Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[idav]

I've actually SHOWN YOU links in the past where Ramachandran said that the mind is not just physical, if you bothered to ever read what I posted then you would know. Anyways continue following your own biases.

Why would a neurologist say that the mind is not physical claim that only the human brain can sense qualia. A neurologist has the bias that qualia comes from the brain. I understand he has eastern biases of spirituality, doesnt change the evidence that comes from the brain and that is what we have evidence for. I am not using a neurologist as an appeal to authority.

edit: prove your point. Refute the claim that pain comes from the brain as a neurologist I pointed out proved.

 

[MD]

Why would a neurologist say that the mind is not physical claim that only the human brain can sense qualia. A neurologist has the bias that qualia comes from the brain. I understand he has eastern biases of spirituality, doesnt change the evidence that comes from the brain and that is what we have evidence for. I am not using a neurologist as an appeal to authority.

edit: prove your point. Refute the claim that pain comes from the brain as a neurologist I pointed out proved.

First off he's a neuroscientist, he received his MBBS (MD equivalent) in India but i don't think he trained as a neurologist. There is a difference between the two.

Secondly he is a neutral monist. A neutral monist believes that mind and matter are both derived from another source. When you say that the mind is a derivative of matter (the brain) you are not a neutral monist, you are a physicalist. Also there is no PROOF that the brain creates pain. Stop claiming this please as it simply furthers your own ignorance on the topic. This isn't C++ class. There are simply correlations.

Astute critic or just a philistine caricature? | General | Times Higher Education

There , control F that ish and you will see my point validated.

 

[idav]

There are simply correlations.

And that is all my post suggested nothing more. Your reading more into it because you prefer neutral monism. Monism is monism is everything comes from one source including thought and the physical.

 

[Willamena]

Why would a neurologist say that the mind is not physical claim that only the human brain can sense qualia. A neurologist has the bias that qualia comes from the brain. I understand he has eastern biases of spirituality, doesnt change the evidence that comes from the brain and that is what we have evidence for. I am not using a neurologist as an appeal to authority.

edit: prove your point. Refute the claim that pain comes from the brain as a neurologist I pointed out proved.

The brain produces the mind, and the mind is not physical. The bias here is thinking that something produced by something physical must also be physical. What is the justification for that idea?

 

[idav]

The brain produces the mind, and the mind is not physical. The bias here is thinking that something produced by something physical must also be physical. What is the justification for that idea?

I don't think I suggested that the mind is physical but rather an immaterial projection of something physical. I have a black cat in my mind that wouldn't exist without the physical cat existing, as an example. Even an imaginary cat is a projection of experiences of the brain.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think I suggested that the mind is physical but rather an immaterial projection of something physical. I have a black cat in my mind that wouldn't exist without the physical cat existing, as an example. Even an imaginary cat is a projection of experiences of the brain.

Sorry; I jumped in too quickly.

But each time you point at the brain instead of mind, where mind would be more appropriate, you display a bias.

 

[idav]

Sorry; I jumped in too quickly.

But each time you point at the brain instead of mind, where mind would be more appropriate, you display a bias.

Thats true enough, stupid minds, lol.

 

[sun rise]

The brain produces the mind, and the mind is not physical. The bias here is thinking that something produced by something physical must also be physical. What is the justification for that idea?

I have a different frame-of-reference. To me, the mind inhabits the brain (and the mind is not physical).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You should read the bible. Jesus states that he will return within a generation. He is 50 generations late.

Yeah, Jesus said he would come within a generation...which you assumed refers to a specific time period...when it could have meant...according to

Generation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


a : a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor

b : a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously

c : a group of individuals having contemporaneously a status (as that of students in a school) which each one holds only for a limited period

d : a type or class of objects usually developed from an earlier type

Look at D (bold)

A type (Christians) of class objects usually developed from an earlier type (Judaism).

Which fits what Jesus said perfectly, as Christianity gets its roots from Judaism and is still here, being the world's #1 religion and all, and we will still be here even when Jesus returns.

So on that note, this generation has not passed.

See how that works?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The brain produces the mind

That is a faith based statement, my friend. You can't prove it using the scientific method now, can you? Probably not.

, and the mind is not physical. The bias here is thinking that something produced by something physical must also be physical. What is the justification for that idea?

You might want to provide evidence for your assertions, before you start asking for justifications.

It has yet to be proven that the physical brain produced the immaterial mind...which is absurd anyway...how can something physical produce something immaterial anyway?

 

[Willamena]

I have a different frame-of-reference. To me, the mind inhabits the brain (and the mind is not physical).

Well, considering that brain, and everything about it, is known only through mind, it seems a potentially valid perspective. How are correlations between mind and brain explained?

 

[Willamena]

That is a faith based statement, my friend. You can't prove it using the scientific method now, can you? Probably not.

As others have pointed out, it is an inference-based, rather than faith-based, statement. The evidence that leads science to this conclusion is proof (proof, in science, means it's valid, not that it's true).

You might want to provide evidence for your assertions, before you start asking for justifications.

It has yet to be proven that the physical brain produced the immaterial mind...which is absurd anyway...how can something physical produce something immaterial anyway?

Again, your last sentence inspires a request for justification. In fact, I cannot answer the prior question until it is provided. I have nothing to argue against.

 

[idav]

That is a faith based statement, my friend. You can't prove it using the scientific method now, can you? Probably not.



