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

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Yet Harris has no explanation for consciousness, and does not have a lot of hope that one would be found.

    https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/

    https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/
    That's okay, no one has an explanation, not even you. Positing a ghostly mind, or that we are acually spirits in a material body, doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't explain anything about subjective experience, or qualia. It just transfers the problem to another entity.
    So categorically denying a "ghost in the machine" is premature at best. Of course if you follow Harris' logic free will is out the window - completely...
    Well to me, it's not premature, because not only is there no evidence of the immaterial, but, as stated above, positing it solves nothing.

    As far as 'free will' goes, I'm not yet convinced about the "no free will" notion, and I don't know the evidence to be as strong with respect to total determinism as opposed to materialism. Though I do think the 'will' is shaped and motivated in a determind manner. But wether the "will" is completely constrained by determinism or not I don't yet have an opinion on. We all feel free, of course, but, subjective experience, as we've seen, can be deceiving.
    Last edited by JimL; 07-05-2019, 11:30 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Well I thought so.



      Certainly brains exist and they can be examined and increasingly understood by the cognitive sciences. There is no such certainty of an immaterial mind existing as a separate entity from the material brain.
      Even IF the mind was dependent on the brain for it's existence, it would still be a separate entity from the material brain. That is to say, the mind would not be the brain, even if it was caused by the brain. And given it's attribute of intangibility it wouldn't be anything material or physical either, even if it supervened on the material/physical.

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      I’m not doubting that things like “intangibility and intentionality” are “legitimate attributes of our mind and thoughts”, but there is no reason to think they are separate entities from the brain. To the best of our knowledge they could not exist apart from the material brain and will most probably cease activity when the brain ceases to function. There is no good reason to think otherwise.
      The best of our knowledge doesn't say squat about whether the mind could exist apart from the material brain or not. We do not even have access to the mind of other persons while they are alive (and being able to study brain activity is not the same as having access to the mental states that correlate with the brain activity) and we have absolutely no idea what happens with the mind when the brain dies.

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Nevertheless, you DO argue that the mind/soul is separate from the brain so presumably, in your view, it can exist separately.
      That is my opinion yes. It's not something I'm arguing for in this thread however.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        If qualia, if consciousness, were an illusion, then they would be an illusion which we call mind. The illusion of mind, the illusion of qualia, would itself take place in the physical brain.
        The idea that the physical brain could experience an illusion isn't even coherent. There is no way to make the idea coherent without redefining the word illusion to mean something completely different than what it actually means.

        Illusions are something only minds are able to experience. An illusion is a mental state, and as such cannot exist anywhere other than minds. There is absolutely no way to have an illusion unless there is already a mind that can experience that illusion in the first place.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Again, what do you do with all of the evidence provided by fMRI, brain stimulation, and the reported effects on peoples physicality (moving part of their body, which can be objectively observed) as well as repeatable changes in the state of their thoughts and emotions. It has been shown that correct electrical stimulation can repeatedly and predictably trigger the "out of body" experience often reported as a near-death experience. It has been shown that electrical stimulation can alter emotional states, reduce violent impulses, etc. What do you do with all of those reports and studies? Simply repeating "the evidence doesn't point that way" doesn't get you there. If physical manipulation of the brain can produce self-reported changes in mental state, how is that not evidence of brain producing mind?
          Because none of the things you listed is more readily explained by the view that the brain produces the mind than the more general view that there is some sort of connection between the two. For the evidence to actually point to a certain view X it has to explain the evidence more readily than the competing views, and in this case the view that the brain produces mind does not explain the evidence any better than more general views of the kind that acknowledges that there is a connection between mind and brain.

          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I don't see how you can show this. My perception is thought IS mind. I can think of nothing about my mind that is not about my thoughts. My mind is the sum total of my thoughts.
          You do realize that if thought is mind then the connection between thoughts and mind is even stronger than I'm claiming, right? You're basically arguing against my position that thoughts are primarily associated with the mind and only secondarily about the brain by literally trying to argue a position that associates thoughts with the mind on an even deeper and intimate level than I'm doing.

