The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contradiction
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Can Intelligence exist before matter?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Contradiction
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,496 times Debate No: 20025
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (127)
Votes (7)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I would like to articulate a point rarely touched upon when discussing the existence God and if it's logical or not.

Can intelligence exist before matter?

If there was a person born who couldn't feel, smell, taste, hear or see they would have nothing to think about, I mean what could that person think about? They've experienced nothing. They have had no experience involving matter.

Now imagine an intelligence with senses working, but no matter, what would that intelligence have to think about? That intelligence has had no interactions with anything, meaning the intelligence could not have an idea to create the universe, because concepts of what to do with "stuff" is dependent on matter that already exists.

The above summarized:

No sense working + matter = No intelligent thoughts
Senses working + no matter = No intelligent thoughts

Now some may argue that an intelligent creator of the universe already knew everything that was going to happen, therefore having the knowledge of things before they existed. The only problem is knowledge is obtained by learning, and learning is only accomplished by finding out something you didn't know before, so the argument involving an intelligence that knew everything cancels itself out of the equation.

More examples:

Someone who can't feel, smell, taste, hear or see can't even ask themselves "Where am I?".

"Where am I?" are words that need to be learned, and there has to be matter to associate the words with. To understand location you need to have an object to locate and larger object to be the location. Location is observed by acknowledgment of different sets of matter. For example, You place a lighter on a table, then someone will ask you "where is the lighter?", you will reply "on the table" because you understand language and location.

Without matter, intelligence cannot think or even come up with ideas.

How can a painter paint a picture when he is unaware of brushes, paper, paint and scenery? And remember, he can't be all knowing, because knowledge is obtained by learning, and you can only learn by finding something out that you didn't know before, and if you didn't know it, you were never all knowing...

Conclusion:

If intelligence cannot exist without matter, then intelligence didn't create matter. The God theory is self contradictory in every possible sense.
Contradiction

Pro

In this debate I will defend two contentions. First, that it is possible for intelligence to exist before matter. Secondly, I will argue a fortiori that atheism (naturalism) cannot account for the existence of reason.

1. The Modal Argument for Dualism

My opponent's opening argument presupposes the truth of what is commonly known as physicalism, the thesis that we are identical to our physical bodies -- or more specifically, that the mind is constituted by physical matter (ie: the brain). Unfortunately, the arguments he advances are not sufficient to prove such a position, even if they work. I will argue later that they do not in fact work, but I will be charitable and grant their cogency.

Notice that Con answers the question "Can intelligence exist before matter" in the negative. He thus affirms the proposition that "Intelligence cannot exist before matter." From this, he argues that mind is identical to matter. Now this is quite strong a claim (a modal claim), one that his arguments cannot demonstrate. If it is merely possible that a form of dualism is true, then intelligence can exist before matter. And surely it is uncontroversial to say that dualism is at the very least possibly true. If this is the case, then mind is not reducible to matter.

Now he might reply "But if the arguments I have demonstrated here hold true, then dualism as such is impossible." Not so. His argument at best would only prove that there exists a correlation between mind and body (or between intelligence and matter) -- not that the two are identical. If I were to show that all swans are actually white, it would not follow that necessarily, all swans are white. Similarly, simply showing that all minds are actually embodied does not show that necessarily, all minds are embodied. To think otherwise is to commit a modal fallacy.

Now what about his other claim that "without matter, intelligence cannot think or even come up with ideas." I submit to you that this is simply false. Without matter, we may not be able to think about ideas regarding matter, but it does not follow from this that thought itself is impossible, anymore than being only able to grasp three dimensions shows that only three dimensions exist. Only if one assumes a sort of crude empiricism -- which is self-refuting -- will this argument work. In the absence of matter, an unembodied mind can still grasp a plethora of truths -- for example, those of mathematics (2+2=4) or logic (contradictions cannot be true).

2. The Mind is Immaterial

As alluded to before, that certain mental states are associated with physical states does not show that the two are identical or that one constitutes the other. It may just be that the material body is the mechanism through which human thought is expressed, but it does not follow that all thought must be associated with matter. "Non-reductive physicalism and dualism are empirically equivalent theses," hence appealing to empirical examples such as the ones Con did cannot even begin to settle the issue. [1]

Now as it turns out, there are certain traits of mental properties which indicate that the mind cannot be identical or constituted by physical matter. Two of these traits are qualia and intentionality. Qualia is the "what it is likeness" of mental phenomena.

