Originally posted by JimL
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat do you consider many? Only about ten species that we know of pass the mirror test for self awareness. And you don't know if their subjective experience (qualia) is anything like ours.
Even if the immaterial mind is dependent on the physical brain, it is still immaterial and beyond science.
But the immaterial mind is really different from the physical: One is material one is not. So it is not an illusion.“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 PostNo more “immaterial” than the light coming from a light bulb. Turn off the electricity and the light ceases. In short, the “immaterial” is dependent upon the “material” …something science understands perfectly well.
At the end of the day, we do not really understand how mind emerges, only THAT it does. And there is something ineffable about it. Will we ever understand? I hope so. But right now "I don't know" is pretty much the best we can do.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 Tassman View PostWe don’t even know if our children’s subjective experience are anything like ours, but it is reasonable to assume, based upon observation and personal experience, that it is very similar. And so, with other sentient creatures such as chimpanzees.
No more “immaterial” than the light coming from a light bulb. Turn off the electricity and the light ceases. In short, the “immaterial” is dependent upon the “material” …something science understands perfectly well.
Light is made up by physical particles, there is no evidence that the mind is made up of particles. And if I'm not mistaken light keeps traveling even after the source has been shut off. That we still see the light from long dead stars.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 carpedm9587 View PostYou are welcome to your doubts, but they don't really have much of a basis, IMO, except to serve your pre-existing worldview. Right now, all we know is "there's a relationship" and "there is a feedback mechanism" and "mind appears to arise from brain." We don't know how. BUt then we don't know how a LOT of things happen, so
I don't "know" the mind is not supernatural any more than I "know" there is no god. As noted, the supernatural is not amenable to scientific investigation, so it lies beyond the reach of "knowledge" and is more a matter of religious faith. Since the available evidence suggests to me that the so-called "supernatural" lies in the realm of human mythology, I have no reason to consider the human mind anything other than natural. When/if there is compelling evidence for the supernatural being more than myth, then I'll probably give it more serious consideration.
Basically, Seer, the "supernatural" can be pretty much anything - which makes it a little hard to have any meaningful discussion about it. Even Harry Potter's world had rules and repeatable behavior. It takes a bit more than that to make something "real."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 carpedm9587 View PostSo - no. What you are describing is "business as usual" for the brain: we don't perceive all of reality and how we perceive it is as electrochemical inputs. Perhaps "electrochemical simulation" would be a better choice of words. "Illusion" (as it is commonly used) implies seeing something that is essentially not there - it is a figment. I think you and Harris are misusing the word. I understand what you are saying - I just don't think it adds any clarity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAny claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But seriously, this is a great way of avoiding having to deal with the arguments. If any sort of dualism is true then the mind would inevitably be outside of the purview of scientific scrutiny, and we could never have the kind of evidence (scientific) that I'm suspecting that you want presented. So any non-scientific evidence would simply be rejected as "not good enough".
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI 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.
I think quarks and black holes are such disparate entities from a thing like the mind that you're essentially comparing apples and motorcycles. In the case of the mind it's not just that the human senses cannot see or experience it, but rather that it would be a case of the "experiencer" trying to turn itself inside out in order to study itself.
That being said, I never said that we cannot use the behaviors of people (specifically newborns and fetuses in this case) to hypothesize on the mind, my claim was that the maturing behavior of a newborn is not evidence of the mind being caused by the developing brain.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou 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.
I suspect you are layering too much on what I am saying. So here's what I see:
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostBrain-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 carpedm9587 View PostYou 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.
Well, if mind actually was just a collection of thoughts then I'd agree that it was a tautology. Seeing as there is no good reason to accept this definition of mind however, I see no reason to accept your assertion that it is a tautology. But even if I accept your definition for arguments sake it's still the case that you're making my case for me. A thing is always more closely associated with itself than anything that is not itself. So if I accepted your definition of mind then I would have even stronger justification for saying that thoughts are more closely associated with the mind than they are with the brain.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo, 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.
I have never decided anything without thought either. That doesn't mean my will is identical to the thoughts, rather, the thoughts are the objects of my will. And same goes for our focus/concentration. The thoughts that you're focusing/concentrating on is not your focus/concentration, but the objects of that focus/concentration.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThen try imagining engaging your will or focusing/concentrating without thought.
Obviously the fact that I cannot engage my will or focus/concentrate on something without thought doesn't say the first thing about whether or not my will and focus are simply "different categories of thought".
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostMy 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 carpedm9587 View PostReally? 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 carpedm9587 View PostYou have their name tags swapped...
(this last part is perhaps the most fun of the whole exchange...!)
(I agree... )
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept we know from personal experience how our mind process the subjective, we have no idea with Chimps.
Light is made up by physical particles, there is no evidence that the mind is made up of particles.
And if I'm not mistaken light keeps traveling even after the source has been shut off. That we still see the light from long dead stars.“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 seer View PostAnd your pre-existing worldview doesn't color your position?
