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

[Twilight Hue]

The truth is that there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain.

I put mind in the same category as seeing is to the eye, as mind is to the brain.

 

[Koldo]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

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.

Hello there!
Speaking of the topic at hand: But we have evidence of the "news" source. What do we have to support the existence of a source for consciousness that is not the brain?

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

Irrelevant?

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

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

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

Those points only deal with reductionism.

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

The same way? How so?

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

We don't possess free will.

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

Mutually exclusive?

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.

Can you elaborate on how exactly you have reached this conclusion?

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

Do they even exist in the first place?

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

The curious part is that physicalism is not inherently atheistic.

 

[Koldo]

It's likely I'll mostly stay out of this thread, but I wanted to add in an observation.

Supposing physicalism is the One True Truth of metaphysical epistemology, it doesn't adequately address the realities of lived human experience. What I mean by that is the belief that, say, "anger" can be reduced down to "just neurons and hormones" (physical processes) simply does not reflect our actual lived experiences of being angry. This limits the utility of physicalism as a philosophical worldview - it depersonalizes lived experience too much to serve as a useful foundation for day-to-day living. It's mainly useful for the sciences or methodological naturalism. It has trouble with things like the fine arts, humanities, culture studies, relationships... because none of that reduces down in our lived experience to "just atoms and molecules."

But then you are judging a bird for it's capacity to do photosynthesis. Even though you can definitely do that, it is a bit... irrelevant?

Physicalism posits an answer/framework to the ontological status underlying everything. It doesn't address other philosophical aspects like ethics and epistemology. It is not supposed to be an all-encompassing philosophical worldview.

And more importantly, anger is not just neurons and hormones, the word 'just' simply doesn't belong in that sentence. Dimishing the importance of the material, as you have done, is something atypical to a physicalist.

 

[danieldemol]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

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.

Yeah but another TV can pick up the news, why can't other brains pick up the same signal? Why can't the one brain once the physical connection between the two hemispheres is severed pick up the one signal but it clearly becomes two conciousnesses, is a second transmitter added by God to make up for the division of the antenae into two? lol

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

If we can't rely on faith then how can we rely on faith in a transmitter that hasn't been shown to exist? What part of the brain do you claim is responsible for recieving the signal so we can study it?

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

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

*Shrugs* I'm not a physicalist so irrelevant

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

You don't doubt it (matter) though otherwise you wouldn't be wasting time typing into a material keyboard lol

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

I'm not sure exactly what your talking about here, but if it is simply like a domino preceded by the material domino of the brain which feeds back to the body through the central nervous system then it is simply another link in the chain of cause and effect which rules out free will. Otherwise if the brain is a reciever to consiousness then our actions are effected by the nature of our conciousness, and since our conciousness is not selected by us that also rules out free will.

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

I do not believe we have free will, where does it come from? What part of us is selected by us that is then able to make a choice independant of its nature?

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

Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or radiowaves or a whole host of irrelevant concepts duh

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.

Is this necessarily the case though? You have given one example, now demonstrate that it is true for all emergent things.
ETA: You can see both consiousness (your own) and a brain. Shared property in my view.

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

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

*Shrugs* I'm not a physicalist so irrelevant

 

[blü 2]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

1. The only evidence for physicalism is that doing things to the brain affects the mind.

Hardly the only evidence. Whereas there's no evidence at all ─ nothing, zip, total void ─ for your disembodied "minds" claim.

Start by noticing that if there's no brain, there's no mind ─ let alone your kind of "mind".

Then explain where "minds" come from and how they evolved.

And why there's only one per body, and how the hookup is arranged, how the "mind" finds the newborn infant ─ except for those unfortunately enough to be born with anencephaly.

And how the disembodied "mind" communicates with the physical brain, which would look to a researcher like an uncaused phenomenon, but is totally undetected.

Go on to explain why if "mind" does all the heavy lifting you need not only a brain, but a brain that's by far the most complex biological organ we know of, and in comparison to other animals, grossly more expensive in terms of its share of the body's resources to maintain.

