So far just that I seem to have been born in Egypt twice, and once during the age of sail.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
1) insert ice pick into radio.
2) Swish it around thoroughly to mix up all the wires
3) determine if it still plays music
4) no longer there
5) therefore my radio creates all music.
This is your actual argument?
I'm sorry, how can "it seems obvious" be anything but subjective???
I'm hoping for something objective not a physicalist blog.
I notice you failed to show evidence of your own claim, that brains are receivers that pick up consciousness, like a radio set. You were asked for evidence and offered none. So now you want evidence to support what we already observe: that minds and consciousness are dependent on living brains?
Well said. Any tips on not being bothered? I'm a bit envious haha.
No problem, if the best you can do is a blog it's the best you can do. I'll address it when I can get on the computer.
Where is the source of consciousness in your analogy? Radiowaves are transmitted from sources, and are material. So is consciousness also material that brains pick it up? Where is your evidence?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You mean the paper covered with footnotes and references? That's not good enough for you?
A Ghost in the Machine - Daylight Atheism
See here for the rest: Split-Brain: What We Know Now and Why This is Important for Understanding Consciousness (note that this is an objective source, not a biased blog)
A very long winded way of confirming the brain and mind are deeply connected in this life. Nobody denies it, though arguing against such a straw man is a very common physicalist tactic.
First I like how it immediately discards something it cannot address. “Well DID is a problem for me so, uh, it isn’t relevant!”
See here for the rest: Split-Brain: What We Know Now and Why This is Important for Understanding Consciousness (note that this is an objective source, not a biased blog)
This one is at least a novel objection from what I can tell. Of course it again only shows that mind and brain are coordinated. You ever put a radio between stations, and you can hear two stations with one clearer than the other? Does this mean the sounds are created by the radio? Further nobody is in any way suggesting that the body cannot break down, fall into dysfunction, or even that it does things on its own free of the mind. The two are connected. I think the only reason physicalists insist on ignoring this is because their whole position relies on this straw man that the non-physicalists says mind and brain are not related and influence each other.
See above. Also noticing there are, like, one or two sources used over and over again haha. I see he found two people who agree with him!
Literally the same problems we’ve been discussing. This entire article is a giant straw man arguing against some made up position that if brain does not create mind the two must be completely disconnected from eachother and have no influence over each other, or that the body is incapable of dysfunction. The article just continues on and on against this position nobody has ever taken. If this is really the best we have for physicalism then creationism might honestly be a step above it intellectually.
Yes I just finished one of the main sections where he cited two entire authors repeatedly. Fantastic scholarship.
Edit: not to mention all his data shows something nobody disputes: that mind and brain are related.
And I respect that! But I am curious if there are reasons you hold this opinion.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Fair enough. This is still a good starting point, We would definitely expect the brain and mind to be connected.
So, how do we disentangle causation from correlation?
Let me see if I can find anything that might help.
If I haven't ever encountered a mind where there is no brain I need to refute theism? How did you manage to come to that conclusion?
Ha.
Of course this is a spurious correlation. Are you saying the correlation between mind and brain is spurious?
Logic and evidence would be a good start!
Well yes, if you are going to say a widely reported common human experience are all independent delusions you should have reasons to do so.
No, I am saying concluding a causation from a correlation is a bad way to go about things.
1. It is a well-sourced article.
2. Why do you assume it is "the best I can do"? Arrogant presumption much, have we?
3. You are quite mistaken about our relative standings.
You called it "The best discussion of the matter that I know of is this." Though I do not blame you if you are walking back on that, it's a huge essay arguing the brain and mind are connected.
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
Can I just state that I'm not convinced that I know how to build a waterproof case for the neural reductive position. And I'm ok with that.
I would be happy to entertain any other possibilities for the source of the mind if someone could present them.
Hey fair enough!
No.
Mine doesn't involve radios & music emanating from them.
However, you did almost present the argument that without
intact electronics, a radio can't play music. But it failed when
you concluded that all music comes from your 1 radio.
(Your radio plays only Conway Twitty & Slim Whitman.)
Consider things more generally. If you claim that
A doesn't originate from B, then one test is to
see if B can happen without A. This isn't proof,
but it's evidence, which is what you asked for.
Last edited:
Alien826
No religious beliefs
About correlation and causation...
I agree that confusing the two is probably the most dangerous fallacy (seriously!).
But, we have to know when to stop doubting. I observe that when I flip the light switch the light goes on. I conclude that the switch caused the bulb to shine. You say, that's just correlation. It could be, so I trace the wires from the switch to the bulb, and come to the same conclusion. You say that's just correlation. Having infinite patience, I follow the wires that go through the switch out of the house and all the way to the power station. Still not causation? You say there could be some other way that the bulb is getting power. OK, I enclose the bulb in a Faraday cage to exclude all radiation. The bulb still goes on. Not good enough you say.
I think that we know enough about the brain now to conclude that the overwhelming likelihood is that thought doesn't need any external causation. You don't. I'm not sure where we go from here. I know! How about you present your story of how it works and submit it to investigation along the lines of my light switch analogy? Seems only fair ...
We Never Know
No Slack
In short, I think the mind is a product of the brain.