Lets try this another way: if you have faith the brain creates the mind, and that mind depends on brain, can we please see your logic and evidence?

[1137]

You have made the claim that in order to prove that the brain dying also kills the mind that one has to ALSO prove some nonsense about gods, ghosts, spirits, etc.
Because according to you, they are somehow connected.

So now you have two bold empty claims that you flat out refuse to support.

You don't see why a mind without a brain would be relevant to a mind without a brain?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The best discussion of the matter that I know of is this.

A Ghost in the Machine - Daylight Atheism

Part 1: Introduction / Where is the Soul Hiding? Part 2: The Argument from Mind-Brain Unity Part 3: The God Part of the Brain Part 4: Philosophical

www.patheos.com

Thanks for that. Bookmarked:

"Central to many religions, both Eastern and Western, is the doctrine of dualism: that there is a non-material essence called the soul that inhabits and animates our bodies and is the cause and the source of consciousness, personality, free will, thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, memories, the sense of self – in short, everything a person thinks of as “I”. Theists typically believe that the soul survives the physical death of the body and goes on to whatever comes after death, be it an afterlife in Heaven or Hell or reincarnation in a new body. I am an atheist because I have found no evidence that leads me to believe that the supernatural claims of any religion are true, and the notion of the soul is no exception."

There is also a form of monism common to the religious - idealism, or God as mind being the origin of matter. I'm not sure that mind-matter and soul-matter considerations are the same, but my understanding of the soul is that it a name for the source of mind thought to originate outside of and to precede the body, and to this naturalist, that's just another name for the ability of a brain to generate a mind and a misunderstanding of what that is and where it comes from.

What soul, the author asks:

"The question now arises, where in all of this is the soul? Which brain lobe does it inhabit? Where is it hiding in this tangle of neurons and synapses? ... All the evidence we currently possess suggests that there is nothing inside our skulls that does not obey the ordinary laws of physics ... What does the soul do?"

the human mind can be proven (yes proven) to transcend not only its physical frame/brain, but even the laws of physics.

That is incorrect. Nothing has ever been shown to violate the laws of nature. The thought is incoherent. When nature violates our set of known rules, it means the rules are incomplete or possibly wrong, not the laws of nature themselves.

In his book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins proposed that thought's that proliferate outside a person's mind are equivalent in some sense to genes in that they, "memes" (a word he coined to make mind-products rhyme with "genes") can mix with other meme's, like genes mix with other genes, thereby causing mind-products to reproduce and survive just like genes.

That is also incorrect. Dawkins did not mean that memes exist outside of minds.

what are you hoping I take from this article?

I doubt he expects you to benefit at all from the article. It's there for people who will read the text dispassionately, critically, and open-mindedly. You're clearly here to represent that you are a critical thinker that only need be shown a compelling argument and he'll be convinced by it, but that's not what you're doing. That's not the message you actually send - your metamessage, which is that there is no evidence that could satisfy you that mind is an epiphenomenon of brain even if that's exactly what it is.

Any tips on not being bothered? I'm a bit envious haha.

Yes. One has to stop taking the troll seriously. One rebuts them for the benefit of those who can follow and be convinced by a compelling argument, but should understand that when he is dealing with a faith-based confirmation bias, that doesn't happen.

I asked for evidence brain creates mind not that they are connected.

You were given evidence that the brain causes mind, but you're not interested in rebutting it, just condescendingly dismissing it out of hand. There is no possibility of and so no duty on the part of the empiricist to convince such a person of anything. One tip on not being bothered is not caring that others do this to themselves and not being frustrated that they have and are no longer reachable.

So now instead of simply supporting physicalism you also need to refute theism, paranormal activity, etc. I look forward to this!