Then further explain why these "minds" can't communicate directly with each other, but must work their way through the physical world.

And in each case the repeatable experiments that show you're right.

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

That's certainly correct. It's already done so, and no credible alternative is on the table.

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

Rubbish. Yet again you make a claim for which you have zero evidence, just dreams and wishes.

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

Nope, the eye, the ear, the senses of taste, smell and touch, are all physically described, and report to the BRAIN via their nerves. This is exactly how all mammals operate, by the way. Is it your claim that mice and gophers have "minds"?

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

What nonsense! You can test that claim by not breathing for ten minutes. You'll find matter exists quick enough.

In what sense do you say its existence can be doubted, while your totally unevidenced "mind" cannot?

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

How exactly does consciousness "affect the body" here?

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

We have free will on those occasions when we can decide without external pressures on our decision.

What we can't do is make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making mechanisms, which have been the subject of much study. We know, for example, that the brain may decide, and prepare to take action on that decision, many seconds before the conscious mind is aware of the happening.

And our decision-making is also affected by our life experiences. We have no control over the genes we get, or the experiences we encounter just by being alive.

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

There's no such immaterial something ─ well, not outside your imagination anyway.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

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

They exist as ideas in individual brains. The human brain is very much into using abstractions, generalizations, and the like. Even babies learning to talk quickly pick up the difference between "car" and "this car".

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

What has theism to do with your disembodied "mind"? Other than relying heavily on imagination, that is.

 

[Ebionite]

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

Mind and matter are connected via the heart. In Hebrew idiom the heart is the seat of consciousness as well as the seat of the emotions.
This relates to the pulse of life - a regular pulse is a evidence of a mind that is at peace, while an irregular one is associated with a mind that is in turmoil. There are esoteric connections as well which relate to how consciousness interacts with matter at the quantum level.

 

[McBell]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

ouch

 

[RestlessSoul]

The truth is that there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain.

Similarly, there is zero evidence that anything which exists can be perceived to do so, absent the mind.

 

[Fool]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

Even without a brain, the mind, or consciousness is still a physical thing. It's a force to be reckoned with

 

[Quintessence]

Physicalism posits an answer/framework to the ontological status underlying everything. It doesn't address other philosophical aspects like ethics and epistemology. It is not supposed to be an all-encompassing philosophical worldview.

And more importantly, anger is not just neurons and hormones, the word 'just' simply doesn't belong in that sentence. Dimishing the importance of the material, as you have done, is something atypical to a physicalist.

Interesting.

I wrote it that way specifically because I have often seen this language used by such folks. Reducing everything down to the physical is also often been regarded as the last word on everything by such folks as well. So either they're communicating themselves poorly (very possible, honestly) or things aren't quite as you present here (also very possible, honestly).

 

[Fool]

Mind and matter are connected via the heart. In Hebrew idiom the heart is the seat of consciousness as well as the seat of the emotions.
This relates to the pulse of life - a regular pulse is a evidence of a mind that is at peace, while an irregular one is associated with a mind that is in turmoil. There are esoteric connections as well which relate to how consciousness interacts with matter at the quantum level.

a pulse is determined by electric, hormones, and electromagnetic fields

Chapter 01: Heart-Brain Communication - HeartMath Institute

Heart-Brain Communication Traditionally, the study of communication pathways between the head and heart has been approached from a rather one-sided perspective, with scientists focusing primarily on the heart’s responses to the brain’s commands. We have learned, however, that communication...

www.heartmath.org

A new 3-D map illuminates the 'little brain' within the heart

Microscopy and genetic studies yield a comprehensive map of the nerve cells found in the heart of a rat.

www.sciencenews.org

How the Heart's Electrical System Works

The cardiac electrical system is essential to cardiac function, controlling the heart rate and the contraction of cardiac muscle. Learn more.

www.verywellhealth.com

 

[wellwisher]

Updated to highlight the empirical facts.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonus: Physicalism isn't inherently safe from the problems of some theism, therefore is not socially/practically/etc superior to theism.