You might want to provide evidence for your assertions, before you start asking for justifications.

It has yet to be proven that the physical brain produced the immaterial mind...which is absurd anyway...how can something physical produce something immaterial anyway?

Cause that is what we have evidence for. Evidence for the contrary is severely lacking my friend. How is quite the mystery but rest assured it is occurring. Have you ever seen a cat, that is how you know one exists, that is how you see it in your mind or even imagine it. Nuero science has plenty on this cause it is what brain scientists deal with. What else could be producing these mind brain correlations?

 

[sun rise]

Well, considering that brain, and everything about it, is known only through mind, it seems a potentially valid perspective. How are correlations between mind and brain explained?

I'm not sure which specific correlations you are thinking of but intuition to me is in the realm of the mind not the brain.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure which specific correlations you are thinking of but intuition to me is in the realm of the mind not the brain.

The correlation means that something found in the brain appears to correlate with what a person is thinking about, and it is consistently reproducible in various regions in the brain. The biggest issue with this is that no brain is the same and no thought appears in the same place but we have very specific regions that are reproducible. Numbers light up certain parts of the brain, colors light up other regions, letters light up other regions. Correlations between color numbers, sound and letters are reproducible as they light up certain areas for people who see sound as color or see letters as certain colors and such, which is positive proof that the brain sometimes does wacky things like for people who have various types of Synesthesia.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure which specific correlations you are thinking of but intuition to me is in the realm of the mind not the brain.

Well, for instance, you drink alcohol, it affects your brain and mind. Correlation. You get knocked unconscious, it affects the brain and mind. Correlation.

 

[Parsimony]

I'd just like to inject something I saw on a television show once. I wish I could remember which one it was. If anyone else has seen this, let me know.

It was stated that brain surgery was performed on someone once while they were still consciously aware. In the process of screwing around in the brain, the patient began to make all sorts of strange movements. It was found (or at least implied in the show) that the movements were correlated with manipulating certain areas of the patient's brain. When the surgery was over, the patient was asked why he made the movements he did. He answered "because I wanted to", or something along those lines.

I find that rather weird as it implies that one can be controlled by an external agency while being fully convinced that they are still the one in control. Makes me wonder what would happen if that was duplicated but the patient was offered $1,000 to remain still during the procedure. Would he be able to remain still? If not, what justification would he provide for having "willfully" moved?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As others have pointed out, it is an inference-based, rather than faith-based, statement.

An inference based on what? Correlation? Correlation does not imply identity. There is a correlation between my remote control and my tv...but the origin of the remote control has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origin of the tv.

All you can do is demonstrate a correlation between the brain and consciousness...but that means absolutely nothing when we are talking about origins.

The evidence that leads science to this conclusion is proof (proof, in science, means it's valid, not that it's true).

Science is based on experiment and observation....there is no scientific experiment that you nor anyone else can conduct that can show how a brain can be the absolute origin of consciousness.

Again, your last sentence inspires a request for justification. In fact, I cannot answer the prior question until it is provided. I have nothing to argue against.

You believe that consciousness is a by-product of the brain and originated naturally...I am saying how can you scientifically prove this. You cannot scientifically prove it, so therefore to believe it is to accept it by faith.

There is no "I can't prove it, but it still happened". No. If you can't scientifically prove something that you claim occurred NATURALLY, then you are best agnostic when it comes to that particular claim. To continue to speak as if something happened when you can't scientifically prove it is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Cause that is what we have evidence for.

What EVIDENCE??

Evidence for the contrary is severely lacking my friend.

About as lacking as there is for evidence for it.

How is quite the mystery but rest assured it is occurring. Have you ever seen a cat, that is how you know one exists, that is how you see it in your mind or even imagine it.

There are plenty things that I've never seen that I can imagine existing, idav. I am asking how could consciousness have ORIGINATED. If the brain is the origin of consciousness, then explain how a scientist can go in a lab, shape and mold a brain, and get the brain thinking about "specific" things.

If an intelligent human being is unable to do this, then what the heck makes you think a blind and mindless process could have been able to do it? Whatever answer that you give me, use that same answer as to why nature couldn't have done it. If you believe that nature did it, then you are basically saying that a blind and mindless process has done things that intelligent human beings are unable to do, which is quite ridiculous.

Who is the brains of the operation? (pun intended )

Nuero science has plenty on this cause it is what brain scientists deal with. What else could be producing these mind brain correlations?

There is a supernatural culprit...the origin of human mind was a....miracle.

 

[sun rise]

I'd just like to inject something I saw on a television show once. I wish I could remember which one it was. If anyone else has seen this, let me know.

It was stated that brain surgery was performed on someone once while they were still consciously aware. In the process of screwing around in the brain, the patient began to make all sorts of strange movements. It was found (or at least implied in the show) that the movements were correlated with manipulating certain areas of the patient's brain. When the surgery was over, the patient was asked why he made the movements he did. He answered "because I wanted to", or something along those lines.

I find that rather weird as it implies that one can be controlled by an external agency while being fully convinced that they are still the one in control. Makes me wonder what would happen if that was duplicated but the patient was offered $1,000 to remain still during the procedure. Would he be able to remain still? If not, what justification would he provide for having "willfully" moved?

I remember seeing or reading something similar. It does imply that our conscious minds have the illusion of control over our actions. Whereas the reality is we have much less control than we'd like to believe.