No, he doesn't. He has no burden of "proof" with somebody not intellectually and psychologically prepared to evaluate the argument, that is, a person who has not learned either critical thinking skills (reasoning), lacks the necessary fund of knowledge (facts), and doesn't have the disposition of a student (a desire to learn). Consider a person doesn't know any algebra or geometry and resists learning it. You have no burden of proof regarding the Pythagorean theorem with such a person, and no interest in his objections about the validity of the proof or his opinions on the relationship between the sides of a right triangle.

So 3 users with no evidence at all to provide.

Nope. One user with no interesting in seeing evidence, just in calling it insufficient for him as if he were an adequate judge of such things.

Any chance you have an objective source, rather than a physicalist blog?

How about you. Can you offer more than substance-free condescension and idle speculation like this:

"I'm not sure what makes Dawkins seem crazier here, lamarkian evolution or rhyming genes and memes" and "I seem to have been born in Egypt twice, and once during the age of sail."

 

[1137]

It is nothing more than you saying "this is what I believe and until you prove me wrong, it is right"

I guess fair enough, as long as you're okay with people doing this with positions you reject (you aren't special pleading).

 

[John D. Brey]

the human mind can be proven (yes proven) to transcend not only its physical frame/brain, but even the laws of physics.

That is incorrect. Nothing has ever been shown to violate the laws of nature. The thought is incoherent. When nature violates our set of known rules, it means the rules are incomplete or possibly wrong, not the laws of nature themselves.

Incoherence of thought can often occur by sloppy thinking and miscommunication. For instance, misquoting a person and then using the misquote as a straw-man can bollix things up pretty good.

I never said the laws of physics are "violated." I said they're "transcended," which is a whole other thing.

That is also incorrect. Dawkins did not mean that memes exist outside of minds.

Memes can be read off a page. They can be absorbed through a TV. A statue can be a meme. A Bible verse, or doctrine ("original sin"), can be a meme.

Under Paul, beliefs became the focal points for movements that, freed of genetic anchors, could sweep across the face of the world, gathering humans of all kinds within their grasp. For when Paul separated genes and gods, he helped unleash a force that would bring together superorganismic groupings on a scale the world had never seen. He helped make the meme the world’s most powerful form of replicator.​

​

Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle.​

John

 

[McBell]

You don't see why a mind without a brain would be relevant to a mind without a brain?

seems to me that gods, ghosts, spirits, etc. demonstrate that once the brain dies the mind dies.

Since without a brain, there is no mind.
without a mind there are no gods, ghosts, spirits, etc...

 

[McBell]

I never said the laws of physics are "violated." I said they're "transcended," which is a whole other thing.

Please be so kind as to explain the difference

 

[Alien826]

I'm thinking it's one extreme on the spectrum of what is understood as "mind". Another extreme in the other direction would a grove of trees. Basically.

That tree thing is interesting, certainly. I'll look it up. I'm talking about the human brain/mind though. I think we have to be careful not to stretch definitions too far. I'm wary of calling something that can be seen as purely mechanical as intelligent, though ... well maybe.

 

[ChristineM]

And how are the other individuals doing this without relying on consciousness??

Which is of the brain.

 

[Alien826]

Try looking at it from a different perspective. How do you prove that any objective reality exists at all, independent of the mind?

Look up at the sky. What do you see? Slow moving clouds, ever changing light, perhaps a flock of energetic geese moving swiftly in formation? And where is this shifting kaleidoscope of impressions happening? You’re watching a movie unfolding in your mind.

Now prove that any of this is happening at all, absent the consciousness of you the observer.

I don't think we can ever totally disprove solipsism, but there are lots of good arguments against it. For example, get 100 people to watch the sky and describe what they see. Mainly they will agree. So at least their perceptions are similar. Listen to Beethoven's symphonies. Did your mind invent that, and all without doing it consciously? I could go on.

 

[Copernicus]

I never said the laws of physics are "violated." I said they're "transcended," which is a whole other thing.

Others see it as a distinction without a difference. As McBell pointed out, you need to explain the difference.

That is also incorrect. Dawkins did not mean that memes exist outside of minds.

