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

[viole]

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.

Are you telling us that the 100 billions cells in our brain, plus the zillion interconnections, are a simple antenna?

ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

Are you telling us that the 100 billions cells in our brain, plus the zillion interconnections, are a simple antenna?

ciao

- viole

Doesn't seem in any way simple.

 

[Whateverist]

Attacks? Wh... what on earth are you talking about? Understanding the limitations of a particular worldview - or saying it isn't the One True Truth and Be All and End All - is attacking it? Really?

Yikes.

(this is also the moment where I point out that physicalism is in of itself a philosophical position, because I can't not do so)


I wouldn't - 'tis not necessary. Standard dictionary definitions of "evidence" are more than sufficient to cover such things. No need to "redefine" anything. And honestly, I'm not even interested in this question of minds and brains.

I only pray no one was hurt.

 

[1137]

He wrote, "there is zero evidence that the "mind" can exist absent the brain." That didn't make sense to you?

Nope. For one it's backwards, for two it's presuppositionalism.

irst, there's a bit of hyperbole there. I would have written that the evidence doesn't justify a belief in incorporeal minds. Your reply seems unresponsive. Of course he can only be aware of his brain if he's conscious, and it seems to many (likely him as well) like that he can only be conscious if he has a healthy brain.

See above

Like with many others here including me, your argument wasn't ignored, just found unconvincing.

So show why it is unconvincing. Prediction: you havent and wont because the only reason its unconvincing is it doesmt fit your presupposed belief.

You've got that backwards. You answered, "not all opinions are created equal. Some are based on sound evidence, and others are not." All available evidence is consistent with naturalism and none with supernaturalism.

Then why has not one of you been able to provide ANY evidence?

What you have is an intuition, a fervent desire, and that's enough for you, and so you concoct an argument like the OP, which at least four posters addressed point by point. They weren't convinced by your argument, and neither was I.

Right, but that only matters of your reason for being unconvinced was due to logic or evidence.

In my experience, only supernaturalists of some type make this argument that mind precedes or is independent of matter, because only they have a stake in being correct. It's tendentious (motivated) thinking, trying to make what is believed before examining the evidence seem to be supported by evidence. The empiricist has no such agenda. He just wants to know how reality is and works, whatever that might be, including the idea that mind is the fundamental substance from which the material world arises.

Then perhaps they should invest in logic and evidence, presupposition doesn't get us to truth.

But absent sufficient evidence to support that belief, the critical thinker declines holding it -

Exactly, so we will keep rejecting your faith so long as you folks keep relying on presupposition and remain unable to provide any evidence or logic for physicalism.

 

[1137]

@blü 2
@IndigoChild5559
@Nakosis
@It Aint Necessarily So

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?

Claim: the brain creates the mind. The mind depends on the brain. When the brain dies mind dies. Etc. Evidence: ?????

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Nakosis]

Yes please show me a 3 sided circles!

Left side, right side, bottom side.​

 

[1137]

View attachment 82320
Left side, right side, bottom side.​

This explains so much about your position haha.

 

[Nakosis]

This explains so much about your position haha.

Glad I could satisfy.

 

[1137]

Glad I could satisfy.

Satisfy is a strong word haha. I'd be more satisfied if people used reason, evidence, and intellectual honesty.

 

[viole]

Doesn't seem in any way simple.

and why is it not simple? If all processing is done somewhere else, why the complication? All you need are the simple sensors and actuators on the periphery of the brain, that can get the signals from that remote mind, and remove the brain altogether. What on earth do you need that for, considering that it can be easily disabled by something as mundane as a Champagne party?

otherwise, who on earth, and beyond that, has been so stupid to design something like that?

ciao

- viole

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@blü 2
@IndigoChild5559
@Nakosis
@It Aint Necessarily So

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?

Claim: the brain creates the mind. The mind depends on the brain. When the brain dies mind dies. Etc. Evidence: ?????

www.religiousforums.com

I'm not interested in anything to do with faith when it comes to the brain/mind debate. I asked you for ONE line of evidence for us to discuss, what you think is your very best example. You certainly don't have to do it. But please don't send me things that are anything other than that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

a body doesn't require a specific form. i don't believe in a non-physical something. consciousness, a mind, a spirit is still a physical thing.

Physical means its made of matter.

 

[Quagmire]

The problem with this metaphor is that unlike a conscious mind, this radio plays the same songs as all other radios . . .

So anyway, a cell phone washes up on the beach . . .

 

[Fool]

Physical means its made of matter.

matter is but a wave/particle duality. like the mind/body complex. a body can take infinite forms as does a mind

i understand it as a mind, body, spirit complex. I liken it to the force, wave, particle quantum

 

[Whateverist]

Does it require less faith to believe that matter gives rise to cells which give rise to neurons and brains in multi cellular animals which miraculously cross the barrier from stuff to experience, from stuff to mind. Obviously brains are crucial for the consciousness we experience but the mind/body problem is no better supported by the wave of the hands called emergence than by the one that suggests consciousness was first and matter is one of its phase forms. It is comfortingly familiar to attempt to build up to the complex from the simple, but can you actually do it? If not what is with all the demands for evidence? Especially when you don't have any yourself.

 

[1137]

I'm not interested in anything to do with faith when it comes to the brain/mind debate. I asked you for ONE line of evidence for us to discuss, what you think is your very best example. You certainly don't have to do it. But please don't send me things that are anything other than that.

Get off tik tok and all that and learn to have a conversation/debate!

 

[blü 2]

In the manner of... existing. This is only confusing because youve presupposed physiclaism without any evidence.

I asked you ─

In what manner do "minds" exist if not physically?​

​

How do you know?​

​

What repeatable experiment will demonstrate the correctness of your claims?​

Your reply is meaningless.

You make it clear you don't know the answer.

Previously I asked you to demonstrate the correctness of your claim.

Zero meaningful response from you.

No surprise there.

So I'll leave it there. But for your own sake, as I've said, drop the affected condescension ─ it's not a pose that flatters you.

 

[blü 2]

@blü 2
@IndigoChild5559
@Nakosis
@It Aint Necessarily So

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?

Claim: the brain creates the mind. The mind depends on the brain. When the brain dies mind dies. Etc. Evidence: ?????

www.religiousforums.com

No no no.

You're trying to reverse what lawyers call the onus of proof.

First demonstrate that you're actually talking about anything when you waffle about disembodied "minds".

Start with setting out a repeatable experiment that will demonstrate that the brain does NOT produce the "mind".

As it stands, there's nothing to refute. The brain remains the obvious and only source of the "mind".

 

[1137]

No no no.

You're trying to reverse what lawyers call the onus of proof.

First demonstrate that you're actually talking about anything when you waffle about disembodied "minds".

Start with setting out a repeatable experiment that will demonstrate that the brain does NOT produce the "mind".

As it stands, there's nothing to refute. The brain remains the obvious and only source of the "mind".

I respect giving 2 concessions in the same thread. Take care!

 

[blü 2]

I respect giving 2 concessions in the same thread. Take care!

Now (a) stop trying to pass the evidentiary buck and (b) give a satisfactory demonstration of the correctness of your claim./

Or go home.