If physicalism is true, then all mental phenomena shoud be able to be explained in terms of a third-person perspective. But this it not so with qualia. Consider the now-famous knowledge argument of philosopher Frank Jackson. Suppose that John is an ophthalmologist who knows everything there is to know about seing. He can describe in complete detail what happens when someone sees. He knows all the physical facts there is to know about seeing. But John is also blind. Now suppose that he suddenly acquires the ability to see. When this happens, John comes to learn something new -- namely, what it it is like to see (ie: qualia). But since John knew all the physical facts about seeing prior to aquiring sight, it follows that qualia is not a physical property. Hence, some form of dualism must be true.

Intentionality is the "aboutness" of certain thoughts. When one thinks of, say, a book, his thought has the property of being about or directed to an external object. But physical things don't have the property of being "about" or "directed to" something else. One piece of matter isn't "about" another piece of matter. But if intentionality is not a physical property, and if thoughts have the property of being intentional, then it follows that thoughts are not physical. Hence, some form of dualism must be true.

Now what should we make of this? If the mind is an immaterial substance that can exist disembodied, then it follows straightforwardly that intelligence and matter are two distinct categories. Hence, Con's position fails.

3. The Argument from Reason

Turning now to my second contention, I want now to argue that atheism cannot give any account of intelligence, rational thinking, mind, proper function, and other allied notions.

On atheism, humanity is the result of billions of years of random and mindless processes working through natural selection. Why should we think that these mindless processes have been able to yield a being who is able to think rationally? Non-reason cannot produce reason. Would one trust a computer program which was "programmed" by rocks falling down on it keyboard? Unless the pre-existing source is itself rational, it seems hard to fathom how the effect can be rational. Consider the idea of proper function, or the idea that we somehow ought to think rationally as our function. How in the world can naturalism account for that? That something has proper function is characteristic of a prior intentional activity. A car has a function only because it was designed to function that way. Similarly, if the mind is geared toward rational thinking as a function, then this requires the existence of a designer. This is not a critique of evolution, mind you, only a critique of naturalistic evolution's ability to account for rational beings.

Moreover, determinism makes rational thought seem impossible. In order for a thought to be rational, there must be an element of choice. We hardly call something rational if there was no free deliberative process behind it which chose the right course based on proper reasons. It seems then that if determinism (the idea that all of our actions are determined by prior conditions) is true, that we can never think rationally. If we happen to be right on some issue, then we are right on accident -- not because we chose it based on the proper reasons.

All in all, two things seem clear: (1) intelligence can exist before matter, (2) atheism cannot account for intelligence to begin with. I now turn it over to Con.

_____

Sources

1. J. P. Moreland and Scott Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (IVP: 2000) 169
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Without matter, we may not be able to think about ideas regarding matter"

So you admit that thinking beings cannot think about ideas regarding matter without matter. Since the universe is made of matter, you admit that an intelligent being could not have come up with the idea to create matter.

I will not end the debate even though I already destroyed your arguments because where would the fun in that be?

My opponent is lying to himself when he says the brain and the mind are somewhat separate, science disproves this claim all the time and it's clear he has not even done the research to back his claim up.

Does music sooth the "soul"?

No. It's proven that the only reason we enjoy music is because our brain releases dopamine (this has been studied in laboratories), the only way to experience this sensation is to have access to matter (strings being pulled releases the sounds we hear for example). This means that without the matter to produce music, the dopamine could not be released.

What about love?

For females, that hormone is oxytocin that gets released from the brain to produce this emotion. We can take a prairie vole female, inject her with oxytocin, and she'll bond with whatever male is around. For males, a related hormone called vasopressin promotes both pair bonding and fatherly behaviors like grooming young voles. Is that separate from the brain? Of course not, the brain is what produces all these feelings and emotions and it can be re-created in labs to be injected back into people.

Everything we feel, taste, smell, hear and see is due to neurons firing off in our brain. Without the brain you can think nothing. Now, since intelligence is the product of a brain, and a brain is made of matter, how can intelligence exist before matter? My opponent completely ignores how outrages and silly his claims are. You can't have a wooden chair without a tree, you cant have fire without fuel, you can't have complex intelligence without a brain. This is common sense and there is no way around this.