Materialism is connected to space-time, where matter/energy behave as though space and time are connected and are acting together; cause and affect. Consciousness is more about where space and time are not connected. The brain provides a material matrix where a separated space and time affect can occur. This is the not exactly material and based on space-time.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves that there is more than just material in space-time.

Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice ...

Position is based on space, while velocity which is d/t differs from position, by time. The electron and photon in motion, both act like space and time are not connected, since we cannot know both speed and position at the same time like expected of connected space and time.

We can define an electron or photon with˙cause and affect experiments; matter and energy, but once they get dynamic, it does not exactly look like material cause and affect; wave and probability functions The Religious are correct in that sense, that space-time materialism is not sufficient to define consciousness. Consciousness is more like the election in motion where time and space can each act separately; omnipresent in an orbital. If we try to pin it down we lose the dynamics, if we observed the dynamics we cannot pin point it. Welcome to the quantum world of consciousness. It appears to be mediated by water; hydrogen proton.

 

[1137]

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.

There is rather blatant division between the two. For instance matter/brains take up space but consciousness doesn't, brains are accessible by others but minds are not, all matter is deterministic but mind is autonomous, matter lacks experience but consciousness has experiences, matter is not about anything but consciousness is about things, and so on.

When higher brain functions cease there is no consciousness or mind. If the two are separate then what happens to the mind when brain death occurs?

If brain and mind are connected, why would they remain connected if the brain dies? When my radio dies I no longer hear music, do you also believe my radio creates the music it plays? When the two separate there are seemingly many things that can happen, including moving on, being a ghost, reincarnating, etc.

Except that's where the evidence is pointing.

Again you mention all this evidence you seem unable or unwilling to provide. Can we see it?

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

Yeah the mind and brain are correlated, again nobody sane has denied this. Heck not even the idealists deny it, they just dont think the brain is material.

What mutually exclusive properties?

See above.

No, we can test and measure matter.

And how do you do this without relying on your consciousness?

There's no valid or good reason to accept solipsism as real or credible.

I agree. Positions like simulation theory and philosophical skepticism do not necessarily imply solipsism, neither do positions like idealism. This is a straw man.

The matter of the Cosmos was here long before any neurons existed that could take it in and ponder it.

And you know this without reliance on consciousness how? How does this prove what we see as matter is not something else? What if we were programmed into the simulation later on?

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

I am curious to see this claim supported. Can you argue "I don't exist" for us to see if this is true?

That's just not true if we fully think this one out. Like birth defects. Thats happen regardless of the mind.

Right, and how does this mean the mind will never have any impact on the body of any person?

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.

Okay? Again, how does this mean the mind will never have any impact on the body of any person?

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.

This correlation between physicalism and fideism is always interesting to me. Not only is influence not determinism, free will has been proven scientifically in things like CBT, placebos, meditation impacting the body, vetoing what the brain tells the body to do, etc.

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.

See above.

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.

This in no way addresses #9.

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

You are saying logic does not objectively exist?

 

[1137]

Hello there!
Speaking of the topic at hand: But we have evidence of the "news" source. What do we have to support the existence of a source for consciousness that is not the brain?

We have far more evidence of consciousness than either matter or the news, why would we not start there? The question is "what do we have to support consciousness reducing to the brain?" The answer is of course, "none."

Irrelevant?

It is very relevant as the only support for physicalism is "we will one day prove it is right." Many people tell me the same about the return of their savior.

Those points only deal with reductionism.

Right, they address the topic at hand...

The same way? How so?

As in cause -> effect. For instance take drugs -> get high, or a reverse instance believe you are getting better -> feel better.

We don't possess free will.

Is there a reason to believe this either?

Mutually exclusive?

Yes, as in A vs Non-A.

Can you elaborate on how exactly you have reached this conclusion?