          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I cannot have "will" without a thought. I cannot have focus/concentration without thought. You have not named two things that are independent of thought.
          You never asked for two things that are independent of thought, you only asked for elements of the mind that are not thoughts. Your will and focus/concentration are undeniably elements of the mind which are not thoughts, even if they are not independent of thought.

          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I have to admit, Chrawnus, none of this rises to your usual level of argumentation and logic. You seem intent on splitting hairs where there sometimes doesn't even seem to be a hair (e.g., separation of mind/thought) and ignoring evidence where it is plentiful. Is it at all possible that you so need "mind" to be pre-eminent that you are filtering your evidence to support your preferred view?
          I don't think I'm doing anything of the sort. It seems more to me like you're trivializing the issue by calling legitimate distinctions "hair-splitting". As for the evidence, I refer to what I wrote above. I agree that the evidence is plentiful. It's just that the evidence doesn't speak for itself, and the only people who are able to hear the evidence weave the story that the brain produces the mind are the ones who are already predisposed to that belief in the first place.


          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Actually, I was thinking "I'm traveling from illusion to reality."
          Reality wishes you would turn back around so she can speak to you.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Because none of the things you listed is more readily explained by the view that the brain produces the mind than the more general view that there is some sort of connection between the two. For the evidence to actually point to a certain view X it has to explain the evidence more readily than the competing views, and in this case the view that the brain produces mind does not explain the evidence any better than more general views of the kind that acknowledges that there is a connection between mind and brain.
            Except when you couple those sciences with several other observations, the evidence does appear to point:

            1) We have much experience of brain without mind but not credible experience of mind without brain.
            2) We regularly observe mind develop in newborns as the brain develops
            3) Science continually finds physical phenomenological explanations for phenomena previously thought to be "mind centered." (like the out of body experience). The reverse does not happen.

            You appear to be working very hard to hold on to your view despite a continuously growing body of evidence that it simply is not a correct view.

            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            You do realize that if thought is mind then the connection between thoughts and mind is even stronger than I'm claiming, right? You're basically arguing against my position that thoughts are primarily associated with the mind and only secondarily about the brain by literally trying to argue a position that associates thoughts with the mind on an even deeper and intimate level than I'm doing.
            Actually, I'm pointing out a separation you are trying to make that does not appear to be how I experience mind. Of course, I cannot speak for your experience of it. It doesn't weaken the previous arguments because thought/mind clearly arise from brain. We just don't know how that happens.

            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            You never asked for two things that are independent of thought, you only asked for elements of the mind that are not thoughts. Your will and focus/concentration are undeniably elements of the mind which are not thoughts, even if they are not independent of thought.
            Chrawnus, I am watching you split hairs here in a way I have never seen you do before. There is no act of will - no sense of will - that is not "thought." You cannot will something...you cannot want something...without it being a thought. Will is thought. Focus/concentration are thought. Thought is mind. You are taking different kinds of thoughts and trying to set them aside as something separate - with no justification that I can see. The sense, from this side, is that you have woven this complex philosophy of mind that you are dedicated to, but other than asserting that it is as you say, there is no evidence put forward to support the position. That's not like you in a discussion.

            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I don't think I'm doing anything of the sort. It seems more to me like you're trivializing the issue by calling legitimate distinctions "hair-splitting". As for the evidence, I refer to what I wrote above. I agree that the evidence is plentiful. It's just that the evidence doesn't speak for itself, and the only people who are able to hear the evidence weave the story that the brain produces the mind are the ones who are already predisposed to that belief in the first place.
            Not from where I sit. But it is becoming clear that these distinctions you are trying to make are important to you for some reason. The distinctions you are attempting to make do not appear to be "legitimate" to me. Yes, we can categorize thoughts as we can categorize anything else. Will and focus/concentration are two types of thought, among a legion of types. I see no distinction between "thought" and "mind," and other than claiming they are distinct, with one "associated" with the other, you've not made the case that this distinction is valid.