Memes can be read off a page. They can be absorbed through a TV. A statue can be a meme. A Bible verse, or doctrine ("original sin"), can be a meme.

...​

That doesn't get memes outside of minds. It just transfers them to other minds. The text is merely a medium by which memes can spread from one mind to others. Think of language as word-guided mental telepathy. In Bloom's Lucifer Principle, he just carries Dawkins' metaphor further by talking about groups of minds as "superorganisms" that can host memes.

 

[dybmh]

That tree thing is interesting, certainly. I'll look it up. I'm talking about the human brain/mind though. I think we have to be careful not to stretch definitions too far. I'm wary of calling something that can be seen as purely mechanical as intelligent, though ... well maybe.

Agreed. This notion of a spectrum of defintions of "mind" is intended to be the beginning of a conversation. Or perhaps a gate towards lifting the discourse to a higher level. Or, perhaps, to go deeper into the subject matter.

Edit: there's probably a valuable discussion about whether the behavior of a grove of trees is mechanical. Also, whether complex abstract human thought is mechanical. What are the mechanics of these behaviors? How are they different? How are they similar? How do these networks operate? The neurochemical network? The biosphere as a network?

 

[Copernicus]

Agreed. This notion of a spectrum of defintions of "mind" is intended to be the beginning of a conversation. Or perhaps a gate towards lifting the discourse to a higher level. Or, perhaps, to go deeper into the subject matter.

Edit: there's probably a valuable discussion about whether the behavior of a grove of trees is mechanical. Also, whether complex abstract human thought is mechanical. What are the mechanics of these behaviors? How are they different? How are they similar? How do these networks operate? The neurochemical network? The biosphere as a network?

For that discussion to get anywhere, I think you have to bring in the concept of emergence in chaotically deterministic systems of physical interactions. That's why I mentioned Bloom's book The God Problem to you. That's one of the major themes of that work.

 

[Copernicus]

And i disagree that for one thing to impact another thing, cause and effect, one thing must create the other like you seem to have agreed to just above. We do not create each other, brain and mind do not create each other. The claim that brain creates mind is exactly what I'm seeking evidence for.

You missed the point. Causation is always a relationship between events, not things and events. To say that a brain "causes" the mind is something of a category mistake, because it is what the brain does that causes a mind to exist. Technically, it is brain activity not brain that you are referring to. So "brains cause minds" is just a shorthand way of saying that "brain activity causes thought activity" among other kinds of events in a physical human body (for example, movement of body parts).

 

[Alien826]

You missed the point. Causation is always a relationship between events, not things and events. To say that a brain "causes" the mind is something of a category mistake, because it is what the brain does that causes a mind to exist. Technically, it is brain activity not brain that you are referring to. So "brains cause minds" is just a shorthand way of saying that "brain activity causes thought activity" among other kinds of events in a physical human body (for example, movement of body parts).

Could we not say brain activity is thought activity which is mind? (in other words, the brain thinks and "mind" is the name we give to the totality of that activity). It seems to me that describing it as something created by brain activity is the root of the misunderstanding. For example, we can describe the activity of a car as "transportation" or some such. What we mean is that is what the car does. It would be silly to say that the car creates transportation, so the car has some form of mind. It just does what it does.

 

[dybmh]

For that discussion to get anywhere, I think you have to bring in the concept of emergence in chaotically deterministic systems of physical interactions. That's why I mentioned Bloom's book The God Problem to you. That's one of the major themes of that work.

Chaotic-determinsm? That's an interesting idea. I wonder if that could be evidence of a mind? I'm imagining the process of having an idea. What is happening in the neuro-chemical network in the brain that produces the idea? There's also interesting science regarding the process of forgetting and remembering. The "epiphany" and the "remembering" are both similar triggered events, in a manner of speaking. The words chaotic-determinsm reminds me of these cognitive phenomena.

Further, is it even fair to understand this as chaos? Chaotic-determinsm? For example, is certain-doubt a version of certainty, or is it doubt? It's definitely doubt, right? In this way, I'm wondering if chaotic-determinsm is a version of chaos, or is it a version of order? A version of intent?

