The faith that the brain is the source of mind doesn't hold up

[IndigoChild5559]

Precisely, with physicalism being the latter.

I am not convinced of physicalism. Like I said, I am an agnostic on the brain/mind issue. I'm simply remarking that no evidence exists that shows the human mind can exist apart from the brain.

 

[Quintessence]

Well of course. Anyone can have whatever opinion they want, for whatever reasons they wish. But not all opinions are created equal. Some are based on sound evidence, and others are not.

Sure, some opinions are based on evidence that agrees with one's pre-conceived notions of what evidence is, and others don't. Our pre-conceived notions bias what evidence we do and don't listen to. Whether or not some human wants to then apply critical thinking to challenge and get outside of their own pre-conceived biases is a matter of preference, I suppose. There's something to be said for just leaving such matters alone when one's worldview is functioning more than well enough for one's life and living.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sure, some opinions are based on evidence that agrees with one's pre-conceived notions of what evidence is, and others don't. Our pre-conceived notions bias what evidence we do and don't listen to. Whether or not some human wants to then apply critical thinking to challenge and get outside of their own pre-conceived biases is a matter of preference, I suppose. There's something to be said for just leaving such matters alone when one's worldview is functioning more than well enough for one's life and living.

Agreeing with me is not a standard to judge an opinion by. Nor is agreeing with you. Again, the point here is evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

Right? This is so common now. People will say evidence is insufficient, then when pressed cannot even give an objective standard to meet. It's literally "what agrees with my view is sufficient."

Honestly? That's fair enough - we all more or less do that. Our perspectives are built on our lived experiences and our different lives produce different products and conclusions. If anything it would be downright bizarre if humans had agreement on things. I can speculate that a hive mind species would have such a result - a sort of super-organism that shares all of its collective experiences - but that is not what humans are. Although, there are mystics that tell tales of experiencing collective wellsprings of knowledge. Probably don't want to go there in this thread.

In any case, humans have different viewpoints and perspectives that all get little bits of this beautiful wonderful world we live in... but never the whole story. Sharing all the little bits is awesome, so I suppose it makes me a bit sad when folks just dismiss each other's tales. That too, though, is inevitable. Only got so much time and attention in this life. Goodness knows I don't pay a lick of attention to sports culture, for example.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Right? This is so common now. People will say evidence is insufficient, then when pressed cannot even give an objective standard to meet. It's literally "what agrees with my view is sufficient."

Oh I've been perfectly clear and precise. I gave two forms of evidence that are acceptable. 1. an argument that does not violate the rules of logic and 2. evidence gained from scientific method.

Notice that NOWHERE in that statement do I mention agreeing with me as a standard.

 

[1137]

Honestly? That's fair enough - we all more or less do that. Our perspectives are built on our lived experiences and our different lives produce different products and conclusions. If anything it would be downright bizarre if humans had agreement on things. I can speculate that a hive mind species would have such a result - a sort of super-organism that shares all of its collective experiences - but that is not what humans are. Although, there are mystics that tell tales of experiencing collective wellsprings of knowledge. Probably don't want to go there in this thread.

In any case, humans have different viewpoints and perspectives that all get little bits of this beautiful wonderful world we live in... but never the whole story. Sharing all the little bits is awesome, so I suppose it makes me a bit sad when folks just dismiss each other's tales. That too, though, is inevitable. Only got so much time and attention in this life. Goodness knows I don't pay a lick of attention to sports culture, for example.

Oh we definitely all do it, I'm just not sure we're all equally self aware of the matter haha. Like those who are sure they have no faith of any kind

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense to me.

You aren't alone in that. It's laughable how people want to bend and change what counts as scientific, objective and empirical evidence and then accuse you of doing that for acknowledging metaphysical claims don't belong in that realm and pointing out what the concrete evidence has shown us.

 

[1137]

You aren't alone in that. It's laughable how people want to bend and change what counts as scientific, objective and empirical evidence and then accuse you of doing that for acknowledging metaphysical claims don't belong in that realm and pointing out what the concrete evidence has shown us.

So let's see this evidence. It's strange to me how there's this obvious evidence only fools deny, and yet not one person can provide it. Suspicious even.

 

[1137]

I am not convinced of physicalism. Like I said, I am an agnostic on the brain/mind issue. I'm simply remarking that no evidence exists that shows the human mind can exist apart from the brain.

So I provide an OP with evidence, you ignore it, and this means there is no evidence? Nah.

Oh I've been perfectly clear and precise. I gave two forms of evidence that are acceptable. 1. an argument that does not violate the rules of logic and 2. evidence gains from scientific method.

Notice that NOWHERE in that statement do I mention agreeing with me as a standard.

Perfect! I met both in the OP, you won't address it. Where does this leave us?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

dup

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So I provide an OP with evidence, you ignore it, and this means there is no evidence? Nah.

Perfect! I met both in the OP, you won't address it. Where does this leave us?

I read a rather long post that gave a list of reasons. But these reasons do not meet the standard for evidence. If you disagree, then let's hear it. Why don't you pick just ONE argument or evidence, the one you think is the very best one, and we can discuss it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So let's see this evidence. It's strange to me how there's this obvious evidence only fools deny, and yet not one person can provide it. Suspicious even.

It's only fools who insist something has to be there, must be there there is zero objective evidence that can be, communicated, observed and measured by another.
There is no evidence the brain and mind are separate, and we even know that when someone is brain that the person is gone and no more with only an automated husk remaining.