            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Reality wishes you would turn back around so she can speak to you.
            Tell her not to worry; I was only pausing to look back at my theistic years in fond memory. I'm still heading for her.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-06-2019, 02:41 AM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Even IF the mind was dependent on the brain for it's existence, it would still be a separate entity from the material brain. That is to say, the mind would not be the brain, even if it was caused by the brain. And given it's attribute of intangibility it wouldn't be anything material or physical either, even if it supervened on the material/physical.
              The mind can be reasonably considered a separate entity from the brain from whence it arises whilst the brain is still functioning. But without the physical brain to sustain it the mind cannot survive. To claim it can, is a hypothesis unsupported by verifiable evidence.

              The best of our knowledge doesn't say squat about whether the mind could exist apart from the material brain or not. We do not even have access to the mind of other persons while they are alive (and being able to study brain activity is not the same as having access to the mental states that correlate with the brain activity) and we have absolutely no idea what happens with the mind when the brain dies.
              It is reasonable to conclude that the mind dies along with the brain with regard to all sentient creatures. Whilst the mind clearly arises from brain the reasonable conclusion is that the when the brain ceases to exist the mind ceases to exist also.

              That is my opinion yes. It's not something I'm arguing for in this thread however.
              It’s relevant to this thread in that it reveals confirmation bias favoring eternal life as posited by religion.
              “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
                That's okay, no one has an explanation, not even you. Positing a ghostly mind, or that we are acually spirits in a material body, doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't explain anything about subjective experience, or qualia. It just transfers the problem to another entity.
                What it does do Jim is give a reason why materialism seemly can't solve the problem. Because something in this picture is non-material.

                As far as 'free will' goes, I'm not yet convinced about the "no free will" notion, and I don't know the evidence to be as strong with respect to total determinism as opposed to materialism. Though I do think the 'will' is shaped and motivated in a determind manner. But wether the "will" is completely constrained by determinism or not I don't yet have an opinion on. We all feel free, of course, but, subjective experience, as we've seen, can be deceiving.
                If you take the ghost out of the machine what you have left is machine. If all your thoughts and subjective experiences are illusions, then where is the room for freedom? Heck even your "self" is an illusion - if that is the case what is doing the choosing, what is free?
                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 Chrawnus View Post
                  The idea that the physical brain could experience an illusion isn't even coherent. There is no way to make the idea coherent without redefining the word illusion to mean something completely different than what it actually means.

                  Illusions are something only minds are able to experience. An illusion is a mental state, and as such cannot exist anywhere other than minds. There is absolutely no way to have an illusion unless there is already a mind that can experience that illusion in the first place.
                  That is only true if you first assume that the mind is something other than, and distinct from, the physical brain.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    That is only true if you first assume that the mind is something other than, and distinct from, the physical brain.
                    No, that is true from what is the very nature of an illusion. There is no way to make your idea make coherent sense without redefining the meaning of the word "illusion".

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Except when you couple those sciences with several other observations, the evidence does appear to point:

                      1) We have much experience of brain without mind but not credible experience of mind without brain.
                      2) We regularly observe mind develop in newborns as the brain develops
                      3) Science continually finds physical phenomenological explanations for phenomena previously thought to be "mind centered." (like the out of body experience). The reverse does not happen.

                      You appear to be working very hard to hold on to your view despite a continuously growing body of evidence that it simply is not a correct view.
                      1) Yeah, except any experience of mind without brain is usually dismissed out right by proponents of the "the mind cannot exist without the brain" camp. It won't matter how well-documented the experience/report is, the vast majority will still reject it purely based on preconceived notions. It seems to me "credible" is simply shorthand for "It goes contrary to what I believe" in this instance.

                      2) No, we don't. We can't even observe the mind period, observing it develop is just as impossible. We can observe the behavior of newborns develop as the brain develops, but that's something else entirely. On a purely scientific level we have absolutely no idea what so ever when the mind of a human person begins to exist.