The only way my opponent can win is if he can demonstrate that complex intelligence can exist without a biological brain. Of course he can't. If you see a painting, you know a being with a brain painted it. If you see a watch, you know a being with a brain created it. If you see a building, you know a being with a brain created it. So since intelligence is based off matter (a biological brain) then there is no possible way that intelligence can exist before matter. It's simply not logical and anyone who claims it it is clearly somewhat delusional.

"If you change the brain, you change the mind. If you damage the brain, you damage the mind. If you turn off the brain, you turn off the mind."

-Steven Novella

Saying the mind is independent of the brain, is like saying the light produced by a light bulb is independent of the light bulb. If you turn off the light bulb, there is no more light. If you turn off the brain, there is no more mind.

My opponent seems to enjoy fiction and things that are not based on reason or logic. My opponent is unable to demonstrate how an intelligence can think about "things" before "things" exist. If there is no tea pot, you cannot think about a tea pot. If there is no dog, you cannot think about a dog. So if God existed before anything else, he could not think of anything because nothing existed. There is no way around this.

Every emotion we feel has a certain chemical associated with that emotion that the brain releases. If my opponent wants to name an emotion, feeling or thought, I can name the chemical that the brain produces in order for you to experience it. Love, fear, envy, all have chemicals associated with them that the brain releases in order for you to experience it.

So, since everything we experience is due to neurons firing off in the brain, how can intelligence exist before matter? The brain is made of matter and that's what produces complex intelligence, meaning intelligence cannot precede matter because matter is what produces intelligence.

Believers like to act like there is some big mystery involving the brain and human emotions when it's been proven that everything we experience is because of the brain and all emotions have had chemical reactions assigned to them.

So, it's a fact that complex intelligence is a product of a biological brain. In order to have a biological brain there must be matter, meaning intelligence cannot exist before matter.

"Non-reason cannot produce reason"

This is a logical fallacy and should be laughed at by anyone who takes themselves seriously. If non-reason cannot produce reason in the mind of a believer, then how can non ice produce ice? Water is not ice yet water under the right conditions (below 0 temperature) can produce ice. Non fire (sticks and friction) can produce fire ect. So to say that non reason cannot produce reason makes no sense, because non X produces X all the time as I have demonstrated.

"In order for a thought to be rational, there must be an element of choice"

This means that God cannot be rational, because without things existing (remember, in theory he existed before things existed) he cannot chose between anything. How can you chose between Coke and Pepsi if neither exist? If a being is not rational he cannot be intelligent. My opponent makes proving my points more than easy.

"intelligence can exist before matter, atheism cannot account for intelligence to begin with"

These two notions are false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Intelligence is the product of a biological brain, and since a biological brain is made of matter, there can be no intelligence preceding matter. Atheism isn't an ideology so it's not up to atheism to account for intelligence, that's nature's job.

The early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules (which are quite common in space), the building blocks of life. The pre-biotic environment contained many simple fatty acids, under a range of PH they spontaneously form stable vesicles. With naturally occurring simple fatty acids, we can have a vesicle that can spontaneously grow from consumption and divide. The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different types of nucleotides, all it took was one to polymerize, they can replicate themselves.

So, so far we have lipid vesicles that can grow and divide, and nucleotide polymers that can self replicate all on their own, but how does it become life? Well fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotide monomers, but not polymers. Once polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer gets trapped! In the ocean they will encounter convection currents. A vesicle with more polymer, through simple thermodynamics will steal lipids from a vesicle with less polymer, this is the origin of competition. A Vesicle that contains polymer can replicate, grow and divide faster therefore dominating the population. Self polymerizing molecules will kick off evolution, and we see things like complex sexual reproduction arise, basically where the fun begins ;)

What about intelligence? (main point). Well Religious people will tell you that intelligence must have been created by a higher form of intelligence, but I disproved this by demonstrating that non ice can produce ice, and non fire can produce fire, so logically, non intelligence can produce intelligence.

So, if intelligence has to be created by some higher form of intelligence like believers claim, then God must have been created by some higher intelligence, meaning he cannot be God. They will say, "God doesn't need to have a higher form of intelligence create him", well that goes against their original claims that intelligence needs a higher form of intelligence for it to exist. Meaning the claim is a fail.

