Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 139

Thread: Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

  1. #101
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,658
    Amen (Given)
    1322
    Amen (Received)
    1319
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Still not an answer JimL. If your brain is chugging along thinking about eating tacos, how does it suddenly decide it wants to think about what to wear tomorrow? Then decide it wants to turn on CNN and check out the news? Some random fluctuation in the electrical pattern?
    How does your immaterial brain/mind thingy decide to think about what to wear tomorrow? What all of you ghost in the machine pushers neglect to consider is "how does the ghost mind work, what makes it decide to think this or that?" Got an answer? I gave you mine.
    The mind is in control of the brain. YOU are your mind. You control what neurons fire in your brain and what thoughts are being thought. You are conscious and in control. You are not just some randomly operating meatball that just fires neurons for no reason.
    See above.

  2. #102
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,765
    Amen (Given)
    4027
    Amen (Received)
    19524
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    How does your immaterial brain/mind thingy decide to think about what to wear tomorrow? What all of you ghost in the machine pushers neglect to consider is "how does the ghost mind work, what makes it decide to think this or that?" Got an answer? I gave you mine.

    See above.
    Because the mind is conscious and self-aware. It is not just the brain firing random patterns. There is a a "self" consciousness that directs your thoughts and the brain. YOU decide to move your arm and your brain fires up the motor neurons and moves your arm. The mind is the control. It is not material. You don't even have to believe in the supernatural to accept that. Even if you believe the mind is dependent on the brain to function, the mind is still more than just the brain firing patterns. It has a consciousness and a subjective sense of identity and can self-direct it's function and control the brain.

    And you didn't give any explanation, you just repeated your assertion that the mind is the brain.

  3. Amen Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  4. #103
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,773
    Amen (Given)
    2302
    Amen (Received)
    1614
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    No, there's no such indication, that's your presupposition.
    You mean as opposed to your presupposition, unsupported by sound evidence that a person’s mind continues even after the death of that person’s brain.

    But I'm not claiming Homo Sapiens are unique in this regard. I'm simply refraining from making a claim as to the nature of the minds of other animals.
    If you are claiming that Homo sapiens have an everlasting mind why wouldn’t other sentient creatures, such as our predecessors (e.g. Homo erectus) not have everlasting minds also? What’s so special about us? Wouldn't you like to mingle with Neanderthals in heaven?

    Your belief that the mind depends upon the brain for it's existence is no less of a "faith-belief".
    Not so. There is undeniable evidence of the brain affecting the ‘mind’. I know of no such evidence of the mind existing minus the brain.

    The amount of evidence you've presented for this assertion so far in this, or any other thread, is effectively zero.
    What has “zero evidence” is your claim that the mind survives the life of the material brain.

    No, it's an argument from what should be possible if the mind was material. If the mind was material it should have certain properties that would make it detectable by the senses, or through some sort of measuring device/instrument. The fact that this is not the case indicates that the mind lacks these properties that make material objects material.
    No it’s an argument from ignorance in that you assume an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) of how the mind functions vis-à-vis the brain.
    Last edited by Tassman; 12-05-2018 at 10:23 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.

  5. #104
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,658
    Amen (Given)
    1322
    Amen (Received)
    1319
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Because the mind is conscious and self-aware. It is not just the brain firing random patterns. There is a a "self" consciousness that directs your thoughts and the brain. YOU decide to move your arm and your brain fires up the motor neurons and moves your arm. The mind is the control. It is not material. You don't even have to believe in the supernatural to accept that. Even if you believe the mind is dependent on the brain to function, the mind is still more than just the brain firing patterns. It has a consciousness and a subjective sense of identity and can self-direct it's function and control the brain.

    And you didn't give any explanation, you just repeated your assertion that the mind is the brain.
    No, it seems that we are conscious due to the physical brain, not in spite of it. Comatose, unconscious patients, patients in a vegitative state, have been found to have damage in specific areas of the brain which themselves are connected to other very specific areas of the brain. Where do you suppose your ghost in the machine, or conscious mind, goes when the living patient is comatose? The brain is extremely complex as i'm sure you know, so to assume that consciousness didn't evolve from out of that complexity is just an argument from ignorance. The science suggests that your intuition is wrong.

