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

Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

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

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    That's pretty well what supposedly happens during NDE's, but these are all anecdotal and unsupported by verified evidence.
    Yep, the interesting thing is that NDE's is the only time it supposedly happens. I mean, they believe that they are fundamentally immaterial souls that are separate from the material body, but yet they believe they are somehow imprisoned by that material body.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      No, of course I do not believe that. As you know, I do not believe that their is a distinct mind, or soul as you would have it, that is separate from the brain and physical body, so even should there be a way to upload information somehow gleaned from your brain into a computer, it wouldn't be you living for ever, just like a doppleganger, i.e. an exact replica of you, in another universe say, would not be you.
      But would it think it was you?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        How about if we could extend that idea and upload 1000 physical bodies, or a million, with the same neural patterns? They might think alike, but I wouldn't say they were the same person/mind.
        But if a copy of a mind could run on a computer and think and be conscious, then that is proof that the mind is not just the brain operating. It is something more.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Your speculations depend entirely on the unevidenced assumption that the ‘mind’ is a separate entity from the brain, i.e. you are begging the question.
          I have not been begging the question in this discussion anymore than what you have done.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          All sentient creatures have consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, memory and communicate to a greater or lesser degree; these attributes are all qualities of the mind. We are just more intelligent examples of creatures with a mind.
          I'm not going to argue with you about this specific issue.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Again, you are begging the question. See above.
          Again, if what I'm doing is begging the question then you've been doing the same thing since the start of our discussion.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          This is merely a theological presupposition, not an argument.
          No, it follows logically from what immaterial means. If something is detectable by the senses or through scientific equipment it's by definition not immaterial. And if there is no way to detect something using the aforementioned then the question of it's existence is not even in principle answerable by science.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          What it shows is that there is a “connection/relationship”, between the brain and the mind. It shows nothing more than that because there is no evidence that there IS any more than that.
          But the fact that there is no more (scientific) evidence for the mind surviving the death of the brain doesn't really mean anything, for the reasons I've already stated.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          It’s not a different entity from the brain; it is what the brain does.
          There you go, doing that thing you're accusing me of, what did you call it again...?




          Ah yes, begging the question.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            But would it think it was you?
            No, he would think he was himself. Again, like a doppleganger in another universe, he would not even know it's replica in this universe, i.e. he wouldn't know me, so the question "would he think he was me" doesn't make sense.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              But if a copy of a mind could run on a computer and think and be conscious, then that is proof that the mind is not just the brain operating. It is something more.
              The thing is that something called "a mind" does not exist as a thing in itself, so "a mind" could not be uploaded to run on a computer.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                But if a copy of a mind could run on a computer and think and be conscious, then that is proof that the mind is not just the brain operating.
                Wat?

                Maybe you didn't mean to include the 'not' I have bolded?
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  I have not been begging the question in this discussion anymore than what you have done.
                  Not so. I’m arguing from the demonstrable existence of a material brain, whereas you are arguing from the unevidenced premise of an immaterial mind and using that premise to support your conclusion. In short, you are ‘Begging the Question’.

                  I'm not going to argue with you about this specific issue.
                  Well you need to; you seem to be claiming that we Homo sapiens are unique, whereas there is no good reason to assume that the minds of other sentient creatures are different in kind from the minds of Homo sapiens.

                  Again, if what I'm doing is begging the question then you've been doing the same thing since the start of our discussion.
                  Not at all, I’m arguing that the brain is material; this is not in doubt, whereas you are adding an unevidenced non-material component into the argument...namely an immaterial mind.

                  No, it follows logically from what immaterial means. If something is detectable by the senses or through scientific equipment it's by definition not immaterial. And if there is no way to detect something using the aforementioned then the question of it's existence is not even in principle answerable by science.
                  If something is undetectable why claim it exists.

                  But the fact that there is no more (scientific) evidence for the mind surviving the death of the brain doesn't really mean anything, for the reasons I've already stated.
                  Yes it does for the reasons I’ve already stated, i.e. the deleterious effects of brain damage on the mind are obvious and measurable.

                  There you go, doing that thing you're accusing me of, what did you call it again...?

                  Ah yes, begging the question.
                  Nope!
                  “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
                    Not so. I’m arguing from the demonstrable existence of a material brain, whereas you are arguing from the unevidenced premise of an immaterial mind and using that premise to support your conclusion. In short, you are ‘Begging the Question’.
                    The "demonstrable existence of a material brain" doesn't lend any support for your claim that the mind doesn't survive the death of the brain.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Well you need to; you seem to be claiming that we Homo sapiens are unique, whereas there is no good reason to assume that the minds of other sentient creatures are different in kind from the minds of Homo sapiens.
                    No, I don't seem to be claiming that at all. I have expressly stated in as many ways as I can possibly think of that I'm not making any claim what so ever as to the uniqueness of the human mind and if you continue trying to go down this rabbit trail I'm just going to have to assume that you're trolling at this point.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Not at all, I’m arguing that the brain is material; this is not in doubt, whereas you are adding an unevidenced non-material component into the argument...namely an immaterial mind.
                    You're also arguing that the mind doesn't survive the death of the brain, which is also unevidenced.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    If something is undetectable why claim it exists.
                    I said undetectable through the senses and scientific equipment. But the mind can obviously be detected by itself, or we wouldn't be here having a discussion/argument about it.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Yes it does for the reasons I’ve already stated, i.e. the deleterious effects of brain damage on the mind are obvious and measurable.
                    The deleterious effects of brain damage on the mind doesn't give us any indication what so ever as to what happens to the mind after death.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Nope!
                    Yeah, you're claiming that the mind is "what the brain does" while not having provided a single shred of evidence for that claim. It's text-book begging the question.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      The "demonstrable existence of a material brain" doesn't lend any support for your claim that the mind doesn't survive the death of the brain.
                      There is no good reason to suppose your hypothetical immaterial brain would survive the death of the material brain.

