Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Audie]

I have no such interest. I am sure that it would be similar to eating a nice crunch bowl of drywall.

Not so much dry- which I can handle- as a
turgid jumble of jarg, which serms to me to
have an element of dry humour, coming
as it does from those who would bring
clarity to language

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

1 and 3 are the same thing so I will address them at once. First of all the reverse is also true, mental events can cause changes to the brain. Second, a correlation isn't necessarily a causation. And third, we would still expect to see this in both Dualism and Idealism, so it's not actually evidence for any of them specifically .

First off, chemical interactions with neurotransmitters and the proteins that bind them are different than gross physical alterations of the brain. Both show that one can alter consciousness through either chemical or physical manipulation. The fact that the material brain can change itself isn't that surprising.

As of yet, you have shown zero evidence of a mind separate from a physical brain or a physical structure. All of the evidence we have demonstrates that the mind is intrinsically connected to the physical.

 

[Audie]

First off, chemical interactions with neurotransmitters and the proteins that bind them are different than gross physical alterations of the brain. Both show that one can alter consciousness through either chemical or physical manipulation. The fact that the material brain can change itself isn't that surprising.

As of yet, you have shown zero evidence of a mind separate from a physical brain or a physical structure. All of the evidence we have demonstrates that the mind is intrinsically connected to the physical.

It is so easy sometimes, to read two posts, and see who knows what he is talking about, and who just says things.

 

[1137]

First off, chemical interactions with neurotransmitters and the proteins that bind them are different than gross physical alterations of the brain. Both show that one can alter consciousness through either chemical or physical manipulation. The fact that the material brain can change itself isn't that surprising.

As of yet, you have shown zero evidence of a mind separate from a physical brain or a physical structure. All of the evidence we have demonstrates that the mind is intrinsically connected to the physical.

Same old materialist song I see, as always without the support.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Same old materialist song I see, as always without the support.

I just gave the support. Physical and chemical changes in the physical brain produces changes in consciousness. What support do you have for the mind being separate from the physical brain?

 

[1137]

I just gave the support. Physical and chemical changes in the physical brain produces changes in consciousness. What support do you have for the mind being separate from the physical brain?

We would also expect to see mind/brain correlation with Dualism and Idealism. Basically you're providing evidence that some type of materialism, Dualism, or Idealism is true, which, of course. Now you're asking me to propose an alternative when you haven't even suggeste a specific position? Nah.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We would also expect to see mind/brain correlation with Dualism and Idealism.

So you can't point to any evidence that is inconsistent with the mind being a product of the physical brain?

 

[1137]

So you can't point to any evidence that is inconsistent with the mind being a product of the physical brain?

Oh I can, I actually have in this thread and the related one's going. The point is I have no obligation to present alternatives, as you haven't supported any specific position.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Oh I can, I actually have in this thread and the related one's going. The point is I have no obligation to present alternatives, as you haven't supported any specific position.

I just supported the mind being the product of the physical brain with evidence. It appears that you have no evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain.

 

[1137]

I just supported the mind being the product of the physical brain with evidence. It appears that you have no evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain.

But you didn't, you supported a connection between mind in brain, which ALL mind-body philosophies accept for the most part. Here's a comparative illustration:

A creationist tells you creationism is true based on the evidence that there are gaps in the fossil records. You explain that gaps are to be expected even without creationism due to how fossilization occurs and that this isn't actually evidence of creationism. They then switch the burden to you and ask you if you have evidence to the contrary. Not only are you under no obligation to provide evidence because of the shifted burden, but even if you COULDNT this would not make creationism true by default.

Now switch creationism with materialism and you should understand where we are.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But you didn't, you supported a connection between mind in brain, which ALL mind-body philosophies accept for the most part. Here's a comparative illustration:

A creationist tells you creationism is true based on the evidence that there are gaps in the fossil records. You explain that gaps are to be expected even without creationism due to how fossilization occurs and that this isn't actually evidence of creationism. They then switch the burden to you and ask you if you have evidence to the contrary. Not only are you under no obligation to provide evidence because of the shifted burden, but even if you COULDNT this would not make creationism true by default.

Now switch creationism with materialism and you should understand where we are.

Except the burden is still on you to support your claim that the mind is independent of the physical brain. The assertion the mind IS dependent on a physical brain is supported by all the observations we make about how the brain works - a physical alteration to the brain can result in alterations to the mind.

To use your analogy, imagine a creationist claiming that all life is created, and a non-creationist pointing out all the evidence that life shares common ancestry and asking for evidence that life was created. Rather than providing evidence for creation, the creationist simply asserts that just because the evidence demonstrates common ancestry, it doesn't rule out creationism. But the point isn't that one set of evidence necessarily rules out the opposing proposition, it's that there is evidence for only one of two given propositions, so the assertion of one is erroneous and can be dismissed as having no rational basis.

That is exactly what you have just done.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But you didn't, you supported a connection between mind in brain, which ALL mind-body philosophies accept for the most part.

You just said that I supported a physical connection between mind and the physical brain. If all of the evidence we have is for this physical connection and you can't present any evidence of the mind being independent of the physical brain then the supported conclusion is the mind being a product of the physical brain.

A creationist tells you creationism is true based on the evidence that there are gaps in the fossil records. You explain that gaps are to be expected even without creationism due to how fossilization occurs and that this isn't actually evidence of creationism. They then switch the burden to you and ask you if you have evidence to the contrary. Not only are you under no obligation to provide evidence because of the shifted burden, but even if you COULDNT this would not make creationism true by default.

Now switch creationism with materialism and you should understand where we are.

The difference is that there are gaps filled by transitional fossils which is the evidence for evolution. There is positive evidence for evolution unlike the lack of positive evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain.