                      3) Finding physical triggers for "mind centered" phenomena does not prove that these phenomena are purely physiological. Just because you can elicit an OBE by electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain it doesn't mean that every OBE is purely physiological. It doesn't even mean that the OBE's elicited by electrical stimulation of the brain are purely physiological. And of course this goes for every phenomena that is "mind centered".

                      I'm not finding it very hard at all to hold on to my view for the simple reason that the continously growing body of evidence simply does not say what you claim it is saying.

                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Actually, I'm pointing out a separation you are trying to make that does not appear to be how I experience mind. Of course, I cannot speak for your experience of it. It doesn't weaken the previous arguments because thought/mind clearly arise from brain. We just don't know how that happens.
                      We're discussing whether thought is primarily associated with the mind or the brain in this particular part of the discussion. If you think the mind literally is just a collection of thoughts then you are making a stronger association between thoughts and the mind than between thoughts and the brain than I am doing. You're literally arguing my case (on this particular point about primary and secondary association) for me.

                      There's no reason to think that the causation cannot/does not go in the other direction (mind to brain), or even, as I find more likely, that it goes both ways.


                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Chrawnus, I am watching you split hairs here in a way I have never seen you do before. There is no act of will - no sense of will - that is not "thought." You cannot will something...you cannot want something...without it being a thought. Will is thought. Focus/concentration are thought. Thought is mind. You are taking different kinds of thoughts and trying to set them aside as something separate - with no justification that I can see. The sense, from this side, is that you have woven this complex philosophy of mind that you are dedicated to, but other than asserting that it is as you say, there is no evidence put forward to support the position. That's not like you in a discussion.
                      No, focus/concentration is not thought. Your focus is what determines what you're thinking about, but it is not those thoughts themselves. You're confusing the object of focus for the focus itself. And your will is your ability to decide between and act on certain thoughts, but again, it is not those thoughts themselves. I see absolutely no reason to accept your idea that the mind is simply "a collection of thoughts" from where I'm standing.

                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Not from where I sit. But it is becoming clear that these distinctions you are trying to make are important to you for some reason. The distinctions you are attempting to make do not appear to be "legitimate" to me. Yes, we can categorize thoughts as we can categorize anything else. Will and focus/concentration are two types of thought, among a legion of types. I see no distinction between "thought" and "mind," and other than claiming they are distinct, with one "associated" with the other, you've not made the case that this distinction is valid.
                      I think you're the first person I've ever seen claim that your will and focus are simply different types of thought. In my experience (and I'd wager to guess for a substantial amount of other people as well) my will and focus does not appear to simple be "different types of thought" at all.

                      And on the topic of aspects of the mind that are not thoughts, it just hit me that I missed the most obvious one of them all. Your sensory perceptions (i.e your experiences of sight, smell, hearing, and taste) are all aspects of your mind. You're not going to suggest that whatever part of our mind (if one really can divide the mind up into parts) where sensory perceptions occur are simply a "collection of thoughts" are you? I think you'll have to stretch the definition of thought an awful lot in order to accomplish that.

                      Oh, and there's also imagination. Your ability to imagine things, and see pictures in your "minds eye" is similar to your ability to think, but I'd hardly call thoughts and mental images the same thing.

                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Tell her not to worry; I was only pausing to look back at my theistic years in fond memory. I'm still heading for her.
                      While you were lost in your nostalgia you must have missed the fact that she was waving her hand in front of your eyes trying to get your attention. I think you'll find the one you're heading for is not Reality, but her step-sister, Imagination.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        No, that is true from what is the very nature of an illusion. There is no way to make your idea make coherent sense without redefining the meaning of the word "illusion".
                        Well, that's true to a certain extent, but by illusion I don't mean to say that the illusion, the representation in the brain, doesn't represent reality, I just mean to say that the representation is a representation of some sort, and not the reality itself. All phenomena takes place in the brain, but when we observe the external world, we are not looking at that reality on a sort of Decartian screen.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          What it does do Jim is give a reason why materialism seemly can't solve the problem. Because something in this picture is non-material.
                          No, I don't think it shows that at all, it just means that we haven't, and may never, figure out how the brain represents reality. But I think we will at some point.


                          If you take the ghost out of the machine what you have left is machine. If all your thoughts and subjective experiences are illusions, then where is the room for freedom? Heck even your "self" is an illusion - if that is the case what is doing the choosing, what is free?
                          As I explained to Chwarnus, subjective experiences are only illusions in the sense that they are representations of reality which reside in the brain. They are, in my opinion, representations of the real, but they aren't the real. The self is an illusion only in the sense that it is something other than your physical self/brain. The ghost that you presume to exist is basically an empty vessel absent the physical brain, so what kind of self is that? But where free will comes in, if it comes in, I can't say, but I think it possible to a certain extent, but it would still be dependent upon physical factors, I think.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            What it does do Jim is give a reason why materialism seemly can't solve the problem. Because something in this picture is non-material.
                            What "problem" are you trying to solve?

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            If you take the ghost out of the machine what you have left is machine.
                            What "ghost?"

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            If all your thoughts and subjective experiences are illusions, then where is the room for freedom? Heck even your "self" is an illusion - if that is the case what is doing the choosing, what is free?
                            Why are they illusions?
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              1) Yeah, except any experience of mind without brain is usually dismissed out right by proponents of the "the mind cannot exist without the brain" camp. It won't matter how well-documented the experience/report is, the vast majority will still reject it purely based on preconceived notions. It seems to me "credible" is simply shorthand for "It goes contrary to what I believe" in this instance.
                              Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              2) No, we don't. We can't even observe the mind period, observing it develop is just as impossible. We can observe the behavior of newborns develop as the brain develops, but that's something else entirely. On a purely scientific level we have absolutely no idea what so ever when the mind of a human person begins to exist.
                              I agree with your adjustment - the mind can only be "self-reported." Since we lack any means of getting "self-reports" from fetuses and newborns, we get no first-hand evidence and have to work with what we have: behavior. But that is evidence, Chrawnus, that we accept in may other disciplines. No one has ever seen a quark. No one has even seen a black hole. There are things the human senses simply cannot see or experience because they exist outside the range of our senses. We regularly use the "effects" or "behavior" these things manifest to hypothesize on the thing itself, and then seek ways to confirm the hypotheses. You are putting "mind" in a completely separate class, immune to such examinations, which I do not find to be justified.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              3) Finding physical triggers for "mind centered" phenomena does not prove that these phenomena are purely physiological. Just because you can elicit an OBE by electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain it doesn't mean that every OBE is purely physiological. It doesn't even mean that the OBE's elicited by electrical stimulation of the brain are purely physiological. And of course this goes for every phenomena that is "mind centered".
                              You are correct - it doesn't. It provides simple insight into what CAN trigger such an event, and eliminates the "it must be the soul/mind" existing independently as a sole possible explanation. And since we have no evidence that the soul/mind exist independently...there is no reason that I can see, at present, to cling to that view, unless it is somehow already driven by the "mind-before-brain" pre-existing view.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I'm not finding it very hard at all to hold on to my view for the simple reason that the continously growing body of evidence simply does not say what you claim it is saying.
                              I suspect you are layering too much on what I am saying. So here's what I see:

                              Brain-before-mind worldview: a large and growing body of evidence that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. No single piece of evidence eliminates the reality that mind-before-brain is possible. The entirety makes a fairly compelling portrait.

                              Mind-before-brain worldview: not a shred of confirmable evidence that this view is real. It cannot be eliminated as a possibility, but there is simply no supporting evidence that mind can/does exist separately from brain and either pre-exists or post-exists it.