                      No, I don't seem to be claiming that at all. I have expressly stated in as many ways as I can possibly think of that I'm not making any claim what so ever as to the uniqueness of the human mind and if you continue trying to go down this rabbit trail I'm just going to have to assume that you're trolling at this point.
                      I’m waiting for you to acknowledge that Homo sapiens are not unique among sentient creatures. Your reluctance to address this indicates that you do believe we are unique in this regard. I further surmise that you believe this for reasons of religious revelation. Do you deny this?

                      You're also arguing that the mind doesn't survive the death of the brain, which is also unevidenced.
                      What I’m arguing is that the brain and mind is just a material entity. One doesn’t need a leap of faith to assume that such an entity will not survive death.

                      I said undetectable through the senses and scientific equipment. But the mind can obviously be detected by itself, or we wouldn't be here having a discussion/argument about it.
                      This is a purely subjective claim; it doesn’t establish the objective reality of an immaterial mind.

                      The deleterious effects of brain damage on the mind doesn't give us any indication what so ever as to what happens to the mind after death.
                      Yes it does. The deleterious effect of brain damage on the mind gives every indication that the mind as just a functional aspect of the material brain.

                      Yeah, you're claiming that the mind is "what the brain does" while not having provided a single shred of evidence for that claim. It's text-book begging the question.
                      There is no evidence that the mind is more than what the brain does; any claims that the mind is more than this is an unsupported assumption. To draw conclusions from an assumed assumption such as this is text-book 'begging the question'.
                      “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 Starlight View Post
                        Oh, I think qualia is absolutely essential to wider discussion of mind-body interactions, and they are why I am a dualist / idealist rather than a physicalist.

                        I don't know I agree though that qualia lead to the specific conclusions you argue for.

                        Well, assuming a mouse experiences qualia, that would be true. I don't know if it does. I can't even prove that you do. I can only experience my own qualia. Though I think assuming other humans also experience qualia is a reasonable assumption.

                        But when it comes to different kinds of animals, guessing at whether they have qualia and to what extent is pretty speculative and we currently have zero way of measuring that. Do they have 100% the level of qualia we do? Or a lower level? Do plants have qualia? Do rocks? Do worms? How would we know? My best guess would be that qualia have something to do with brain structure, so only animals with brains of at least a certain complexity are likely to have them I would guess, but I have no idea what the cut-off would be, what part of the brain is associated with them, or whether you can have a "lesser amount" of qualia. It's a bit like observing my laptop has a wifi link, and then seeing other computers and trying to guess whether they can connect to wifi or not simply because "well they are computers like my laptop is, so they must have wifi, right?" That's not a reliable indicator one way or the other of whether those other computers really do have wifi capabilities, and it doesn't tell me about whether there might be different speeds of wifi or types of wifi, because the only one I know about is the one my laptop has.

                        If the mouse does have qualia, and its qualia do have a profound effect on its behavior, and mathematical models of neurons omit qualia, then if we run the experiment of modelling the mouse's neurons in a computer and seeing what simulated behavior it performs we will see the computerized mice acting very differently to real mice. That would be very, very interesting. So what I see you saying is that your worldview would predict this particular empirically testable outcome to this theoretically-possible-in-future experiment! That's great. It means your worldview is (potentially) actually empirically testable, and in future we might be able to do an experiment which indicates whether your views are right or wrong. That's why I find this potential experiment so interesting because it would rule in or out certain worldviews.
                        I don't see a lot to disagree with here...
                        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...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          No, he would think he was himself. Again, like a doppleganger in another universe, he would not even know it's replica in this universe, i.e. he wouldn't know me, so the question "would he think he was me" doesn't make sense.
                          You still don't get it. If a mind can be placed in a computer and still think it is himself (or you) then the mind is more than just the brain firing neurons. Just like when you look at a photo on your computer screen of a dog. The screen is just lighting up pixels. But YOU see a dog. The pattern becomes more than just a pattern of flashing lights. It has a subjective meaning. Anyone looking at it would see the same thing, a dog. The screen doesn't know it is a dog. But the picture has a meaning beyond what the lights are doing. Your mind also has a subjective meaning beyond just neurons firing. And the only one able to appreciate that fully is yourself. That is what "self-awareness" is, Jim. You are not aware of the neurons firing, but the result is your mind, something generated that is self-aware and can actually influence those neurons that sustain it. Or in the case of transferring to a computer, control the very transistors that are generating the mind. The same mind in this example. The mind is more than just the brain.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You still don't get it. If a mind can be placed in a computer and still think it is himself (or you) then the mind is more than just the brain firing neurons.
                            Again, "a mind" is not a thing in itself, so "a mind" is not something you can place in a computer. I don't believe you are thinking this through. Perhaps if you specify what you mean by a mind, you might be able to make your hypotheses more sensible, but I don't think so.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Again, "a mind" is not a thing in itself, so "a mind" is not something you can place in a computer. I don't believe you are thinking this through. Perhaps if you specify what you mean by a mind, you might be able to make your hypotheses more sensible, but I don't think so.
                              That makes no sense. Of course a mind is a thing. You are misusing yours right now in making idiotic posts about it.

                              But I guess this is all my fault for trying to argue philosophy with someone as clueless as you are on the topic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                That makes no sense. Of course a mind is a thing. You are misusing yours right now in making idiotic posts about it.

                                But I guess this is all my fault for trying to argue philosophy with someone as clueless as you are on the topic.
                                No need to get angry and start with the name calling, Sparko. Just explain what exactly it is that you mean by a mind and how you would place it into a computer.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 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