One common argument is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, in other words consciousness is what the brain does. This is compared to how wetness emerges from water, or how running emerges from legs. Both examples actually help illustrate just how different the mind and brain are though. Water and wetness have material properties, such as they can be physically felt, they are accessible to others, and all the other things listed above. You can see legs and running, you can both feel legs and the wind created by them as they run past. These emergent properties share the properties of all other matter, including what they emerged from. This is not the case with consciousness, the properties of which contradict those of the brain it supposedly emerges from.

Do they even exist in the first place?

Of course? Are you suggesting logic is not something objective?

The curious part is that physicalism is not inherently atheistic.

That is why it was a bonus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Even without a brain, the mind, or consciousness is still a physical thing. It's a force to be reckoned with

Could you please point to a human mind that does not have a brain and label it? Cause I have to tell you, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[1137]

Yeah but another TV can pick up the news, why can't other brains pick up the same signal?

You mean like reincarnation, mediumship, hauntings, etc?

Why can't the one brain once the physical connection between the two hemispheres is severed pick up the one signal but it clearly becomes two conciousnesses, is a second transmitter added by God to make up for the division of the antenae into two? lol

Who mentioned gods? What is interesting is that this is not always the result, but the real issue: who says the self has changed just becomes it comes our weird due to damage of the receiver? Again my radio may play music wrong or not at all when broken, but does not create it. Perhpas it even is two selves being picked up now, and that is why it is so distressing and confusing.

If we can't rely on faith then how can we rely on faith in a transmitter that hasn't been shown to exist?

Idk that there is a transmitter beyond the consciousness itself. Are you questioning if your consciousness exists?

What part of the brain do you claim is responsible for recieving the signal so we can study it?

It seems to be the whole thing, and possibly more than the brain but the body as well.

*Shrugs* I'm not a physicalist so irrelevant

My bad, I thought you believed the brain creates the mind.

You don't doubt it (matter) though otherwise you wouldn't be wasting time typing into a material keyboard lol

Well I do believe matter exists, I am not an idealist. This doesn't mean I can be certain of it in some way. I definitely embrace skepticism and while I reject things like simulation theory etc. I can sure see why they are important questions to ask. It is totally possible this engagement is an illusion, or that it is all happening in some universal idealist mind, I just respect epistemology. But it is not possible that "I don't exist," whatever the nature of the reality I exist in.

I'm not sure exactly what your talking about here, but if it is simply like a domino preceded by the material domino of the brain which feeds back to the body through the central nervous system then it is simply another link in the chain of cause and effect which rules out free will. Otherwise if the brain is a reciever to consiousness then our actions are effected by the nature of our conciousness, and since our conciousness is not selected by us that also rules out free will.

What? We do make the conscious selection, that is free will.

I do not believe we have free will, where does it come from? What part of us is selected by us that is then able to make a choice independant of its nature?

The consciousness is what selects it. What else would?

Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or radiowaves or a whole host of irrelevant concepts duh

You don't think evolution is relevant to how brains and minds relate? On top of the "lols" and "duhs" I think we are done here. I think if physicalists could get some logic or evidence for their faith you wouldn't need to troll people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is interesting is that this is not always the result, but the real issue: who says the self has changed just becomes it comes our weird due to damage of the receiver? Again my radio may play music wrong or not at all when broken, but does not create it. Perhpas it even is two selves being picked up now, and that is why it is so distressing and confusing.

It ALWAYS happens that when the corpus calloseum is cut, the one self is divided into two selves. You can even have one hemisphere that believes in God and the other hemisphere is an atheist.

 

[1137]

Hardly the only evidence.

Well hopefully you will be the first in the thread to show this evidence.

Whereas there's no evidence at all ─ nothing, zip, total void ─ for your disembodied "minds" claim.

And hopefully you will also address the evidence provided below!

Start by noticing that if there's no brain, there's no mind ─ let alone your kind of "mind".

You are asking me to presuppose things like gods, spirits, etc. are not real. I will need reason to do this.

Then explain where "minds" come from and how they evolved.