  6. #105
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,765
    Amen (Given)
    4027
    Amen (Received)
    19524
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    No, it seems that we are conscious due to the physical brain, not in spite of it. Comatose, unconscious patients, patients in a vegitative state, have been found to have damage in specific areas of the brain which themselves are connected to other very specific areas of the brain. Where do you suppose your ghost in the machine, or conscious mind, goes when the living patient is comatose? The brain is extremely complex as i'm sure you know, so to assume that consciousness didn't evolve from out of that complexity is just an argument from ignorance. The science suggests that your intuition is wrong.
    Many comatose patients report being consciously aware of what is going on around them but unable to respond. There are also reports of children with hydrocephalitis where large portions of their brain has been destroyed but they still function normally. But like I said, I believe the brain is the interface between the soul and the body. When the brain is damaged, it affects how the soul or mind works too.

  7. #106
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,327
    Amen (Given)
    4796
    Amen (Received)
    3052
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    You mean as opposed to your presupposition, unsupported by sound evidence that a person’s mind continues even after the death of that person’s brain.
    I've never claimed that it's anything but a presupposition. What I've claimed is that your assertion that the mind does not survive the death of the brain is also a presupposition supported by just as little evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    If you are claiming that Homo sapiens have an everlasting mind why wouldn’t other sentient creatures, such as our predecessors (e.g. Homo erectus) not have everlasting minds also? What’s so special about us? Wouldn't you like to mingle with Neanderthals in heaven?
    Why are you so intent on harping on about this irrelevant red herring? I've stated numerous times already that I'm not claiming previous human species don't have everlasting minds. I'm not making any sort of claim about them what so ever, because it's completely irrelevant. Maybe they have everlasting minds, maybe they don't. It doesn't make any difference at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not so. There is undeniable evidence of the brain affecting the ‘mind’. I know of no such evidence of the mind existing minus the brain.
    You also know of no evidence of the mind ceasing to exist with the death of the brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    What has “zero evidence” is your claim that the mind survives the life of the material brain.
    I've never claimed I have any scientific evidence for the mind surviving the brain. I'm just pointing out the complete lack of evidence for your own claims. Your claim that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that it ceases to exist with the death of the brain that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No it’s an argument from ignorance in that you assume an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) of how the mind functions vis-à-vis the brain.
    My argument is that a simple analysis of a mind we can pretty clearly see it doesn't fit the criteria necessary to qualify as a physical entity/object. It's made of neither energy, nor matter, but of something else, that's not possible for our senses, or any measuring devices to pick up. It's not simply a question of not being able to measure or study the mind at this stage. The only way for science to currently explain the mind is to try and reduce it to a set of complex interactions between the neurons in our brains, leading to some sort of "illusion"*, which is effectively saying that the mind doesn't exist at all, which is not an explanation at all, but an "explaining away" of the mind.


    *which is quite ironical, given that you need a mind to be able to experience illusions in the first place.

  8. #107
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,773
    Amen (Given)
    2302
    Amen (Received)
    1614
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I've never claimed that it's anything but a presupposition. What I've claimed is that your assertion that the mind does not survive the death of the brain is also a presupposition supported by just as little evidence.
    There is considerable evidence of the dependence of the mind on the brain; there is no evidence of the mind existing without the brain.

    Why are you so intent on harping on about this irrelevant red herring? I've stated numerous times already that I'm not claiming previous human species don't have everlasting minds. I'm not making any sort of claim about them what so ever, because it's completely irrelevant. Maybe they have everlasting minds, maybe they don't. It doesn't make any difference at all.
    It’s entirely relevant to understand the biology and mental capacity of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids (i.e. apes) in order to better understand ourselves.

    You also know of no evidence of the mind ceasing to exist with the death of the brain.
    There is no good reason to suppose that the mind continues to exist following the death of the brain.

    I've never claimed I have any scientific evidence for the mind surviving the brain.
    Then why make the claim in the first place?

    I'm just pointing out the complete lack of evidence for your own claims. Your claim that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that it ceases to exist with the death of the brain that is.
    The demonstrable fact is that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that any alterations to the brain via trauma or dementia etc, can have a major impact upon the mind.

