What is the default position in the mind-body problem?

[Nous]

How does that fact, if it is a fact, prove than anything I said is false?

It is a fact. We do not know what will be discovered about the brain in the future. Just because we cannot currently explain the mind physically does not mean that it isn't a physical construct. My point is simply that we do not know enough about the brain to make this assumption.

So obviously nothing you have said indicates that anything I've said is false.

If "we do not know enough about the brain to make [the] assumption" that physicalism is true, then why make the assumption?

My claim is that it is the default position. Until we understand exactly what the mind is (whether it is material or immaterial) and how it works, there is no reason to assume that it is not material.

Since you can't argue that materialism is true, then what rational reason is there to assume that "the mind is . . . material"?

Motor signals are initiated by thought. And, thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain.

Prove it.

Obviously you are claiming, in direct contradiction to the medical encyclopedia article, that brain activity is a closed loop. This is how I deduced earlier that you are denying the ability of a person to choose between available options, i.e., that you are denying free will. Where, in the closed loop of the causes and effects that you have proposed of the brain, is the ability of a person to choose to whether to murder or not?

 

[Nous]

@Nous

"The ability to choose among available options is not accounted for as the effect of any known "physical" phenomenon, nor accounted for by any law of nature. "

But are we actually choosing? Are there really options?

If you have any different answers than what I have provided, then be sure to cite your evidence.

BTW, the Schrodinger equation offers infinite options for possible futures.

 

[Nous]

One equals the other when you throw in the speed of light squared.

All matter also shares the wave-particle duality. and we know that matter and energy are related.

There is more than one type of energy: Photon energy is material, Potential Energy is Immaterial. Heat energy, Electrical energy, gravitational energy..etc. Energy is immaterial in one form(wave) and material in another(photon packets).

Light is not *just* a wave, but a particle as well. light has no mass, so you might think of it as immaterial, however it does have momentum.

So you do not dispute my statements that "Energy is not matter," with one essential difference being that "Energy is a conserved quantity. Matter is not a conserved quantity"?

 

[Nous]

Things like light, energy, physical forces (gravity), etc. and everything that interacts or affects matter would be included as "material".

Energy is not an object that has mass and volume. Energy is not matter. Energy is a conserved quantity. Matter is not a conserved quantity.

The findings and theories of modern physics (of the past century and a half) have unequivocally demonstrated that empirical phenomena are not reducible to objects that have mass and volume. None of your vacuous change that fact.

 

[Nous]

I never said that it is absolutely true. I said that it should be the default position, in my opinion.

State the argument that a metaphysical thesis that you cannot argue is "absolutely true" "should be the default position".

My issue is with how you are defining "material".

I used the definition found in dictionaries.

Energy, for example, is certainly matter.

Then prove that this is false: "Energy is a conserved quantity. Matter is not a conserved quantity."

But, it doesn't exactly have volume and mass per se.

That's one big difference between energy and matter. Matter "exactly" and "per se" is any object that has mass and volume.

So, what in the universe is not "material" that we have direct, empirical evidence of?

We deduce the existence of energy. It cannot be detected by the senses.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If you have any different answers than what I have provided, then be sure to cite your evidence.

BTW, the Schrodinger equation offers infinite options for possible futures.

Only a universe where everything on the macro scale seems to be causally linked. What you are proposing would be tantamount to a very very special exception, and the evidence doesn't seem(from my admitted layman understanding) damning enough to lay my chips on the long shot.

 

[Nous]

Only a universe where everything on the macro scale seems to be causally linked. What you are proposing would be tantamount to a very very special exception, and the evidence doesn't seem.

Quote whatever it is I've said that you believe is contradicted by "the evidence".

 

[leibowde84]

So obviously nothing you have said indicates that anything I've said is false.

If "we do not know enough about the brain to make [the] assumption" that physicalism is true, then why make the assumption?

Your claim that the brain does not provide any explanations for the mind is not technically true. The qualifier "currently" is important, as our understanding of the brain is nowhere near complete.

Since you can't argue that materialism is true, then what rational reason is there to assume that "the mind is . . . material"?

My argument is that we should assume that the mind is material until it can be shown that the mind is immaterial.

Prove it.

Obviously you are claiming, in direct contradiction to the medical encyclopedia article, that brain activity is a closed loop. This is how I deduced earlier that you are denying the ability of a person to choose between available options, i.e., that you are denying free will. Where, in the closed loop of the causes and effects that you have proposed of the brain, is the ability of a person to choose to whether to murder or not?

No, I only claimed that thoughts and emotions can be seen in neural activity. Nothing more.

Here are some articles that show various forms of thoughts in the brain and how the physical brain is affected by them.

http://reset.me/story/this-is-what-happens-to-your-brain-when-you-experience-happiness/
This Is What Negative Thinking Does to Your Brain

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Quote whatever it is I've said that you believe is contradicted by "the evidence".

I didn't argue against any of your evidence. It just seems rather underwhelming vis a vis the premise in question.

