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?

[ChristineM]

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.

Just admit you are beaten

I have, as have others

And despite being asked you have not provided evidence otherwise, but of course most people did not expect any

 

[McBell]

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

So you have no intention of supporting your claim?

 

[1137]

Just admit you are beaten

I cannot lie simply to make you feel better about your position. If you ever do come up with evidence brain creates mind, nit just that they are connected and influence each other, please feel free to come back.

I have, as have others

And despite being asked you have not provided evidence otherwise, but of course most people did not expect any

Feel free to start a thread on it and tag me in it, but I won't let you shift the burden of proof off physicalism in this thread, apologies again.

 

[1137]

So you have no intention of supporting your claim?

Asking for evidence of physicalism isn't a claim. Refusing to let you shift the burden of proof isn't a claim. As I said to another, feel free to start a thread discussing the topic and tag me, but I won't follow the red herring here. If you've no evidence to provide to the claims being discussed, there's nothing more to discuss.

 

[ChristineM]

I cannot lie simply to make you feel better about your position. If you ever do come up with evidence brain creates mind, nit just that they are connected and influence each other, please feel free to come back.

Feel free to start a thread on it and tag me in it, but I won't let you shift the burden of proof off physicalism in this thread, apologies again.

There is no point in banging my head against a brick wall, im done with this pathetic stupidity

 

[1137]

There is no point in banging my head against a brick wall, im done with this pathetic stupidity

As I said feel free to come back if you obtain evidence, and let me know about that thread!

 

[ChristineM]

As I said feel free to come back if you obtain evidence, and let me know about that thread!

Methinks thow doth protest too much

 

[1137]

Methinks thow doth protest too much

Then start the thread and challenge my faith like I have challenged yours.

 

[ChristineM]

Then start the thread and challenge my faith like I have challenged yours.

You have challenged nothing, i have no faith in your silly ideas, what i have is knowledge of where the source of the mind is but feel free to insult however much boosts your ego.

 

[Copernicus]

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?

What I have trouble comprehending is that you have no idea what a false analogy fallacy is. If you are going to employ that tactic, you should put more effort into constructing a less goofy one. Here's a better analogy. You keep flipping a light switch. A light goes on when you flip it up. The light goes off when you flip it down. You tell someone that you see a causal connection between flipping the switch and the light going on and off. That person disagrees and says it's just correlation, not causation, and says you have no evidence for causation.

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.

Huh? Are you saying that you do "consider the mind-body connection to be evidence of a causal connection"???? It's possible that you don't really understand what a straw man fallacy is. It's attributing a position to someone that they don't actually hold, but you now seem to be saying that you do agree that it is evidence of a causal connection.

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?

I said "causally", not "casually", in case you misread me. Let me define causality here: A sequential relationship between two events, an antecedent and a consequent, in which the antecedent must occur for the consequent to occur. The implication is that the antecedent event causes the consequent to come into existence. That is the sense of "creation" implicit in causality, not that an entity involved in the antecedent event somehow "creates" an entity in the consequent event. Your posts (antecedent events) cause my responses (consequent events) and vice versa. That doesn't imply that we create each other.

My position is that physical brain activity (antecedent events) causes mental processes (consequent events). You've already accepted that a sequential correlation exists, but not that it is causal in nature. You've been asked to explain what you think could explain the correlation other than that causal connection. You have declined to do that, yet you insist there could be some other explanation.

We have that light switch seeming to control the light going on and off, but you won't accept the explanation that there is a causal connection. Instead, you keep demanding more evidence of causality. There could be something else going on to explain the correlation--maybe some kind of light-controlling spirit playing tricks on us?

 

[1137]

You have challenged nothing, i have no faith in your silly ideas, what i have is knowledge of where the source of the mind is but feel free to insult however much boosts your ego.

How did you obtain knowledge of something without evidence?

 

[1137]

What I have trouble comprehending is that you have no idea what a false analogy fallacy is. If you are going to employ that tactic, you should put more effort into constructing a less goofy one. Here's a better analogy. You keep flipping a light switch. A light goes on when you flip it up. The light goes off when you flip it down. You tell someone that you see a causal connection between flipping the switch and the light going on and off. That person disagrees and says it's just correlation, not causation, and says you have no evidence for causation.

I think this here is the false analogy, for it presupposes physicalism from the getgo. I disagree when we flip off the brain consciousness disappears.

Huh? Are you saying that you do "consider the mind-body connection to be evidence of a causal connection"???? It's possible that you don't really understand what a straw man fallacy is. It's attributing a position to someone that they don't actually hold, but you now seem to be saying that you do agree that it is evidence of a causal connection.

I have never once suggested there is no connection or mind/brain don't impact each other, which is why your argument is a straw man.

I said "causally", not "casually", in case you misread me. Let me define causality here: A sequential relationship between two events, an antecedent and a consequent, in which the antecedent must occur for the consequent to occur.

Typo sorry

The implication is that the antecedent event causes the consequent to come into existence.

I think X and Y can impact each other without one causing the other to exist.

That is the sense of "creation" implicit in causality, not that an entity involved in the antecedent event somehow "creates" an entity in the consequent event. Your posts (antecedent events) cause my responses (consequent events) and vice versa. That doesn't imply that we create each other.

Exactly...

My position is that physical brain activity (antecedent events) causes mental processes (consequent events).

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've already accepted that a sequential correlation exists, but not that it is causal in nature. You've been asked to explain what you think could explain the correlation other than that causal connection. You have declined to do that, yet you insist there could be some other explanation.

I think I have clarified now. X and Y can interact without one causing the other to exist.

We have that light switch seeming to control the light going on and off, but you won't accept the explanation that there is a causal connection. Instead, you keep demanding more evidence of causality. There could be something else going on to explain the correlation--maybe some kind of light-controlling spirit playing tricks on us?

See above.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

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.

 

[ChristineM]

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

Sure your eyes observe and your brain processes, the thing is they can be indipendenty observed measured, weighed, touched photographed, . The key being indipendenty.

Now prove it doesn't happen

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure your eyes observe and your brain processes, the thing is they can be indipendenty observed measured, weighed, touched photographed, . The key being indipendenty.

Now prove it doesn't happen

Your eyes and brain are observed independently of what, and by whom? Such a process still depends on the consciousness of an observer. And in what sense is the consciousness of this other observer independent of your own? Consciousness, in this case the collective consciousness of more than one subjective observer, is still the arena in which the process unfolds. The whole thing happens in the mind, and it’s our capacity for conscious experience which makes learning about the brain possible in the first place.

 

[McBell]

Asking for evidence of physicalism isn't a claim. Refusing to let you shift the burden of proof isn't a claim. As I said to another, feel free to start a thread discussing the topic and tag me, but I won't follow the red herring here. If you've no evidence to provide to the claims being discussed, there's nothing more to discuss.

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.

 

[McBell]

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

 

[F1fan]

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.

He also claimed that consciousness is received by brains, not a property and state of living brains. I asked for evidence of consciousness existing outside of any living brains and the response was ghosts, spirits, etc., but ignored that these are not known to exist, nor have consciousness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said feel free to come back if you obtain evidence, and let me know about that thread!

I don't think that you understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to learn?

 

[1137]

Sure your eyes observe and your brain processes, the thing is they can be indipendenty observed measured, weighed, touched photographed, . The key being indipendenty.

Now prove it doesn't happen

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