determined universe. This is what Compatibilism is all about, i.e. the belief that free-will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.

I call to witness every human who has ever reasoned, and considered their reasoning to be valid, and not determined.

Source: Miracles, C.S. Lewis, first edition

… no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight.

© Copyright Original Source

What does this even mean? Regardless, the personal opinion of a literary figure dating back 70 years hardly constitutes substantive evidence.

You have yet to explain how libertarian freewill can exist when the subconscious mind plays a major role in our decision-making process. It relates to thoughts and feelings that influence your behavior when you are not consciously aware of most of them.

[lee_merrill]

Yes, so what have you thought about it, does this immaterial soul have some sort of immaterial brain of its own? If so, what purpose does the physical brain serve for this immaterial soul?

I heard about someone once who had a brain injury, he said it was like being in a submarine, where he could think and process, but couldn't communicate. I wouldn't say the soul has a brain, rather the soul uses the physical brain to communicate.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The reverse is true. Claiming that transactions occur at some sort of undefined dualistic interface between an immaterial soul and material body is what passes as a reductio ad absurdum. “Insanity” is delusional thinking maintained despite a total lack of substantive evidence, e.g. angels, gods and the like.

So I ask again, I accept that I cannot choose, I accept that my thoughts are determined by blind processes, that I cannot control my thinking, and this is sanity? I think the alternative of the supernatural validity of reason is best.

Was “human reason” beyond the many other humans that once walked the planet including Homo neanderthalensis, with whom we Homo sapiens overlapped and interbred? Or Homo erectus, who survived two million years, which is far longer that the mere 200,000 years we have been around. Did they too have souls, or do these imaginary entities only belong to God’s favourite humans, i.e. us?

I really don't know, I only maintain that if a being can really choose, can really reason, then that is supernatural activity.

We too contribute to what is otherwise a determined universe. This is what Compatibilism is all about, i.e. the belief that free-will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.

But determined choices are not free!

What does this even mean?

That people act as if they can really choose, and as if their reasoning is not predetermined for them.

You have yet to explain how libertarian freewill can exist when the subconscious mind plays a major role in our decision-making process. It relates to thoughts and feelings that influence your behavior when you are not consciously aware of most of them.

I agree that the subconscious mind plays a large role in decision-making, but that seems to me to present no problem for free decision-making.

And you have yet to explain how our reasoning can be valid if it is all pre-determined--without assuming at the outset, the validity of reasoning.

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

I heard about someone once who had a brain injury, he said it was like being in a submarine, where he could think and process, but couldn't communicate. I wouldn't say the soul has a brain, rather the soul uses the physical brain to communicate.

Oh really! Where and how exactly does the immaterial soul connect with the material brain?

[JimL]

I heard about someone once who had a brain injury, he said it was like being in a submarine, where he could think and process, but couldn't communicate. I wouldn't say the soul has a brain, rather the soul uses the physical brain to communicate.

Blessings,
Lee

Nope, if your immaterial being communicates through the physical body, then it communicates through the mouth etc, not the brain. So what purpose to the soul does the physical brain serve if it already has a mind of its own?

[Tassman]

So I ask again, I accept that I cannot choose, I accept that my thoughts are determined by blind processes, that I cannot control my thinking, and this is sanity?

We all contribute in some degree to what is otherwise a determined universe. The alternative of ‘libertarian free-will’ is logically incoherent.

I think the alternative of the supernatural validity of reason is best.

Why do you think this when there is no substantive evidence supporting such a belief?

I really don't know, I only maintain that if a being can really choose, can really reason, then that is supernatural activity.

Why would you assume that?

But determined choices are not free!

Just because you don’t like the notion doesn’t make false.

That people act as if they can really choose, and as if their reasoning is not predetermined for them.

Yes people act as if they can really choose, but this does not mean they are not determined to a large degree.

I agree that the subconscious mind plays a large role in decision-making, but that seems to me to present no problem for free decision-making.

If you are claiming that your decisions are completely free, whilst simultaneously acknowledging the existence of unconscious influences then your decisions are not completely free.

And you have yet to explain how our reasoning can be valid if it is all pre-determined--without assuming at the outset, the validity of reasoning.

Is the chimpanzee making a “valid” decision when it chooses a particular banana from the tree? It certainly thinks it is. What about the six human species which inhabited the earth a hundred thousand years ago, was their reasoning valid? I’m sure they thought it was. The same applies to us are we wrong?