I proved:

.You cannot think about "things" before "things" exist, meaning no intelligent thought possible before things (matter)
.Intelligence is the product of a brain (matter) meaning it cannot precede matte
Contradiction

Pro

My reply will be short, as my opponent completely ignored and failed to respond to (1) the modal argument for dualism, (2) the argument for the non-identity of mind and matter, and (3) the argument from reason. Though, to be charitable, he did attempt a reply at (3), which I will address.

Con simply asserts that "science disproves this claim all the time and it's clear he has not even done the research to back this claim up."

This is beyond laughable. As I pointed out, non-reductive physicalism and substance dualism are empirically equivalent. Hence, science cannot even begin to touch on this question. It cannot, even in principle, rule out dualism. Note that at the very most, science can only establish a correlation or causal link between the mind and body. However it cannot, for reasons Con has failed to address, establish an identity claim. That mental state A is correlated with physical state B does not prove that A is B or falls within the same type of ontological category as B.

He additionally writes, "The only way my opponent can win is if he can demonstrate that complex intelligence can exist without a biological brain." I did that, and am awaiting your reply. See arguments (1) and (2).

The Argument from Reason

I gave three forms of the argument from reason, which argued that atheism cannot account for (1) reason, (2) proper function, and (3) rational deliberation. Con only responds to the first, ignoring the other two. Hence, even if his criticism of the first version stands (Which does not, as I will argue), he does not address the argument. Now regarding the first, he writes: "This is a logical fallacy and should be laughed at by anyone who takes themselves seriously. If non-reason cannot produce reason in the mind of a believer, then how can non ice produce ice?"

This is an equivocation. It is true -- for example -- that something does not have to be actually hot to impart heat to its effect (ie: rubbing two sticks together). But the potential to bring about said effect does need to be contained eminently within the cause. Two sticks can produce fire when rubbed together because they have the ability to produce heat. This is not true with other materials, say two blocks of ice -- this ability is not contained within them. So when I argued that non-reason cannot produce reason, I was arguing that non-reason (ie: matter) cannot produce reason because it doesn't even have that potential or ability by nature. Manner contains no rational potentials, it is simply inert. I am applying what is known as the principle of proportinate causality.

I invite my opponent to carefully consider my arguments and not to flippantly dismiss them.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

1) My opponent has not explained how the brain (which produces everything you feel) can precede matter when the brain is made of matter, he completely ignored this point and pushes dualism which has been proven to be an non logical theory regarding the brain and mind (I'll explain in more detail if you read further down).

2) My opponent has not even attempted to name one thing someone can think about if they have no interaction with matter, because it's true that no intelligent thoughts can precede matter because every thought you have is based on matter. Can you think of a Cup if one doesn't exist? No, so how can you think about "things" before "things" exist? My opponent completely brushed this point to the side.

So he may be accusing me of dismissing arguments but it's clear he is doing the same on the other side of the spectrum, so one must consider who makes more sense, the person who says the light from the light bulb can exist without the light bulb, or the one who is intelligent enough to realize that the light from the bulb cannot exist without the bulb.

Dualism is a false notion. When you damage parts of the brain, your mind is damaged too. If you damage the part of your brain that helps you understand language, how can you change your 'mind' about what words to use when you speak?

"The mind is a product of the brain. The mind is what the brain does." - Psychologist Paul Bloom

The fact that when you damage the brain, the mind is damaged just as much, proves Dualism false. I already challenged him to name an emotion and I would name the chemical the brain releases for you to feel that emotion, he ignored the challenge. Even love has named chemicals associated with it so to say the brain and mind are separate is foolish beyond belief and has just as much evidence backing it up as pink unicorns

" Non-reason (ie: matter) cannot produce reason because it doesn't even have that potential or ability by nature."

I really hope my opponent doesn't believe the nonsense he has posted in this debate, the problem with his statement is that matter (what are brain is made out of) does produce reason, and nothing else can. I have already explained to him that any thing he can think of has chemicals associated with it that the brain produces for him to feel it. My opponent needs to realize that ignoring reality won't make him right. Anyone who says the brain can't produce reason should get their brain removed and see how fast their reasoning comes to a halt.

My opponent is also talking about atheism accounting for reason yet this is not what the debate is about so it's not a point worth defending in this debate. This debate is whether intelligence can precede matter (which of course it cannot).

So, whats the evidence that dualism is false?

. Name an emotion, I will name the chemical that the brain produces it for you to feel it, this indicates that the brain is producing these things meaning these things are 100% dependent on matter (what your brain is made out of).

. If you damage a part of the brain, you mind then suffers just as much indicating that the mind is dependent on the brain. If you damage 50% of your brain then 50% of your mind is lost, if you damage 99% of the brain then 99% of the mind is lost, but I'm supposed to believe that when 100% of the brain is lost, somehow the mind still survives? These are beliefs children should hold not grown men. My opponent is simply making assertions without providing any evidence to back them up.

I believe that people who say the mind is separate from the brain don't actually believe it. Just like the people who say the world will end in 2012 don't actually believe it.

If you walk up to someone who believes the world will end in 2012 and say "Hey sign this paper that says after December 2012 I receive all your possessions, it's no loss to you because you believe the world will end then" chances are they will say no, but why? Shouldn't they not care if they believe what they say? This means they don't actually believe what they claim. So in contrast, if I walk up to someone who believes the mind is separate from the brain and say "Hey sign this paper, we'll give you some money and let us take your brain out of your skull, it's no loss to you because you believe the mind is separate so you could still think" chances are they will say no, but why? Shouldn't they not care if they believe what they say?

Continued case against dualism:

Hormonal changes, narcotics and anti-psychotic medication can all affect one's mental processes. They can affect a individual's sensory input, their emotional state and even affect the decisions that they make.

Surely this means that the emotional capacity, and free-will of the human mind can directly be affected by chemical stimuli. This means therefore that the mind is an emergent property of a material construct. If the mind was non-material then such chemicals should surely have no effect.

Re-Cap:
. Dualism is false
. The brain is made of matter, this is what produces your emotions and 'mind' (as I would have demonstrated further, but my opponent ignored my challenge to name an emotion that wasn't produced by the brain releasing chemicals), meaning there is no possible way for intelligence to precede matter
. If you couldn't see, touch, hear, smell or taste, what could you think about? You would not be aware anything existed, therefore could not think about things. On the flip side, if you had infinite sensory input, but there is no matter, there would still be nothing to think about before things (matter) existed. Intelligent thought cannot precede matter.
. My opponent doesn't actually believe the mind is separate from the brain deep down, just like someone who claims the world will end in 2012 doesn't believe it because once their beliefs are tested, they will fail miserably.

Even though I believe my opponent is misguided with is beliefs, I admire his willingness to participate and will now respectfully put the ball in his court.
Contradiction

Pro

Extend all arguments. Like before, Con fails to reply to (1) the modal argument for dualism and (2) the argument from the non-identity of mind and body. Moreover, he attacks a blatant strawman of my position. Note that I am not arguing that "the brain can precede matter" but that the mind (which grounds intelligence) can precede matter, and that the mind cannot be reduced to any physical entity.

His parallels between brain states and mental states are completely moot. As stated before, non-reductive physicalism and substance dualism are empirically equivalent. At the very most, Con can only establish a causal link or correlation between the mind and body -- not one of dependence or identity. Dualism remains completely untouched by his criticisms. It is a point which science cannot -- even in principle -- touch on. Damaging part of your brain may result in impaired mental function, but so what? That A causes B does not show that A is B or the same type of entity as B. Regarding emotions as being chemical states, Con simply begs the question. I do not identify emotions as being constituted by physical states (Which was simply asserted by Con), but only standing in a causal link. Indeed, even the prominent physicalist Nancy Murphy agrees with this.

He states: "My opponent has not even attempted to name one thing someone can think about if they have no interaction with matter."

This is false. I mentioned in my opening argument: "In the absence of matter, an unembodied mind can still grasp a plethora of truths -- for example, those of mathematics (2+2=4) or logic (contradictions cannot be true)." This remains unresponded to.

Regarding the argument from reason, he responds: "I really hope my opponent doesn't believe the nonsense he has posted in this debate, the problem with his statement is that matter (what are brain is made out of) does produce reason, and nothing else can."

This begs the question, pure and simple. The very issue we're debating over is (1) whether mind can be reduced to matter, and (2) whether matter has rational potential. It does no good to simply assume physicalism to be true when its explanatory adequacy is in question. Hence, responding to the latter concern by assuming mind to be reducible to matter is to reason in a circle.