And this is important here, because, what appears to us, as finite humans as non-intelligent, non-mind, might be a version of mind that is simply so complex, or so rare, or so large, that it is easier to exclude it as "mind", as intelligence, and instead flag it as chaos?

And this ignores the anthropocentric inclination for most to imagine the human as the smartest just because we are the apex predator.

 

[Copernicus]

Could we not say brain activity is thought activity which is mind? (in other words, the brain thinks and "mind" is the name we give to the totality of that activity). It seems to me that describing it as something created by brain activity is the root of the misunderstanding. For example, we can describe the activity of a car as "transportation" or some such. What we mean is that is what the car does. It would be silly to say that the car creates transportation, so the car has some form of mind. It just does what it does.

I was trying to be careful not to equate brain activity with thought activity, because the word "thought" tends to denote very specific types of mental activity--calculation, volition, emotion, mood, perception (i.e. interpretation of sense data), etc. However, much of what the brain does is what we casually refer to as the "subconscious"--activity that we are not consciously aware of.

Your point about cars not actually creating transportation is interesting, because it focuses on the way 1137 has been describing the physicalist position as he sees it. There is a sense in which cars do create transportation, but I would say that that is just a kind of shorthand way of saying that car activity is transportation activity. That's what cars do. Thinking is what brains do. It's just that the way nouns, verbs, and phrases work to express meaning sometimes leads us to make logical mistakes in how we model reality. (Many years ago, I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on the expression of causation in linguistic expressions, and a paper I published on the subject briefly enjoyed some limited popularity.)

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't think we can ever totally disprove solipsism, but there are lots of good arguments against it. For example, get 100 people to watch the sky and describe what they see. Mainly they will agree. So at least their perceptions are similar. Listen to Beethoven's symphonies. Did your mind invent that, and all without doing it consciously? I could go on.

There are plenty of good reasons to neglect solipsism, sure. It’s nihilistic for a start, a doctrine of despair. I’m not a solipsist, for similar reasons I’m not an atheist; but the point I’m trying to make is twofold - first, that naive materialism is as extreme an interpretation of the mental/physical relationship as is idealism, and second, that there is a broad spectrum of interpretations between the two extremes, with dualism somewhere in the middle.

The physicalist who believes the mind is an output of the brain, gives priority to the latter with no more logic or reason than the idealist does the reverse. The argument that the mind is the brain seems to me the most absurd of all, for this is to deny completely, those qualitative experiences which are unique to consciousness. The fact that there is something that it is like to be human, surely implies that there are aspects of consciousness which are immaterial. After all, you cannot point to awareness, nor measure, weigh, or otherwise quantify it.

Regards Beethoven btw, one thing we can be sure of is that neither Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, nor Newton’s Law of Gravitation, would be possible without minds to conceive them, and other minds to receive and respond to them.

 

[F1fan]

There are plenty of good reasons to neglect solipsism, sure. It’s nihilistic for a start, a doctrine of despair. I’m not a solipsist, for similar reasons I’m not an atheist; but the point I’m trying to make is twofold - first, that naive materialism is as extreme an interpretation of the mental/physical relationship as is idealism,

How is materialism naive? What is extreme in that view since it is the most humble approach, and does not assume there is more. Let's note that non-materialists can explain what exists that is not material.

and second, that there is a broad spectrum of interpretations between the two extremes, with dualism somewhere in the middle.

Which category has the fewest assumptions? Which one is most consistent with what we understand of reality? That's the winner.

The physicalist who believes the mind is an output of the brain,

It's what we observe, what is there to believe? the belief comes in when theists want spirit, God, angels, soul, etc. to have some relevancy to life experience. Believers can't argue for what they think is true, only try to poke holes in what we observe that's evident. I'd like to see you guys actually try to argue for what you think is happening instead of dubious critique.

gives priority to the latter with no more logic or reason than the idealist does the reverse. The argument that the mind is the brain seems to me the most absurd of all, for this is to deny completely, those qualitative experiences which are unique to consciousness. The fact that there is something that it is like to be human, surely implies that there are aspects of consciousness which are immaterial.