 

[Nous]

Your claim that the brain does not provide any explanations for the mind is not technically true.

Quote something that I've actually said rather than fabricating junk.

My argument is that we should assume that the mind is material until it can be shown that the mind is immaterial.

State that argument.:

P1: [. . . .]
P2: [. . . .]
C: Therefore we should assume that the mind is an object that has mass and volume.

Obviously you are claiming, in direct contradiction to the medical encyclopedia article, that brain activity is a closed loop. This is how I deduced earlier that you are denying the ability of a person to choose between available options, i.e., that you are denying free will. Where, in the closed loop of the causes and effects that you have proposed of the brain, is the ability of a person to choose to whether to murder or not?

No, I only claimed that thoughts and emotions can be seen in neural activity.

Quote where you claimed that.

I responded to this claim that you made: "thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain." So, I asked you, and ask you again: Where, in the closed loop of the causes and effects that you have proposed of the brain, is the ability of a person to choose whether to murder to not?

Here are some articles that show various forms of thoughts in the brain and how the physical brain is affected by them.

http://reset.me/story/this-is-what-happens-to-your-brain-when-you-experience-happiness/
This Is What Negative Thinking Does to Your Brain

I will happily read this article if you can quote where the authors deduced from some fact that voluntary bodily movements are not initiated by a person's thoughts or are not under a person's control.

 

[Nous]

I didn't argue against any of your evidence. It just seems rather underwhelming vis a vis the premise in question.

What is "the premise in question"? I don't like the question the title of the thread asks--if that's the premise in question.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What is "the premise in question"? I don't like the question the title of the thread asks--if that's the premise in question.

Why, 'freewill' of course.


...or the lack thereof

 

[Nous]

Why, 'freewill' of course.


...or the lack thereof

So you're saying that you cannot choose to state and believe true propositions (such as about free will) rather than false ones?

 

[leibowde84]

Quote something that I've actually said rather than fabricating junk.

Did you not claim that the brain does not provide an explanation for the presence of the mind? If not, I apologize. Can you repeat your claim just so I'm clear on what you mean specifically?

State that argument.:

P1: [. . . .]
P2: [. . . .]
C: Therefore we should assume that the mind is an object that has mass and volume.

Because our understanding of the brain, neurology, and how those things interact with our senses/experience of the world is not nearly complete, and because our understanding of consciousness and the mind is relatively miniscule, we should assume that the mind is a product of the brain, our senses, and our nervous system.

Quote where you claimed that.

I responded to this claim that you made: "thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain." So, I asked you, and ask you again: Where, in the closed loop of the causes and effects that you have proposed of the brain, is the ability of a person to choose whether to murder to not?

I never claimed a closed loop of the causes and effects in the brain. We obviously make decisions and control our movements/actions. My claim is that we do not know enough to determine that those choices and consciousness in general is not a byproduct of our brain, senses and our nervous system.

I will happily read this article if you can quote where the authors deduced from some fact that voluntary bodily movements are not initiated by a person's thoughts or are not under a person's control.

I never claimed that voluntary bodily movements are not initiated by a person's thoughts and are not under a person's control. You might have deduced that from your false assumption that I claimed a closed loop in the brain. But, I never actually made that claim and in now way think that we do not make decisions and have control over our movements/actions (at least for the most part).

Again, my only claim is that we do not know enough to rule out the mind being a construct of the brain, senses, and nervous system. And, possibly, there are other physical aspects of the body that play a part.

 

[leibowde84]

Quote something that I've actually said rather than fabricating junk.

State that argument.:

P1: [. . . .]
P2: [. . . .]
C: Therefore we should assume that the mind is an object that has mass and volume.

Quote where you claimed that.

I responded to this claim that you made: "thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain." So, I asked you, and ask you again: Where, in the closed loop of the causes and effects that you have proposed of the brain, is the ability of a person to choose whether to murder to not?

I will happily read this article if you can quote where the authors deduced from some fact that voluntary bodily movements are not initiated by a person's thoughts or are not under a person's control.

Also, the definition of the term/concept "the material world" that I am using in this discussion includes the following:
Matter, energy, and anything relating to the physical world. Obviously, forces, light, concepts, man-made constructs, mathematics, etc. would all be included in the "material world". If you have a problem with the term, we can just leave it as the measurable world.

Honestly, this is not something that I've thought of a lot until recently, so I am still trying to better define my concept of the "material world".

So, what do you think we know exists that is not measurable in any way? Again, the "measurable world" is not limited to just things with mass and volume.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So you're saying that you cannot choose to state and believe true propositions (such as about free will) rather than false ones?

I am saying I am unconvinced that a scenario such as you describe couldn't be the result of pure causality, up to and including your preferences predispositions and beliefs on any given subject, up to and including the sensation of choice as events unfold.

 

[siti]

In the first place, according to the definitions given here, physicalism is just materialism, which we know is false. The findings and theories of physics make clear that empirical reality is not reducible to objects that have mass and volume.