Con is simply uneducated when it comes to the philosophy of mind. I highly urge a Pro vote. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Debate Round No. 3
127 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skyhook 5 years ago
Skyhook
Wow! That was domination. Excellent job, Contradiction. Definitely one of my favorites.
Posted by Lilly-Kate 5 years ago
Lilly-Kate
Could you please elaborate on "No." for me. I just want to be convinced that I am wrong. And I will bow down and worship anyone who can truely make me doubt my beliefs. As I am sure you would too. But I believe that in order to manipulate physical things you have to be physical in order to do so. That, to me, seems logical. Common sense if you like.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
"Primitive philosophical ideology"

Feel free to re-debate me on this topic or any other topic of your choosing.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
First we have to look at intelligence and consciousness, what produces these things? Well if we inject someone with chemical stimuli (physical) we can see the effects it has on the brain if being monitored by neuroscientists, then we will observe their consciousness becoming altered. If someone's brain gets physically damaged, the parts of the brain that failed will directly effect their consciousness in a negative way and can be examined. If consciousness was produced by something spiritual, then physical things like chemical stimuli and brain damage should have no effect on it, but it does. This means intelligence and consciousness are only due to the state and well being of a physical brain, if it wasn't, then physical things affecting the brain could not effect consciousness. Even astral projection/ out of body experiences have been recreated in labs and all it is is the brain misfiring signals and telling you things are there when they are not. So is someone is going to say that intelligence can exist before matter (which brains are made out of), then you would be just as illogical as someone who says square circles exist, or that you could imagine a sphere within a sphere that not only grows to the edge of the larger sphere but also shrinks into nothing at the same time. Some things just don't exist in objective reality, only subjectively in the brains of people who deny scientific reality because of primitive philosophical ideology.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
No.
Posted by Lilly-Kate 5 years ago
Lilly-Kate
I completely agree with Rational_Thinker9119. Is God physical or Spiritual? If he is physical he would HAVE to be made of something i.e. matter. Have to be. There is no argument as it is a fact. Everybody on the planet is physical and made of matter. And after:
"God made man in the image of himself". Also, God would have to be physical in order to create physical things, would he not?
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
I haven't insulted you at all so again, quit arguing the strawman. Giving you advice, ie. be a man, quit being so paranoid and sensitive, is not insulting you. Furthermore, my advice has nothing to do with our back and forth- it is an observation of your refusal to debate me formally after your feeble attempt to debate me in the comments section of a debate you clearly lost. By reading our comments it is obvious we don't agree on quite a few fundamental points, yet you claim I have been agreeing with you.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
So now you resort to insults because you have realized that you had no reason to debate me because you always agreed with my position? The irony is belly bursting laughable.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
We definitely have much to debate about. You are in need of a DDO education. You have a problem with jumping to conclusions, and affirming your superiority without actually having a basic understanding of logic. If you did, you wouldn't use so many parables the use of which 99% of the time is a logical fallacy.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I don't get embarrassed over internet debates...Also, if you don't believe the mind is independent of the brain then we have nothing to debate about.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 5 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO advanced the thrust of his arguments, for which CON failed to refute or even attempt to do so; S
Vote Placed by Davididit 5 years ago
Davididit
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply does not understand philosophy of mind and how forms of dualism can account and even accept the fact that the brain can damage parts of the mind and etc. Moreover, most of his case, if not the entire thing, against Pro was nothing but question begging and his arguments didn't go far. Pro did an excellent job of providing arguments and dispelling objections.
Vote Placed by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar: Upon close examination, Con had more missing punctuations, and took liberties in the writing format. Arguments: Con did not truly address Pro's arguments, and made points that didn't make sense. Can you think of a cup before it exists? Well... who invented the cup? Sources: Sources are only reliable in so far as they support your argument.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was dropped.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: dismissed pros arguments
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con inadequately responded to Pro's objections. In one case, the the argument wasn't even addressed (re: modal argument) in the others all the responses seemed to border on question-begging. (i.e. "of course material objects can produce reason because they do!") His argumentation didn't go far enough; showing neural dependency and correlation does nothing, prima facie, to refute dualism.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Rational_Thinker9119ContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to respond to many arguments as Pro proved and doesn't adequately respond to anything..Con's responses are somewhat whimsical and extremely illogical..some of his responses can be considered ad ridicul..Pro accurately went over everything and was far more convincing