Originally posted by seer View PostWhy should I believe we that science can figure everything out?
Originally posted by seer View PostSee I don't agree with this, I think some supernatural things may be beyond scientific investigation, but then again I think this universe is supernatural and is open to investigation - to degrees.
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea what you mean, obviously this supernatural universe functions on logical laws, repeatable behavior, is intelligible and rational.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 JimL View PostOkay, I get what you're saying, the term "illusion" may be the wrong term to use, but other than that we are in agreement. As far as Sam Harris goes, the Illusion he spoke of, was the illusion of the self, the illusion of the ghost in the machine that had the subjective experiences. I don't think that he concluded that the subjective experiences themselves were illusion's either.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 PostGreat, then I can dismiss your claim about the evidence pointing towards the brain giving rise to the mind.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostBut seriously, this is a great way of avoiding having to deal with the arguments. If any sort of dualism is true then the mind would inevitably be outside of the purview of scientific scrutiny, and we could never have the kind of evidence (scientific) that I'm suspecting that you want presented. So any non-scientific evidence would simply be rejected as "not good enough".
Chrawnus, if that works for you, then so be it. But it is exactly that kind of thinking that began my journey out of theism. I grew dissatisfied with "it's god's mystery" and all of it's variants.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostSelf-reports of mental states aren't even first-hand evidence (imo the only first-hand evidence when it comes to the mind are your own mental states and experiences), but I'm digressing.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think quarks and black holes are such disparate entities from a thing like the mind that you're essentially comparing apples and motorcycles. In the case of the mind it's not just that the human senses cannot see or experience it, but rather that it would be a case of the "experiencer" trying to turn itself inside out in order to study itself.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThat being said, I never said that we cannot use the behaviors of people (specifically newborns and fetuses in this case) to hypothesize on the mind, my claim was that the maturing behavior of a newborn is not evidence of the mind being caused by the developing brain.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt's not that we have no evidence, but more that the requirements you set for what is acceptable evidence would conveniently eliminate any kind of possible evidence we could have for the soul/mind existing independently from consideration.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI suspect you are layering too much on what I am saying. So here's what I see:
From my perspective, the "Brain-before-mind"-worldview is in the exact same situation that you're claiming the "Mind-before-brain"-worldview is in with regards to evidence. There is simply no justification to interpret the data/evidence we have as pointing towards the mind being an emergent property of the brain, outside of a philosophically driven one. You're allowing your bias and philosophical worldview to color your view of what the evidence is saying just as much as I am.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostWell, if mind actually was just a collection of thoughts then I'd agree that it was a tautology. Seeing as there is no good reason to accept this definition of mind however, I see no reason to accept your assertion that it is a tautology. But even if I accept your definition for arguments sake it's still the case that you're making my case for me. A thing is always more closely associated with itself than anything that is not itself. So if I accepted your definition of mind then I would have even stronger justification for saying that thoughts are more closely associated with the mind than they are with the brain.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI have never decided anything without thought either. That doesn't mean my will is identical to the thoughts, rather, the thoughts are the objects of my will. And same goes for our focus/concentration. The thoughts that you're focusing/concentrating on is not your focus/concentration, but the objects of that focus/concentration.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostBy your logic I would have to conclude that a gun is actually a bullet because it's impossible to use it without ammunition.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostObviously the fact that I cannot engage my will or focus/concentrate on something without thought doesn't say the first thing about whether or not my will and focus are simply "different categories of thought".
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYour experiences (visual, aural, kinetic etc.) of the outside world exist in your mind however, not in your brain. The brain activity that gives rise to these experience might exist in the brain, but the brain activity is not identical to these experiences. So it follows that the mind contains something other than just thoughts, namely sensory experiences.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI have a hard time seeing how this is a counter towards my claim that imagination is an aspect of the mind that is something other than thought.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostUnlike you I don't trust the name tags. I ask them for their names instead, so there's no chance of a mix up on my part.
(I agree... )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 PostI have no basis for believing the supernatural even exists, so I don't see how science can investigate what does not exist. If/when I have cause to think the supernatural exists, then I guess I'll have to figure out if science can explore it.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 seer View PostWhat makes you think anything, you, life or the universe is natural, what does that mean?
Originally posted by seer View PostSure you may be following accepted definitions, but what makes you think that those definitions are correct?
Originally posted by seer View PostThose are assumptions without evidence.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 PostI mean "part of the universe and operating on predictable, intelligible, repeatable principles."
I have no idea what assumptions you are referring to.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 seer View PostAnd why is that a property of a natural universe as opposed to a property of a supernatural universe?
Since I have no basis for believing such things exist outside of the mythology and imagination of the human mind, it is not something that I spend a great deal of time on (anymore).
Originally posted by seer View PostYou assumption above of what constitutes a natural universe as opposed to a supernatural universe. Assumption without evidence.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
161 responses
513 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Today, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment