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

Are Thoughts Causal?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    As I said Sam Harris takes a philosophical view of consciousness. What I cited is more descriptive of what Sam Harris considers what the relationship between brain and mind. His view is all we have is the mind and the source is the brain. Sam Harris's philosophical view, by the way materialist and likely atheist, is not science, and does nothing to support your claims. From the philosophical perspective one could describe consciousness as the soul, ghosts, manifestations of a greater consciousness as in panpsychism, or nothing at all as Sam Harris does.

    As far as Sam Harris is concerned it is not a 'hard problem,' because as far as he is concerned it does not exist.

    Again I prefer to cite actual scientific research, which you have not responded to, concerning the brain, mind and consciousness.
    Sam Harris' view is basically eliminativist, just like the Churchlands and Daniel Dennett. There are some major issues with eliminativism, including the fact that it argues in a circular fashion. In order to prove the major points, eliminativism has to presume the existence of the same things it denies. Edward Feser argues very similarly (and much more eloquently than I can!) here: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/200...s-critics.html

    Substance dualism has real problems, no doubt there. The good thing is that substance dualism doesn't seem to represent the historical Christian approach to the soul.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Pansychism Chrawnus. It is the theory that mind is inherent in matter. It's not new, but it's catching on with many in the field.
      A theory is not evidence.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        There is no hard problem of consciousness.
        There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

        Comment


        • #79
          So, I specifically asked shuny to provide the evidence that shows that the mind is a product of the brain, and I stated that I already accept that there is a relationship between the mind and the brain.

          And what does he do? Does he provide evidence that the mind is a product of the brain? Of course not. All we get is articles showcasing the fact that there is some sort of relationship between the mind and the brain, but the evidence that the brain causes the mind to exist is nowhere to be seen.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            And what does he do? Does he provide evidence that the mind is a product of the brain? Of course not. All we get is articles showcasing the fact that there is some sort of relationship between the mind and the brain, but the evidence that the brain causes the mind to exist is nowhere to be seen.
            This is what he does, he tries to overwhelm with links that he does not understand and often contradict his own position.
            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


            • #81
              Moderated By: DesertBerean

              REMINDER: As the OP has requested Shunydragon to leave the thread, please do not continue to address Shunydragon or discuss his posts to the point where he might have have to respond.

              ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
              Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

              Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                So, I specifically asked shuny to provide the evidence that shows that the mind is a product of the brain, and I stated that I already accept that there is a relationship between the mind and the brain.

                And what does he do? Does he provide evidence that the mind is a product of the brain? Of course not. All we get is articles showcasing the fact that there is some sort of relationship between the mind and the brain, but the evidence that the brain causes the mind to exist is nowhere to be seen.
                It isn't we who need to prove that the mind is a product of the brain, Chrawnus, it is you who need to prove that such a thing as a distinct mind/soul exists at all. We only have evidence of a physical brain, there is zero evidence of a distinct mind/soul.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  It isn't we who need to prove that the mind is a product of the brain, Chrawnus, it is you who need to prove that such a thing as a distinct mind/soul exists at all. We only have evidence of a physical brain, there is zero evidence of a distinct mind/soul.


                  I'm not even going to bother with you since you clearly did not read my exchange with shuny, or if you did you understood absolutely nothing. He specifically made the claim that the evidence points to the mind being a product of the brain and I challenged him on that claim. So yes, he does need to provide the evidence. Not here in this thread of course, since he has been asked to leave, but he's free to do it in new thread that he made. If he actually provides the evidence that points to the mind being a product of the brain I might even respond to it.

                  If he just does what he did here however, and posts articles providing evidence for the non-controversial fact that there is a relationship between the brain and the mind I'm not sure why I should even bother.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post


                    I'm not even going to bother with you since you clearly did not read my exchange with shuny, or if you did you understood absolutely nothing. He specifically made the claim that the evidence points to the mind being a product of the brain and I challenged him on that claim. So yes, he does need to provide the evidence. Not here in this thread of course, since he has been asked to leave, but he's free to do it in new thread that he made. If he actually provides the evidence that points to the mind being a product of the brain I might even respond to it.