Well that's a bull**** definition of materialism that no materialist subscribes to and we certainly do not know that it is false. The point of materialism (as far as the current topic is concerned) is that it claims that the world is not ultimately made of "mind-stuff" as the various 'idealist' worldviews claim but is rather composed of matter/energy.

You're kind of right about 'pluralism' (I didn't include it because it had not been discussed - as far as I could see - in this thread) but in terms of ontology, pluralism is surely more about different "modes of being" (ways of being 'real') - for example, the notion that a fictional character or, say numbers or an empty space...etc, may, in some sense, be 'real' even though they are not really either physical or mental 'objects' in themselves. From that point of view, I don't necessarily disagree - but I don't see how any physically real entity could emerge from these different modes of being or even from a purely mental reality with no physical 'substrate'. I can, however, see that they might emerge from an underlying physical reality - even if I cannot explain exactly how. And I can see that it is possible to measure and quantify physical objects and effects - I have no idea how to measure 'mind' or 'fiction' or 'emptiness' (for example).

As I said earlier - I might be like the drunk searching for his keys under the lamppost - but I happen to think that's slightly more sensible than groping around in complete darkness - feeling a metal object that is vaguely like a key and then attempting to open the car door with broken pair of scissors someone had carelessly discarded as useless a long time earlier. Physicalism is still the best bet for finding an answer to the "mind-body" problem.

 

[Nous]

Did you not claim that the brain does not provide an explanation for the presence of the mind?

You're the one who has said those clearly:

Our CURRENT understanding of the brain does not include an explanation for the mind.

Because our understanding of the brain, neurology, and how those things interact with our senses/experience of the world is not nearly complete, and because our understanding of consciousness and the mind is relatively miniscule, we should assume that the mind is a product of the brain, our senses, and our nervous system.

!!!!!!! Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).​

It's mind-boggling!!. You are obviously aware of this fallacious argument, yet you state it emphatically!! You've done it before!!

From the facts that "because our understanding of the brain, neurology, and how those things interact with our senses/experience of the world is not nearly complete, and because our understanding of consciousness and the mind is relatively miniscule," one cannot deduce that "the mind is a product of the brain". Try something else.

I never claimed a closed loop of the causes and effects in the brain. We obviously make decisions and control our movements/actions. My claim is that we do not know enough to determine that those choices and consciousness in general is not a byproduct of our brain, senses and our nervous system.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Yes, we got that.

I never claimed that voluntary bodily movements are not initiated by a person's thoughts and are not under a person's control. You might have deduced that from your false assumption that I claimed a closed loop in the brain. But, I never actually made that claim and in now way think that we do not make decisions and have control over our movements/actions (at least for the most part).

I quoted:

All voluntary activities involve the brain, which sends out the motor impulses that control movement. These motor signals are initiated by thought . . .​

Medical Encyclopedia - Function: Voluntary and Involuntary Responses - Aviva

And you replied, "Motor signals are initiated by thought. And, thoughts can absolutely be seen by neural activity in the brain." I don't know how else it is possible to interpret that claim other than as indicating that the causes and effects by which voluntary movement is produced is a closed loop in the brain: "neural activity" --> motor signals --> voluntary movements.

In your idea of physicalism, how does it happen that a person's voluntary bodily movements are under a person's control?

And where have you ever gotten the idea that "thoughts can be . . . seen"? What do they look like?

 

[Nous]

I am saying I am unconvinced that a scenario such as you describe couldn't be the result of pure causality, up to and including your preferences predispositions and beliefs on any given subject, up to and including the sensation of choice as events unfold.

Again, you are apparently implying that the reality of a person's ability to choose between available options is somehow a denial a "the relation between cause and effect". the definition of causality Whatever you mean by that, it is at best a straw man argument. To say that I chose to write a post with the name "Cordelia" in it, as I said that day before that I would do the next day, is not in any a denial of any relation between cause and effect.

The fact that I announced what I would do and, a day later, did exactly what I said I would do is also not explained by known laws that govern empirical phenomena.

 

[Nous]

Well that's a bull**** definition of materialism that no materialist subscribes to and we certainly do not know that it is false.

Use a dictionary, and tell us what this means:

phys·i·cal·ism
ˈfizəkəlˌizəm/
noun
PHILOSOPHY

1. the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.

Physical = of or relating to that which is material.

The point of materialism (as far as the current topic is concerned) is that it claims that the world is not ultimately made of "mind-stuff"

Bull****. That isn't what materialism means.

Physicalism is still the best bet for finding an answer to the "mind-body" problem.

The thesis of physicalism obviously doesn't account for the ability of thoughts to initiate voluntary bodily movements. Physicalism does not account for a person's ability to choose between available options.

Physicalism requires realism of the properties of fundamental particles. Physicalism is therefore refuted by the correlations found in tests of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, which demonstrate that the postulate of realism is violated.