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

[IndigoChild5559]

Because instead of one receiver you now have two... 1+1=2.

And how would that happen, that suddenly there are two "receivers" instead of one? You are the one claiming that the mind is not the brain.

 

[1137]

I dont believe you have demonstrated those things actually happen yet.

I would ask why but I forsee a preupposed answer.

I would say that picking up of two selves may be falsifiable if we still have split brain patients to test.

I'm not sure what you mean?

We may be able to test whether they had common memory from before the split, then unique memory from after the split by showing them images unique to each eye but hidden from the other.

if they had common memory before the split this may show that they are one self split into two rather than two unique selves being picked up from a source outside the brain.

Very interesting theory.

No.

A relief!

Then I dont see how it functions with the parts severed. What happens if you sever a radio antenna?

I think you're confused on the metaphor at play here. A broken or severed radio would equate to a dead brain. What we have here is more like being between stations which each alternatively fading in.

I believe mind is an emergent property of the brain, but as I pointed out in the other thread I accept the existence of the non-physical mind - which makes it demonstrably wrong to call me a physicalist in my view.

Fair enough. How does X emerge from Y if X and Y have contradictory properties?

Free will means to me the ability to make a choice unconstrained by our nature which we don't choose. If conciousness is transmitter of our choice then we are simply choosing in line with the nature of our conciousness therefore our choice is not unconstrained as I see it.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Evolution is relevant to the brain - it has DNA which can be selected by nature. The mind does not have DNA that im aware of.

What you actually stated was "Evolution doesn't explain how something with properties mutually exclusive to matter can exist."
The theory of evolution explains how life diversified from the first life form/(s), it does not even attempt to explain how emergent properties work or why things with some properties mutually exclusive to matter exist.

Then we agree here.

 

[Quintessence]

Unfortunately, no actual answers here.

Because there aren't any? Welcome to metaphysical philosophy - where there are no answers, just axiomatic assumptions that serve as good foundations for a functioning worldview that is more than good enough to navigate life and living. If you were expecting me to go on about some "One True Truth" sort of nonsense you're barking up the wrong Druid.

 

[1137]

This link is to a video of the scientist who did extensive research with split brain individuals talking about the incident where teh right brain was a theist and the left brain was an atheist:

You just countered a meta paper with a YouTube video...

 

[1137]

And how would that happen, that suddenly there are two "receivers" instead of one? You are the one claiming that the mind is not the brain.

You're asking me how two receievers can pick up two signals... I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say this is just some sort of misunderstanding. Are you actually confused why I could, say, have 2 different radios playing 2 different stations?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You just countered a meta paper with a YouTube video...

The YouTube video is not a commentary. It is the words of the scientist himself who saw this happen in his lab. I guess you have two options. The first is to say he is not a real scientist and the video is a complete hoax, and the second is to say that the meta paper was missing something important.

 

[1137]

The YouTube video is not a commentary. It is the words of the scientist himself who saw this happen in his lab. I guess you have two options. The first is to say he is not a real scientist and the video is a complete hoax, and the second is to say that the meta paper was missing something important.

False dichotomy of extreme proportions!

 

[blü 2]

okay so refute the 10 points and show us this is true.

Show what is true?

That the fairyland of "minds" that you speak of is an aspect of reality, and not just a dreamy notion of yours?

No, I admit I can't do that. The fairyland of "minds" that you speak of is not found in objective reality and is indeed just a dreamy notion of yours.

No wonder you keep trying to pass the evidentiary buck. (But you'd make a very poor poker player.)

 

[1137]

Show what is true?

That the fairyland of "minds" that you speak of is an aspect of reality, and not just a dreamy notion of yours?

No, I admit I can't do that. The fairyland of "minds" that you speak of is not found in objective reality and is indeed just a dreamy notion of yours.

No wonder you keep trying to pass the evidentiary buck. (But you'd make a very poor poker player.)

No problem, I accept this concession. But perhaps you should find time to ask yourself, "why do I believe in something I cannot even provide a shred of evidence for?"

 

[Fool]

That does not answer my question. I asked you to point to an instance of a human mind that is existing without a brain, and label what you would call that.

well duh, humans have brains. again it's part of the form. consciousness that doesn't need a brain doesn't have to be human. humans come with a brain, it's part of the basic anatomy to qualify as human.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

well duh, humans have brains. again it's part of the form. consciousness that doesn't need a brain doesn't have to be human. humans come with a brain, it's part of the basic anatomy to qualify as human.

So I take it that you believe in disemobied minds such as God, but you think the human mind cannot exist apart from the brain?

 

[blü 2]

No problem, I accept this concession. But perhaps you should find time to ask yourself, "why do I believe in something I cannot even provide a shred of evidence for?"

Perhaps you should find time to ask yourself, "Why do I believe in something I cannot even provide a shred of evidence for, while affecting for convenience to be totally incapable of understanding the criticisms of my position?"

 

[Whateverist]

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.

I can only imagine three ways that the brain may give rise to mind (not my original idea):
emission, transmission or permission. Emission is the idea that the brain produces the mind. Transmission is the idea that the brain receives the mind much as what appears on a television screen is received from a signal external to it. Permission is like transmission except that the brain acts somewhat as a filter, selecting from various possibilities to create a unique manifestation from the primordial consciousness which precedes basically all else as its ground of being. All those Christians looking for a little gap to hide God should give it some thought. Of course there is nothing brand specific for any particular religion but it sure fits for a panentheist approach. But old habits die hard and many will want to insist on atoms first, then cells, then brains and then minds even that offers no solution to mind body problem.

 

[F1fan]

Because instead of one receiver you now have two... 1+1=2.

Well then if it is recieving why two different identities?

 

[1137]

Perhaps you should find time to ask yourself, "Why do I believe in something I cannot even provide a shred of evidence for, while affecting for convenience to be totally incapable of understanding the criticisms of my position?"

I've got to be honest, I think physicalists might be more fideistic than even like creationists or flat earthers. Even when someone puts evidence in writing you can't even acknowledge it, but hey you're in... company.

 

[Nakosis]

Because there aren't any? Welcome to metaphysical philosophy - where there are no answers, just axiomatic assumptions that serve as good foundations for a functioning worldview that is more than good enough to navigate life and living. If you were expecting me to go on about some "One True Truth" sort of nonsense you're barking up the wrong Druid.

No, about what I expected. Attacks on physicality usually come from philosophy.

 

[1137]

No, about what I expected. Attacks on physicality usually come from philosophy.

Well yeah if a position is inherently illogical we don't even really need to bother with evidence. Like I don't need evidence to say they're are no three sided circles.

 

[blü 2]

I've got to be honest,

About freaking time!

I think physicalists might be more fideistic than even like creationists or flat earthers.

Your "honesty" rouses my pity.

Even when someone puts evidence in writing you can't even acknowledge it, but hey you're in... company.

But of course you've offered no evidence. There is zero by way of evidence to acknowledge. That's your tactic, to pretend you've somehow done so while you run away from answering direct questions about your position.

 

[Nakosis]

I cannot tell if this is intentional irony or not...

Not surprising.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've got to be honest, I think physicalists might be more fideistic than even like creationists or flat earthers. Even when someone puts evidence in writing you can't even acknowledge it, but hey you're in... company.

LOL you are still trying to say you have provided evidence, but you haven't. You gave a list of reasons why you hold your opinion, and don't understand why no one is buying them.