[lee_merrill]

So what purpose to the soul does the physical brain serve if it already has a mind of its own?

I would say the brain is the instrument of thought, the soul uses the brain to do its thinking, though I don't know how this all works.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

We all contribute in some degree to what is otherwise a determined universe. The alternative of ‘libertarian free-will’ is logically incoherent.

Though I can freely move my arm, that is not incoherent.

I think the alternative of the supernatural validity of reason is best.

Why do you think this when there is no substantive evidence supporting such a belief?

Because naturalism (the view that nature is all there is) has no way to conjure up validity of reason.

I only maintain that if a being can really choose, can really reason, then that is supernatural activity.

Why would you assume that?

Because real choices, real reasoning cannot be predetermined.

Just because you don’t like the notion doesn’t make false.

So how are pre-determined choices really free?

If you are claiming that your decisions are completely free, whilst simultaneously acknowledging the existence of unconscious influences then your decisions are not completely free.

My choices are not completely free, but neither are they completely determined.

Is the chimpanzee making a “valid” decision when it chooses a particular banana from the tree? It certainly thinks it is. What about the six human species which inhabited the earth a hundred thousand years ago, was their reasoning valid? I’m sure they thought it was. The same applies to us are we wrong?

The chimp's choices can be completely determined, that is not a contradiction. But these questions do not answer my challenge, you have yet to explain how our reasoning can be valid if it is all pre-determined--without assuming at the outset, the validity of reasoning.

Best wishes,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

What does that even mean Frank?

Simple. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence that the mind, consciousness nor mental states have any other origin than the physical brain.

[Tassman]

I would say the brain is the instrument of thought, the soul uses the brain to do its thinking, though I don't know how this all works.

Why and how would the brain, which is a material entity, have an interface with an immaterial entity such as your posited soul? There's not a shred of objective evidence for this concept.

[lee_merrill]

Why and how would the brain, which is a material entity, have an interface with an immaterial entity such as your posited soul? There's not a shred of objective evidence for this concept.

There are several shreds! One being the evidence for the soul in near-death experiences, where people have viewed themselves, outside their body. If there is indeed a soul, then it's reasonable to postulate an interface between the soul and the brain.

Best wishes,
Lee

[Tassman]

Though I can freely move my arm, that is not incoherent.

Free bodily movement is common to all living creatures. This does not require a logical argument to determine whether such behaviour is logically coherent, it is self-evident.

Because naturalism (the view that nature is all there is) has no way to conjure up validity of reason.

It doesn’t need to. The view that nature is all there is supported by objective evidence.

Because real choices, real reasoning cannot be predetermined.

All sentient creatures make choices; in what way are these choices not “real”?

So how are pre-determined choices really free?

“Choices are not completely free, but neither are they completely determined”...your quote.

My choices are not completely free, but neither are they completely determined.

Yes, see above.

The chimp's choices can be completely determined, that is not a contradiction. But these questions do not answer my challenge, you have yet to explain how our reasoning can be valid if it is all pre-determined--without assuming at the outset, the validity of reasoning.

All sentient creatures reason and make choices based upon their reasoning, including humans. So why wouldn’t you assume at the outset, the validity of reasoning. You are trying to claim that Homo sapiens are somehow unique, they are not.

[Tassman]

There are several shreds! One being the evidence for the soul in near-death experiences, where people have viewed themselves, outside their body.

There are thousands of such reports. But none--not a single one--stands up under the same scrutiny that is applied in any science whenever an extraordinary claim is presented. There are rational explanations for all that have been examined.

If there is indeed a soul, then it's reasonable to postulate an interface between the soul and the brain.

IF indeed.

[shunyadragon]

There are several shreds! One being the evidence for the soul in near-death experiences, where people have viewed themselves, outside their body. If there is indeed a soul, then it's reasonable to postulate an interface between the soul and the brain.

Best wishes,
Lee

As a theist I understand the relevance of this evidence, but also as a scientist I understand the limits of this evidence and it is anecdotal at best, and does not stand the test of objective verifiable evidence.

[Sparko]

Simple. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence that the mind, consciousness nor mental states have any other origin than the physical brain.

You said it was "ad hominem accusations." Explain