Why? Why assume an immaterial when the phenomenon is clearly a result of physical brains and physical brain activity? Observing brain activity and functions doesn't impy any such thing. I suggest you examine your motives to "see" that implication.

After all, you cannot point to awareness, nor measure, weigh, or otherwise quantify it.

You can point to aware being versus sleeping beings. And there are degrees of consciousness.

Regards Beethoven btw, one thing we can be sure of is that neither Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, nor Newton’s Law of Gravitation, would be possible without minds to conceive them, and other minds to receive and respond to them.

And notice this didn't happen until human civiliztion evolved to a certain level of development. The brain had already evolved, but what humans could create was a slow evolution of modernity and advancement. Arguably what the human minds were capable of was dependent on existing knowledge and society, not pure imagination.

 

[Alien826]

Memes can be read off a page. They can be absorbed through a TV. A statue can be a meme. A Bible verse, or doctrine ("original sin"), can be a meme.

As I understand Dawkins' original idea, memes exist in the mind and, like genes, propagate themselves to other people. I'm not sure this is more than an entertaining fancy of Dawkins, but there is a similarity that ends when we consider the means of propagation. Genes, of course, propagate by sexual (and other forms of) reproduction. Memes do so by communication between humans, by speech, writing and so on. That doesn't make the means of communication the meme.

As I suggested, I don't think something so commonplace needed a new word, but it seems to have caught on.

 

[1137]

I doubt he expects you to benefit at all from the article. It's there for people who will read the text dispassionately, critically, and open-mindedly. You're clearly here to represent that you are a critical thinker that only need be shown a compelling argument and he'll be convinced by it, but that's not what you're doing. That's not the message you actually send - your metamessage, which is that there is no evidence that could satisfy you that mind is an epiphenomenon of brain even if that's exactly what it is.

I can't really keep repeating myself. The evidence provided so far is for a totally different claim.

Yes. One has to stop taking the troll seriously. One rebuts them for the benefit of those who can follow and be convinced by a compelling argument, but should understand that when he is dealing with a faith-based confirmation bias, that doesn't happen.

True but even if I know one is a fideistic troll i sometimes can't break off. I wonder why.

You were given evidence that the brain causes mind,

But i want. Evidence that mind and brain are connected isn't evidence brain creates mind.

but you're not interested in rebutting it, just condescendingly dismissing it out of hand.

I don't dismiss it at all, the evidence is there and the conclusion brain and mind are connected is sound imo

There is no possibility of and so no duty on the part of the empiricist to convince such a person of anything. One tip on not being bothered is not caring that others do this to themselves and not being frustrated that they have and are no longer reachable.

Fair enough, i will give it a try.

No, he doesn't. He has no burden of "proof" with somebody not intellectually and psychologically prepared to evaluate the argument, that is, a person who has not learned either critical thinking skills (reasoning), lacks the necessary fund of knowledge (facts), and doesn't have the disposition of a student (a desire to learn). Consider a person doesn't know any algebra or geometry and resists learning it. You have no burden of proof regarding the Pythagorean theorem with such a person, and no interest in his objections about the validity of the proof or his opinions on the relationship between the sides of a right triangle.

Whatever you believe, you should have reasons for doing so.

Nope. One user with no interesting in seeing evidence, just in calling it insufficient for him as if he were an adequate judge of such things.

Haha I'm basically begging for evidence.

How about you. Can you offer more than substance-free condescension and idle speculation like this:

"I'm not sure what makes Dawkins seem crazier here, lamarkian evolution or rhyming genes and memes" and "I seem to have been born in Egypt twice, and once during the age of sail."

How is rhyming genes with memes not stupid AF?