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?

[F1fan]

I’m suggesting that the mind can influence the brain as much as the brain can influence the mind, and that it’s therefore far from clear that one is merely a product of the other.

You’ve heard the expression, ‘Mind over matter’, I presume? Yet it appears that the position of the materialists on this thread (many of them anyway) is that everything in the mind is subordinate to and reducible to physical activity in the brain. I don’t believe that; nor do I believe, as the idealist does, that there is no mind-independent reality - that reality is literally all in the mind. Both positions are equally coherent, and neither have been falsified, but they feel intuitively wrong to me. I don’t dismiss either, but I am unconvinced.

Who cares that you disagree. Notice you don't explain what is different about the mind being a result of brains functioning than what materialists explain. What does the mind do that ISN'T physical activity of brains?

Both are equally extreme positions, but try to get the naïve materialist to recognise quite how radical his own position is, or to support it by reasoned argument.

It's not at all radical to say that what can be known to exist is material. Why? because that is all we can determine is real, and there is no way for humans (like yourself) to detct or conclude that there is anything non-material that exists. The radical stance is theists who assert that there's more than matwerial. Where? How do you know? Just interpreting old books with outlandish stories that can't be taken literally? You radical believers make fantastic claims, but offer not a shred of evidence.

So far, the only argument I’ve seen advanced by materialists on this thread amounts to “there is a clear link between brain and mind, therefore the latter is a product of the former”. This does not logically follow, the reasoning is unsound.

Why not? It's what we observe. What evidenc do you have to be skepical? Nothing but an obsolete tradition of belief.

Can you admit it is possible that the only reason you reject materialism is due to your religioius fervor (which is your mind at work, ironically)?

 

[wellwisher]

This is, only, in your dreams. Which will also cease when you brain vanishes.

So, act like those mysterious well educated and brilliant atheists, however they are and prove it. It should not be difficult, if it can be proven.

And there is nothing, with not even the most negligible shred of evidence, that transcend physics. Unless you can show it to me.


Moses writing?




I wonder what that same mystic would think when his mind has been influenced by chemicals. Like 20 shots of vodka. Would it be still so smart? I doubt it. It can only get smarter .

And what about Einstein? Did you put it there hoping to scare us? What did he say about disembodied minds, exactly?

I think you are desperate, and like all desperate (as they should be) dualists, you are making things up.

Ciao

- viole

We live in space-time where space and time are connected and work together. Say, for the sake of argument, space and time were not connected, but could act as two independent variables? This would create affects that appear to be outside the laws of physics that are based on space-time. For example, if you could move in space apart from time, you could become omnipresent. This is not possible where space and time are connected as space-time, but it is logical, if space was not connected to time.

Independent space and time, was unintentionally proven by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which demonstrated that time and space were not acting, connected, at the quantum level. He showed that we cannot know both position and speed at the same time. It was like space and time were disconnected.

If you look at the human imagination, we can imagine things that are not possible in space-time. I can imagine flying to the sun, in one second, burrowing to the core, to get a nice nuke tan. This is not possible in space-time, since I will break so many rules based on various material space-time constraints. However, if space and time were not connected, anything goes. This is a neural demonstration of a similar affect.

It appear the brain is a based on a unique space-time matrix; organics, that allows access to where space and time are not connected; water. This is where consciousness dwells. This allows consciousness to become omnipresent within the brain. We can speed up the future, allowing us to plan for a vacation in space-time, for next year.

It appears this divided space and time affect occurs in the water, which is is able to move information via hydrogen protons. Hydrogen protons of water show an ability to quantum tunnel in pairs. Picture if we had an omni-present affect of many small energy sources at water/organic interfaces, that are not arranged as space-time, allowing these to come to a focus; activation energy for specific quantum tunneling; appear over there.

We will see ions moving about, but the hydrogen proton is the fastest thing in space-time water.

 

[Alien826]

So can we have evidence to support the claim of Physicalism already please???????

Didn't I just say you were not likely to get any more evidence than you have already been given? Why keep asking? You have your answer.

 

[Alien826]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that the brain doesn't produce mental states. That's what it does. The question is, does the brain create the mind? What is this "mind"? How do I know when and where it is present?

Could it be the totality of the mental states you refer to? It doesn't seem to be an unreasonable assumption given the near infinite complexity of the brain.

 

[Alien826]

I’m suggesting that the mind can influence the brain as much as the brain can influence the mind, and that it’s therefore far from clear that one is merely a product of the other.

You’ve heard the expression, ‘Mind over matter’, I presume? Yet it appears that the position of the materialists on this thread (many of them anyway) is that everything in the mind is subordinate to and reducible to physical activity in the brain. I don’t believe that; nor do I believe, as the idealist does, that there is no mind-independent reality - that reality is literally all in the mind. Both positions are equally coherent, and neither have been falsified, but they feel intuitively wrong to me. I don’t dismiss either, but I am unconvinced.