Minds simply exist, they don't come from anywhere any more than matter came from somewhere. What do you mean "how they evolved?"

And why there's only one per body,

You should definitely look into like split brain patients, multiple personalities, DID, etc.

and how the hookup is arranged, how the "mind" finds the newborn infant ─ except for those unfortunately enough to be born with anencephaly.

Easy, the brain appears to be a receiver. It would be a far greater task to explain how the brain gives rise to something completed contradictory in nature to it.

And how the disembodied "mind" communicates with the physical brain, which would look to a researcher like an uncaused phenomenon, but is totally undetected.

Why would it look that way? We have decades of research into minds that do not look like uncaused phenomenon. I think the whole idea is a straw man, it's like when people try to say free will would require uncaused events.

Go on to explain why if "mind" does all the heavy lifting you need not only a brain, but a brain that's by far the most complex biological organ we know of, and in comparison to other animals, grossly more expensive in terms of its share of the body's resources to maintain.

What do you mean the mind does heavy lifting? The mind and brain are two real things interacting and working together.

Then further explain why these "minds" can't communicate directly with each other, but must work their way through the physical world.

They only cannot if you presuppose things like gods etc do not exist like mentioned above. Why should we presuppose this?

That's certainly correct. It's already done so, and no credible alternative is on the table.

So uh... why can not one of you show this evidence?

Rubbish. Yet again you make a claim for which you have zero evidence, just dreams and wishes.

I mean... others can access brains but not your mind, brains take up space but minds dont, all matter is deterministic but brains are autonomous...

Nope, the eye, the ear, the senses of taste, smell and touch, are all physically described, and report to the BRAIN via their nerves. This is exactly how all mammals operate, by the way. Is it your claim that mice and gophers have "minds"?

So how does a brain lacking consciousness process this data?

What nonsense! You can test that claim by not breathing for ten minutes. You'll find matter exists quick enough.

I definitely agree matter exists, I am just also honest enough to admit it is not as certain as consciousness. You may be interested in the brain in a vat experiment, simulation theory, or philosophical skepticism.

In what sense do you say its existence can be doubted, while your totally unevidenced "mind" cannot?

As in this could all be a hallucination, but "I exist" cannot be false.

How exactly does consciousness "affect the body" here?

Such as belief in a placebo causing improvement, monks raising their temp to make freezing towels steam via mediation, or the ability to veto a signal from brain to body.

We have free will on those occasions when we can decide without external pressures on our decision.

How can we do this if we are just deterministic processes?

What we can't do is make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making mechanisms, which have been the subject of much study. We know, for example, that the brain may decide, and prepare to take action on that decision, many seconds before the conscious mind is aware of the happening.

I absolutely love when you guys cite this but ignore the follow-up where it was shown we can veto that stimulus. It sums up physicalism nicely.

And our decision-making is also affected by our life experiences. We have no control over the genes we get, or the experiences we encounter just by being alive.

Of course, who denies that?

There's no such immaterial something ─ well, not outside your imagination anyway.

Then can you explain away the immaterial properties of consciousness?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

How does X emerge from Y if X and Y have mutually exclusive properties?

They exist as ideas in individual brains. The human brain is very much into using abstractions, generalizations, and the like. Even babies learning to talk quickly pick up the difference between "car" and "this car".

I find this fascinating, all this work and you admit to not even believing logic is a valid, objective thing.

 

[1137]

Mind and matter are connected via the heart. In Hebrew idiom the heart is the seat of consciousness as well as the seat of the emotions.
This relates to the pulse of life - a regular pulse is a evidence of a mind that is at peace, while an irregular one is associated with a mind that is in turmoil. There are esoteric connections as well which relate to how consciousness interacts with matter at the quantum level.

That is really interesting because the heart was also the seat of the soul in Egypt.

 

[1137]

ouch

You are saying it is not an empirical fact, for instance, that placebos can have a positive benefit, or that something taking up space and something not taking up space are empirically different? Ouch indeed!