 

[1137]

You just said that I supported a physical connection between mind and the physical brain. If all of the evidence we have is for this physical connection and you can't present any evidence of the mind being independent of the physical brain then the supported conclusion is the mind being a product of the physical brain.

As I said the connection between mind and brain is accepted and expected by pretty much all positions. Again you're assuming I can't support my position just because I refuse to let you switch the burden of proof.

uot difference is that there are gaps filled by transitional fossils which is the evidence for evolution. There is positive evidence for evolution unlike the lack of positive evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain.

You entirely missed the point.

 

[1137]

Except the burden is still on you to support your claim that the mind is independent of the physical brain. The assertion the mind IS dependent on a physical brain is supported by all the observations we make about how the brain works - a physical alteration to the brain can result in alterations to the mind.

I can lie too guys. "All evidence supports creationism!!!!" So now you're a creationist? Your ignorance on alternatives doesn't make yours default to true lol.

use your analogy, imagine a creationist claiming that all life is created, and a non-creationist pointing out all the evidence that life shares common ancestry and asking for evidence that life was created. Rather than providing evidence for creation, the creationist simply asserts that just because the evidence demonstrates common ancestry, it doesn't rule out creationism. But the point isn't that one set of evidence necessarily rules out the opposing proposition, it's that there is evidence for only one of two given propositions, so the assertion of one is erroneous and can be dismissed as having no rational basis.

That is exactly what you have just done.

Right, this is a good analogy. Materialism has one piece of "evidence" that actually doesn't support materialism over other positions, and everything else we know of it suggests otherwise. The issue is that you think if the creationist is ignorant/closed minded and doesn't know the evidence for evolution their creationism is magically validated.

Good analogy for you and your materialist peers actually, well done!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As I said the connection between mind and brain is accepted and expected by pretty much all positions. Again you're assuming I can't support my position just because I refuse to let you switch the burden of proof.

You are claiming that the mind is independent of the physical brain. Why shouldn't you have the burden of proof to produce evidence supporting this claim? I have supplied evidence demonstrating a strong link between the mind and physical brain, so I have satisfied the burden of proof for my claims.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I can lie too guys. "All evidence supports creationism!!!!" So now you're a creationist? Your ignorance on alternatives doesn't make yours default to true lol.

The difference is that we presented positive evidence for a physical link between the mind and the brain.

Right, this is a good analogy. Materialism has one piece of "evidence" that actually doesn't support materialism over other positions, and everything else we know of it suggests otherwise. The issue is that you think if the creationist is ignorant/closed minded and doesn't know the evidence for evolution their creationism is magically validated.

Good analogy for you and your materialist peers actually, well done!

We have evidence that there is a physical link between the mind and brain. No one can present any evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain. How is this not support for the mind being a product of the physical brain?

 

[1137]

You are claiming that the mind is independent of the physical brain. Why shouldn't you have the burden of proof to produce evidence supporting this claim? I have supplied evidence demonstrating a strong link between the mind and physical brain, so I have satisfied the burden of proof for my claims.

But you haven't because your "proof" also supports positions that completely contradict yours lol. This is like me saying "Ra" is real, just look at the sun! Sure the sun is there, but does it really support Ra and Ra only? Is that the only explanation? All you've satisfied is the well known fact that there's no evidence explicitly suggesting materialism.

The difference is that we presented positive evidence for a physical link between the mind and the brain.

Indeed, and Dualists present this link, and idealists present this link, and pansychics present this link, and solipsists present this link... It fits within all of those positions. So how is this supposed to confirm materialism???

We have evidence that there is a physical link between the mind and brain. No one can present any evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain. How is this not support for the mind being a product of the physical brain?

Well actually such evidence has been provided ad nauseum. It would take probably about 5 seconds on Google to discover this, but we know materialists couldn't care less about learning objective info or questioning their position .

But as I tell all materialists, if you ever find anything that actually supports your specific position above others, please let me know asap.

 

[Polymath257]

Just because an electron is consistently *associated* with a charge doesn't mean it has a charge itself. It is possible that charges are a different thing and that electrons just attract them and move *as if* they have a charge. You can't provide any evidence that the electron actually has a charge as opposed to simply being a conduit for a charge that is somewhere else.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But you haven't because your "proof" also supports positions that completely contradict yours lol.

That's not how it works. Evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain is evidence that differs from the mind being physically linked to the physical brain.

This is like me saying "Ra" is real, just look at the sun! Sure the sun is there, but does it really support Ra and Ra only?

That is pretty much your position, that the existence of the Sun supports the existence of Ra. You might as well claim that lightning having a known physical mechanism for its production is also consistent with Thor creating lightning.

Do you understand that you need positive evidence for you claim that differentiates it from your claim not being true?

 

[1137]

That's not how it works. Evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain is evidence that differs from the mind being physically linked to the physical brain.



That is pretty much your position, that the existence of the Sun supports the existence of Ra. You might as well claim that lightning having a known physical mechanism for its production is also consistent with Thor creating lightning.

Do you understand that you need positive evidence for you claim that differentiates it from your claim not being true?

I don't know how to make this clearer. Say that I believe the sun is made of cheese. I say it's made of cheese because it's yellow, and there's no other possible explanation. You explain that this is wrong, there's plenty of explanations! So I say "well prove an alternative!"

1. I've switched the burden of proof.

2. even if you don't or can't provide an alternative and know nothing about the sun, my position doesn't somehow default to being true or even valid.

So let's compare this to out talk.

You're claiming materialism is true because of a connection between mind and brain, and pretending this can only support materialism (it doesn't). I'm pointing out that it doesn't, so you're switching the burden of proof and asking me to prove an alternative. Whether I can prove it, or I don't have an alternative, or my alternative is absurd like a pink unicorn, none of this makes materialism default.