    My argument is that a simple analysis of a mind we can pretty clearly see it doesn't fit the criteria necessary to qualify as a physical entity/object. It's made of neither energy, nor matter, but of something else, that's not possible for our senses, or any measuring devices to pick up. It's not simply a question of not being able to measure or study the mind at this stage. The only way for science to currently explain the mind is to try and reduce it to a set of complex interactions between the neurons in our brains, leading to some sort of "illusion"*, which is effectively saying that the mind doesn't exist at all, which is not an explanation at all, but an "explaining away" of the mind.
    Again, as I say, this is an Argument from Ignorance. You’ve taken the position, without good reason, that an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) that it doesn’t.
    “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.

  9. #108
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,327
    Amen (Given)
    4796
    Amen (Received)
    3052
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There is considerable evidence of the dependence of the mind on the brain; there is no evidence of the mind existing without the brain.
    "The dependence of the mind on the brain" is a far too generic statement. Dependent in what way? If you say something like "dependent on the brain for sense data to turn into sensory experience", I might just not disagree with you. If you say that there is considerable evidence that the mind's existence is dependent on the brain however, I'm going to disagree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    It’s entirely relevant to understand the biology and mental capacity of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids (i.e. apes) in order to better understand ourselves.
    Perhaps. But in this particular case it doesn't matter one lick. You won't get closer to getting an answer to the question whether our minds are immaterial by pondering the nature of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There is no good reason to suppose that the mind continues to exist following the death of the brain.
    No good reason to suppose that it doesn't either, so it all comes down to worldview and presupposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Then why make the claim in the first place?
    Because I don't believe you have to have scientific evidence for a claim in order to be justified in making it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The demonstrable fact is that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that any alterations to the brain via trauma or dementia etc, can have a major impact upon the mind.
    Like I've said several times already, that doesn't show that the mind cannot exist without the brain, it just shows that there's a connection/relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Again, as I say, this is an Argument from Ignorance. You’ve taken the position, without good reason, that an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) that it doesn’t.
    No, I've taken the position that an immaterial mind exists due to the fact that it doesn't fulfill the criteria necessary to be material. It doesn't take up any space, it doesn't have any mass, it doesn't consist of any atomic or sub-atomic particles, and it's not a form of energy either. But it still clearly exists, which leads to the only logical conclusion, namely that matter and energy isn't the only thing that exists, and that the mind is one of the things in the world that consists of neither matter, nor energy.

  10. #109
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,658
    Amen (Given)
    1322
    Amen (Received)
    1319
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Many comatose patients report being consciously aware of what is going on around them but unable to respond.
    Then they are not comatose.

    There are also reports of children with hydrocephalitis where large portions of their brain has been destroyed but they still function normally.
    Like I said, consciousness has been traced to specific regions of the brain. Many people can have serious brain damage and still be conscious, but if those specific areas related to consciousness are damged, that's when they lose consciousness.

    But like I said, I believe the brain is the interface between the soul and the body. When the brain is damaged, it affects how the soul or mind works too.
    Well, I know that's what you believe, but there is no evidence of that, nor does it make sense. If there were a distinct mind then a physical brain would be superfluous.

  11. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  12. #110
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,765
    Amen (Given)
    4027
    Amen (Received)
    19524
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Then they are not comatose.


    Like I said, consciousness has been traced to specific regions of the brain. Many people can have serious brain damage and still be conscious, but if those specific areas related to consciousness are damged, that's when they lose consciousness.


    Well, I know that's what you believe, but there is no evidence of that, nor does it make sense. If there were a distinct mind then a physical brain would be superfluous.
    Jim, stop showing your ignorance.

    1. Yes coma patients can be aware and still be in a coma.
    2. How can there be a normal mind if 98% of the brain is missing if the mind is a function of the brain?
    3. Even if the mind is generated by the brain, the mind is NOT merely the brain firing neurons. It is a subjective phenomena, where you are aware of your own consciousness and mind. Nobody else can see your mind or detect your consciousness. They can't take a scan of your mind and see where "you" are. This is why psychology is not a physical science like neurology and why neurologists don't deal with the mind. If the brain was the mind we wouldn't need psychology.

    Also you never answered me: Scientists claim that one day they will be able to upload a person's mind into a computer and they can live forever. Do you think that is possible?

Posting Permissions

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