Both are equally extreme positions, but try to get the naïve materialist to recognise quite how radical his own position is, or to support it by reasoned argument. So far, the only argument I’ve seen advanced by materialists on this thread amounts to “there is a clear link between brain and mind, therefore the latter is a product of the former”. This does not logically follow, the reasoning is unsound.

Don't you think though, that absent convincing evidence for this mind/brain separation the logical position is to assume there is none? I don't think the arguments that have been presented for the impossibility (or unlikelihood) of a purely physical explanation stand up. But that's just me. Unfortunately, the brain is so complex in both it's structure and behavior that we have a lot of wiggle room for various contrary opinions to inhabit. So why not do what we do with so many areas at the fringes of our knowledge, that is to assume the most likely explanation and add a touch of "don't know" to the mix?

 

[1137]

That's why people have been describing evidence to support their belief that minds depend on a physical substrate to exist.

If the best they can do is provide evidence for an entirely different conclusion then i think their position is void. It's like if you asked for evidence of creationism, and the creationist gave evidence the earth isn't flat, then demanded you accept creationism. Do you comprehend why showing earth isnt flat and creationism are two totally different things?

It isn't clear to me why you don't consider the mind-body connection to be evidence of a causal connection.

this is a straw man, i accept the two impact each other and have repeatedly.

You keep calling it a "correlation", as if we shouldn't believe it to be a causally connected correlation. Why not? That would seem to be the simplest explanation.

I mean you and are i casually connected here, do we create each other?

You asked three questions and said "etc." People have been addressing these questions, even the "etc." Still, you dismiss everything.

Right because it doesn't address the questions.

A prima facie case was made for a causal connection, that's why. The burden of proof passes over to you. Why assume otherwise? You can't answer that, because you "...don't believe in such a thing." We can all draw conclusions from your inability to back up your skepticism.

same straw man. The question isn't if brain can have an impact on mind, but if it creates it. I can't keep wasting my time on fallacies.

 

[1137]

They are evidence of ehat you asked for, changing goalposts is not an option

I did not ask for evidence mind and brain are connect.

 

[1137]

They aren't just "connected". They are one and the same.

Then give some evidence for this lol.

There's no need to refute things that are asserted without evidence.
There is nothing to refute.

Perfect, then the brain does not create the mind. #thread

 

[1137]

Once the brain dies, there is absolutely no indication the mind is still there.


But then, the fact that you purposely avoid at all cost addressing this fact (in at least TWO separate threads) reveals you are not interested in honest discussion.

I've addressed this over and over by asking for refutations of theism and the paranormal to support your claim.

 

[1137]

Didn't I just say you were not likely to get any more evidence than you have already been given? Why keep asking? You have your answer.

Fair enough.

We have our answer: there is no evidence the mind is created by the brain, only that the two are connected. Thanks all!

 

[dybmh]

Could it be the totality of the mental states you refer to? It doesn't seem to be an unreasonable assumption given the near infinite complexity of the brain.

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.

 

[Link]

Fair enough.

We have our answer: there is no evidence the mind is created by the brain, only that the two are connected. Thanks all!

Even Atheist philosophers all admit you can't prove material world exists.

 

[dybmh]

Not to me. I believe all of that to be the case--that simple physical interactions give rise to more complex emergent physical patterns that themselves give rise to more complex emergent physical patterns.

And from here, I'm thinking, perhaps, a plausible theory for @1137 's self described past life experience and a "mind" which predates the brain which is currently in the skull can be developed.

Thank you,

 

[Twilight Hue]

The brain is encased in complete darkness.

It can not on its own, see ,hear, taste, smell, or touch by itself.

That requires other living 'thinking' organisms to relay that information from the outside.

The mind is enabled and coordinates that information, making the mind not singular, but rather plural minds acting as one.

 

[McBell]

I've addressed this over and over by asking for refutations of theism and the paranormal to support your claim.

What does theism and the paranormal have to do with the fact that once the brain is dead, there is no more mind?

 

[1137]

What does theism and the paranormal have to do with the fact that once the brain is dead, there is no more mind?

The existence of gods, ghosts, spirits, etc contest this

 

[McBell]

The existence of gods, ghosts, spirits, etc contest this

bold empty claim

 

[ChristineM]

I did not ask for evidence mind and brain are connect.

What you asked for, and i quite was ..

if you have faith the brain creates the mind, and that mind depends on brain, can we please see your logic and evidence?​

Which is precisely what I, and others, have provided. Sorry you don't like it so are trying to weasel out of it.

 

[1137]

bold empty claim

The bold empty claim is that these common human experiences are independent delusions.

 

[1137]

What you asked for, and i quite was ..

if you have faith the brain creates the mind, and that mind depends on brain, can we please see your logic and evidence?​

Which is precisely what I, and others, have provided. Sorry you don't like it so are trying to weasel out of it.

I honestly respect the audacity to directly quote me while holding to your straw man. As you clearly have read, I asked for evidence mind is created by and depends on brain. I did not ask for evidence mind and brain are connected or influence each other, which is all the evidence provided thus far has supported. The only one trying to "weasel" out of anything is you. You know you cannot provide evidence brain CREATES mind, or you would have.