                    If he just does what he did here however, and posts articles providing evidence for the non-controversial fact that there is a relationship between the brain and the mind I'm not sure why I should even bother.
                    Chrawnus, the evidence that the mind is the brain, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a distinct mind. Nobody can prove that what there is no evidence for doesn't exists, but that there is no evidence of it's existence is evidence that it doesn't exist. And btw, there is evidence that the mind is the product of the brain, subjective experience correlates with brain states and those subjective experiences can be caused by probing the physical brain. That's not proof, it's evidence, which is what you asked shunya to provide.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Chrawnus, the evidence that the mind is the brain, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a distinct mind. Nobody can prove that what there is no evidence for doesn't exists, but that there is no evidence of it's existence is evidence that it doesn't exist. And btw, there is evidence that the mind is the product of the brain, subjective experience correlates with brain states and those subjective experiences can be caused by probing the physical brain. That's not proof, it's evidence, which is what you asked shunya to provide.
                      Subjective experiences correlating with brain states is not evidence for the mind being a product of the brain since that is something that would be expected under either view. There is nothing about brain states correlating with subjective experiences that is better explained by the view that the brain produces the mind rather than the view that the mind and the brain is distinct from each other, while still being connected somehow.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Subjective experiences correlating with brain states is not evidence for the mind being a product of the brain since that is something that would be expected under either view. There is nothing about brain states correlating with subjective experiences that is better explained by the view that the brain produces the mind rather than the view that the mind and the brain is distinct from each other, while still being connected somehow.
                        Disagree. Subjective experiences not only correlate with brain states, but those subjective experiences, in the form of chemical information, are stored in the physical brain and can, by stimulation of the appropriate area, cause the subjective experience to re-emerge. A causal immaterial mind has nothing to do with that, and that, along with the fact that there is no evidence of immaterial mind leaves us little reason to buy into that concept. If the brain stores, and is the source of the subjective experiences, then what would be the point of a distinct mind. Do you think that it is a distinct mind that feels pain in the physical body, that tastes food, that hears sounds, smells aromas and sees objects? That's an ancient religious idea for which not a shred of evidence has ever existed, so why would anyone take it seriously. It doesn't even solve the problem of subjective experience anyway, it simply asserts that it's all about a soul/mind, but how this soul/mind does it is no more understood than is the material brain scenario.
                        Last edited by JimL; 07-06-2019, 10:41 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Chrawnus, the evidence that the mind is the brain, is that there is no evidence for the existence of a distinct mind. Nobody can prove that what there is no evidence for doesn't exists, but that there is no evidence of it's existence is evidence that it doesn't exist.
                          If that's not a complete failure of reasoning, it's skating pretty close to one. Your thinking here would only possibly be true if we have very good reason to think that a 'distinct mind' would provide the kind of evidence we can look for.

                          Originally posted by JimL
                          And btw, there is evidence that the mind is the product of the brain, subjective experience correlates with brain states and those subjective experiences can be caused by probing the physical brain. That's not proof, it's evidence, which is what you asked shunya to provide.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                            If that's not a complete failure of reasoning, it's skating pretty close to one. Your thinking here would only possibly be true if we have very good reason to think that a 'distinct mind' would provide the kind of evidence we can look for.
                            What I said is that a lack of any evidence of a distinct mind is evidence of it not existing. I didn't say it was proof of its non-existence, I said it was evidence of it not existing. You don't have very good evidence that a distinct mind exists in the first place, never mind that it would provide evidence we could look for. Your belief in a distinct mind is simply a religious based belief for which there is not a shred of evidence.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              What I said is that a lack of any evidence of a distinct mind is evidence of it not existing. I didn't say it was proof of its non-existence, I said it was evidence of it not existing. You don't have very good evidence that a distinct mind exists in the first place, never mind that it would provide evidence we could look for. Your belief in a distinct mind is simply a religious based belief for which there is not a shred of evidence.
                              But we do have evidence of a mind distinct from the brain existing. The fact that you're conscious an have an experience of "what it is to see/hear/touch/taste/smell something" is evidence of a distinct mind, since there is no satisfactory explanation as of yet (and I'm highly skeptical that one will ever be discovered) how unconscious matter could give rise to something that has the attribute of "knowing what it is like to experience things", which implies that mind is not matter, and does not originate from matter.

                              Do we have scientific evidence of a distinct mind existing? No, but we shouldn't expect scientific evidence in the first place, since if some sort of dualism is true then the mind wouldn't be subject to direct scientific scrutiny in the first place, and therefore no scientific evidence would be forthcoming. It could only ever be studied through second-hand methods at best (for example people self-reporting their feelings, thoughts and experiences, or by studying brain activity). And it turns out this situation is exactly the one we're currently in with regards to the mind.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                But we do have evidence of a mind distinct from the brain existing. The fact that you're conscious an have an experience of "what it is to see/hear/touch/taste/smell something" is evidence of a distinct mind, since there is no satisfactory explanation as of yet (and I'm highly skeptical that one will ever be discovered) how unconscious matter could give rise to something that has the attribute of "knowing what it is like to experience things", which implies that mind is not matter, and does not originate from matter.
                                The fact that we are conscious is evidence that we are conscious, not evidence that we are a distinct mind. Besides, if the mind was distinct from the physical body, then why should it feel, or experience, anything related to the physical body? As you acknowledge yourself, a distinct mind isn't physical, it's immaterial. To assume that a distinct and immaterial mind can feel or experience physical things such as pain simply doesn't make any sense.
                                Do we have scientific evidence of a distinct mind existing? No, but we shouldn't expect scientific evidence in the first place, since if some sort of dualism is true then the mind wouldn't be subject to direct scientific scrutiny in the first place, and therefore no scientific evidence would be forthcoming. It could only ever be studied through second-hand methods at best (for example people self-reporting their feelings, thoughts and experiences, or by studying brain activity). And it turns out this situation is exactly the one we're currently in with regards to the mind.
                                Well, you would need some logical reason in order to take it seriously. The immaterial experiencing material sensations isn't logical. If you broke your leg, you didn't break an immaterial leg, you broke your physical leg. To then say that the subjective eperience of your pain is the experience of your distinct and immaterial mind/soul just isn't logical.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 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