What is your best evidence for materialism?
That's a discussion all on its own. You can probably tell I'm long winded, so we can hold that discussion at a later time. Sorry to refuse answering, I just really want to keep inside the 12000 character limit. lol. I stated that I'm a materialist just to clarify where I'm coming from.
The problem with that is; all the physical objects within the universe, or STEM (space, time, energy, mass), began to exist. So you can only trace each representation back so far until there is nothing there for anything to be represented. Yet, there needs to be an explanation of STEM’s origins, and you cannot logically provide an explanation of STEM’s origins by looking within STEM.
An external explanation is needed…and not only is it needed, but it is absolutely, positively necessary.
Hmm, maybe I didn't make myself clear. Representation is not an *inherent* property, its an *assigned* property. Without something to assign representation, there is no representation. In other words, a speck of sand in another galaxy does not possess the representation quality because nobody has given it that quality, but the sun possesses the quality 'evil harbringer of waking doom' because I assigned it that. My point behind this paragraph was to establish the foundation for self representation. Its actually really easy to see god in this model, but that is as problematic as using the copenhagen interpretation as a concept of god.
You can read more about self representation here:
Self-Representational Theories of Consciousness - Bibliography - PhilPapers
[Mind states are the activation structure of a collection of neurons is] not necessarily true. I don’t know exactly how the mind correlates with the brain, and I don’t think anyone does…HOWEVER, it is clear that they are not the same thing.
When you are sad, your neurons aren’t sad. When you are angry, your neurons aren’t angry. When you are happy, your neurons aren’t happy. When you think of an apple, your neurons aren’t thinking about the apple, nor are your neurons THE apple that you are thinking of.
I agree they're not the same thing. The point is that mind states arise from the structure of activation of the brain. The brain provides structure to the mind states, and the mind is comprised of those mindstates.
When your sad, your neurons aren't sad, but the mindstate arising from the activity of your neurons is representative of sadness. We experience this sadness because the mindstates are self-representative.
Please clarify [that these mind states must be self representative because if an external thing such as a different brain region or a god were to assign representation to these mindstates, then you end up in the realm of infinite regression, aka the humunculus fallacy.]
...Please clarify what you mean. Because from the looks of things, it is a non sequitur.
The humunculus fallacy is an argument specific to cognitive science. The premise is that some qualities of thought cannot be the product of things external to the phenomenon being studied. IE, if the awareness component of thought is the product of a brain region dedicated to awareness (the humunculus), then that brain region requires a region within it dedicated to being aware of what the preceding region needs to be aware of (the humunculus's humunculus), ad infinitum. This applies to representation as well.
Why are you under the impression that the mind states of that god would also have to have something external to itself to assign their representative qualities?
Because if God is possessing of a mind, and his mind is capable of self representation, then why is it that another thing possessing of a mind (humans) cannot possess self representation?
The critical question: Why would God be capable of self representation and humans not?
Since the neurons began to exist (along with the rest of STEM), and given the fact that a case can/has been made that a mind was required to bring STEM into existence, then it logically follows that neurons was not needed for the mind which created neurons (and STEM) to exist.
This argument assumes the existence of God and I would disagree that its been proven that a mind is required to create the universe. As I stated previously, the entirety of our discussion has shifted such that it has no bearing on why I'm an atheist *except* for the question of if the mind requires an external thing (god, soul, etc).
If you're trying to make an argument from inherited properties, IE, a thing can only possess the properties of the thing it originates from, then I had previously provided an example to show this isn't so: Iron possesses properties hydrogen does not, yet it originates from hydrogen. Other examples: Fermions making atoms, quarks making fermions, atoms making molecules.
Since you touched on the soul being the carrier of the mind, let me ask why the properties of the mind such as memory, personality, cognitive function etc., can be manipulated via brain damage?
When thinking about the origin of the universe one of the things I considered is if logic itself is bound to our universe. Luckily more intelligent people than I have made proofs showing that logic is unbound and consistent outside our universe as well. In my thread explaining my beliefs about the universe's creation, I largely just regurgitate one of those proofs and add some stuff to counter criticisms I and others had made in the past.