                              Looking at the picture, the more likely reality, IMO, is that brain gives rise to mind. I cannot see a justification for holding the opposing worldview, outside of a religiously driven one.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              We're discussing whether thought is primarily associated with the mind or the brain in this particular part of the discussion. If you think the mind literally is just a collection of thoughts then you are making a stronger association between thoughts and the mind than between thoughts and the brain than I am doing. You're literally arguing my case (on this particular point about primary and secondary association) for me.

                              There's no reason to think that the causation cannot/does not go in the other direction (mind to brain), or even, as I find more likely, that it goes both ways.
                              You are saying: thought is more associated with mind than brain. (please correct if I have this wrong)
                              I am saying: thought IS mind - you are creating a distinction where none exists. Hence there is no different between thought/brain and mind/brain - they have the same relationship because they are the same thing.

                              In other words, what you are saying is "mind is closer to mind than it is to brain." Agreed - and tautologically true, so not very meaningful.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              No, focus/concentration is not thought. Your focus is what determines what you're thinking about, but it is not those thoughts themselves. You're confusing the object of focus for the focus itself. And your will is your ability to decide between and act on certain thoughts, but again, it is not those thoughts themselves. I see absolutely no reason to accept your idea that the mind is simply "a collection of thoughts" from where I'm standing.
                              You are saying: thought is more associated with mind than brain. (please correct if I have this wrong)
                              I am saying: thought IS mind - you are creating a distinction where none exists. Hence there is no different between thought/brain and mind/brain - they have the same relationship because they are the same thing.

                              So, I have never "decided" anything without thought. I have a feeling you have not either. Focus/concentration is more interesting. If we use a camera as an analogy, you are attempting to distinguish the ability of the camera to collect images, with the specific orientation of the camera which determines which pictures it is taking. Again, I fin myself sitting here, trying to conceive of any decision to "focus" or "concentrate" on something that does not take the form of a thought. I'm finding myself unable to. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, and we certainy have different categories of thought, and different aspects of "mind." But they are all aspects of the same thing.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I think you're the first person I've ever seen claim that your will and focus are simply different types of thought. In my experience (and I'd wager to guess for a substantial amount of other people as well) my will and focus does not appear to simple be "different types of thought" at all.
                              Then try imagining engaging your will or focusing/concentrating without thought.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              And on the topic of aspects of the mind that are not thoughts, it just hit me that I missed the most obvious one of them all. Your sensory perceptions (i.e your experiences of sight, smell, hearing, and taste) are all aspects of your mind. You're not going to suggest that whatever part of our mind (if one really can divide the mind up into parts) where sensory perceptions occur are simply a "collection of thoughts" are you? I think you'll have to stretch the definition of thought an awful lot in order to accomplish that.
                              My body has a collection of input devices we call "senses." They furnish my brain with the basic data on which thought operates. The data is just data. The ability of the brain to to process that data to form images, smells, textures seems to me to be the brain's equivalent of basic firmware. It happens at a level more akin to the brain managing autonomic physiology - although in a different domain. "Mind" is the software that operates on that data - consciously and unconsciously.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              Oh, and there's also imagination. Your ability to imagine things, and see pictures in your "minds eye" is similar to your ability to think, but I'd hardly call thoughts and mental images the same thing.
                              Really? Try this experiment: try to imagine something that has absolutely no relationship to anything you have ever experienced: no attribute that is associated with your own experiences. Imagination, it turns out, is nothing more than the ability of the mind to recombine attributes of disparate things in our experience to form new combinations. You cannot even begin to imagine an attribute unrelated to any attribute you have ever experienced.

                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              While you were lost in your nostalgia you must have missed the fact that she was waving her hand in front of your eyes trying to get your attention. I think you'll find the one you're heading for is not Reality, but her step-sister, Imagination.
                              You have their name tags swapped...


                              (this last part is perhaps the most fun of the whole exchange...!)
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                What "problem" are you trying to solve?
                                Why are we conscious in the first place, and how does materialism account for subjective experience.

                                What "ghost?"
                                The immaterial (mind or spirit) having causal influence on the mental decision making processes.

                                Why are they illusions?
                                Ask Jim L and Sam Harris.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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