 

[1137]

I read a rather long post that gave a list of reasons. But these reasons do not meet the standard for evidence. If you disagree, then let's hear it. Why don't you pick just ONE argument or evidence, the one you think is the very best one, and we can discuss it.

I went back and highlighted the empirical facts to help you out. Address it in your next response please as I don't do dishonest debates.

It's only fools who insist something has to be there, must be there there is zero objective evidence that can be, communicated, observed and measured by another.
There is no evidence the brain and mind are separate, and we even know that when someone is brain that the person is gone and no more with only an automated husk remaining.

So refute the 10 problems with physicalism provided, or alternatively provide evidence and argument for physicalism. Simply repeating "but please presuppose it is true" is not sufficient by any objective standard.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I went back and highlighted the empirical facts to help you out. Address it in your next response please as I don't do dishonest debates.

I asked you to pick out one point, the very best argument you had. If you don't care to do that, its fine. I can move on. But I won't be replying to your whole long list of points, which contain far too many problems. It's just too expansive, and would take way more effort from me to show you all your errors than it is worth. Pick ONE POINT, and we can discuss.

 

[1137]

I asked you to pick out one point, the very best argument you had. If you don't care to do that, its fine. I can move on. But I won't be replying to your whole long list of points, which contain far too many problems. It's just too expansive, and would take way more effort from me to show you all your errors than it is worth. Pick ONE POINT, and we can discuss.

No worries, I appreciate you at least somewhat acknowledging you cannot address these objections. My only suggestion would be, if the case against your belief is so big you can't even address it, maybe reconsider.

 

[Audie]

I asked you to pick out one point, the very best argument you had. If you don't care to do that, its fine. I can move on. But I won't be replying to your whole long list of points, which contain far too many problems. It's just too expansive, and would take way more effort from me to show you all your errors than it is worth. Pick ONE POINT, and we can discuss.

But a gish is so much mightier.
I expect you see why I stood clear
of this one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No worries, I appreciate you at least somewhat acknowledging you cannot address these objections. My only suggestion would be, if the case against your belief is so big you can't even address it, maybe reconsider.

Cannot? No. Will not. I do these forums for fun. I like to keep posts short. I don't make a big emotional investment. I try to make my replies succinct, and I expect succinctness from others. Again, if you would like to discuss, I'm fine with it. But simply pick ONE point, the point you believe is your best point, so that we can focus in. If you aren't into that, don't worry. No harm, no foul.

 

[1137]

Cannot? No. Will not. I do these forums for fun. I like to keep posts short. I don't make a big emotional investment. I try to make my replies succinct, and I expect succinctness from others. Again, if you would like to discuss, I'm fine with it. But simply pick ONE point, the point you believe is your best point, so that we can focus in. If you aren't into that, don't worry. No harm, no foul.

It is a comprehensive thing. Tbh if you had no interest in addressing the OP it may have been better just to avoid it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. The only evidence for physicalism is that doing things to the brain affects the mind. This is expected by everyone though, dualists for instance don't say the two aren't connected, it isn't exclusive to physicalism. It also forgets that correlation isn't causation. And the conclusion doesn't even follow, for instance if I break my TV and can't watch the news anymore, my TV still doesn't create the news.

If your leg gets broken, nothing was done to the brain directly but the mind (and brain) are still impacted alike. We can find no division or distinction between the two. When higher brain functions cease there is no consciousness or mind. If the two are separate then what happens to the mind whem braindeath occurs?

2. We cannot rely on a faith that one day science will show the brain creates the mind.

Except that's where the evidence is pointing. In fact it's already there. Such as, we know things like childhood abuse and operationt conditioning do effect the brain, and these effects, such as a malformed prefrontal cortex manifesting as symptoms we can see in how the "mind" takes in the world nd processes it

3. Matter and minds have mutually exclusive properties and so cannot be reduced to each other.

What mutually exclusive properties?

4. Matter is only known through mind so we cannot reduce mind to matter.

No, we can test and measure matter. There's no valid or good reason to accept solipsism as real or credible. The matter of the Cosmos was here long before any neurons existed that could take it in and ponder it.

5. The existence of consciousness is undoubtable but matter's existence can be doubted, so the first cannot reduce to the second.

Except consciousness can be doubted, with many claiminy it's nothing more than an illusion.

6. Consciousness also affects the body the same way the body affects consciousness.

That's just not true if we fully think this one out. Like birth defects. Thats happen regardless of the mind.
We also call it denial when someone maintains hope in face of certain doom, such as refusing to accept a terminal diagnosis that goes on to kill regardless what the mind thought of it.

7. If we were deterministic mechanical processes we could not have the free will we possess.

Free will has never been shown to exist, amd things like upbringing amd genetic predispositions make the belief in it just as absurd as fairies and astrology.

8. Evolution doesn't explain how something with properties mutually exclusive to matter can exist.

What mutually exclusive properties? It seems more like you're trying to take some pages fron the Young Earth Creationist playbook by trying to create confusion where none exist.

9. Emergence doesn't explain the relationship between mind and matter because emergent things share properties of what they emerged from. For instance you can both see legs and "running," feel a leg and feel the air as they run by you.

That doesn't mean we have some voodoo hocus pocus aether stuff going on. It just means we have an imagination that lets us envision things outside of our own perspective.

10. Physicalism does not account for the existence of logical or mathematical laws as they are immaterial.

That's just a silly stretch and logical, mathematical forumula is how we objectively describe the world and prove it exists at all.

 

[1137]

Agree or disagree i appreciate the effort and will get back to this asap! (Ie not on a phone.)