Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The mind of a Baby

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 12:46:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

Then you have those to appeal to the Orch-OR theory of consciousness, who will try to argue consciousness is in the microtubules and is fueled by quantum mechanics....
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 3:47:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

I don't think that proving consciousness depends on or is hinged to something physical also proves that it's mechanical.

That, sir, is an equivocation.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

This is barely short of circular reasoning.

And in fact, you've got it completely backwards. P2 is the only premise where there are no grounds for argument since the fetus is a purely physical term.

Prove P1.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:22:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:17:38 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

This is barely short of circular reasoning.

And in fact, you've got it completely backwards. P2 is the only premise where there are no grounds for argument since the fetus is a purely physical term.

Prove P1.

So you mean to tell me that 4 cells (early stage of zygote) are aware that they exist and are conscious of where they are and what they're doing?....I think you dismissed the argument too early. P1 is self-evident. If you say that cells can be conscious, then that has overarching implications for all living and non-living beings. What are cells but machines with the ability to replicate? Maybe a rock is conscious by that standard.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:23:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

As stated before, premise one would be needed to be proven as it already seems to imply that consciousness is a state procured, either by physical or mental processes, that becomes modified in such a leap of logic.

In fact, as caveat stated, THAT would be the premise in doubt and in need of proof, as it is uncontested that the development of a human fetus is amounted by physical means....

Just to chime in here in some philosophical discourse.:)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:27:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:23:51 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

As stated before, premise one would be needed to be proven as it already seems to imply that consciousness is a state procured, either by physical or mental processes, that becomes modified in such a leap of logic.

In fact, as caveat stated, THAT would be the premise in doubt and in need of proof, as it is uncontested that the development of a human fetus is amounted by physical means....

Just to chime in here in some philosophical discourse.:)

I value your opinion less than anyone on this website. Not because you disagree with me, but because I get the sense that you're trying to disagree.

just letting you know...

As for your rebuttal, refer to my response to Caveat.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:42:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:17:38 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

This is barely short of circular reasoning.

And in fact, you've got it completely backwards. P2 is the only premise where there are no grounds for argument since the fetus is a purely physical term.

Prove P1.

So you mean to tell me that 4 cells (early stage of zygote) are aware that they exist and are conscious of where they are and what they're doing?....I think you dismissed the argument too early. P1 is self-evident. If you say that cells can be conscious, then that has overarching implications for all living and non-living beings. What are cells but machines with the ability to replicate? Maybe a rock is conscious by that standard.

I should have prefaced this with the fact that I probably subscribe to some form of physicalism. I'm simply here because I enjoy this topic :)

Anyhow, as you've stated yourself, our empirical means of evaluation are wholly incapable of proving or disproving the matters of the mind. So yes, it is completely possible, as I'm sure you are aware, that zygotes and rocks are conscious. I'm not telling you that it is so, but rather that you cannot state the contrary to any degree of certainty.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:56:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:42:32 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:17:38 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

This is barely short of circular reasoning.

And in fact, you've got it completely backwards. P2 is the only premise where there are no grounds for argument since the fetus is a purely physical term.

Prove P1.

So you mean to tell me that 4 cells (early stage of zygote) are aware that they exist and are conscious of where they are and what they're doing?....I think you dismissed the argument too early. P1 is self-evident. If you say that cells can be conscious, then that has overarching implications for all living and non-living beings. What are cells but machines with the ability to replicate? Maybe a rock is conscious by that standard.

I should have prefaced this with the fact that I probably subscribe to some form of physicalism. I'm simply here because I enjoy this topic :)

My argument is in support of physicalism.

Anyhow, as you've stated yourself, our empirical means of evaluation are wholly incapable of proving or disproving the matters of the mind. So yes, it is completely possible, as I'm sure you are aware, that zygotes and rocks are conscious. I'm not telling you that it is so, but rather that you cannot state the contrary to any degree of certainty.

That's true, however, in order for one to disprove the syllogism, we have to demonstrate something which is not only undemonstrable but lacks any form of practical evidence. However, if we say that what we call a "mind" is really just a physical sensation, we have at least some evidence to corroborate that. Therefore, as per Occam's razor, it's more reasonable to be a physicalist.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:27:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:23:51 PM, Man-is-good wrote:

As stated before, premise one would be needed to be proven as it already seems to imply that consciousness is a state procured, either by physical or mental processes, that becomes modified in such a leap of logic.

In fact, as caveat stated, THAT would be the premise in doubt and in need of proof, as it is uncontested that the development of a human fetus is amounted by physical means....

Just to chime in here in some philosophical discourse.:)

I value your opinion less than anyone on this website. Not because you disagree with me, but because I get the sense that you're trying to disagree.

just letting you know...

As for your rebuttal, refer to my response to Caveat.

Good god, where did you get such a feeling, Ike?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:06:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:17:38 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

This is barely short of circular reasoning.

And in fact, you've got it completely backwards. P2 is the only premise where there are no grounds for argument since the fetus is a purely physical term.

Prove P1.

So you mean to tell me that 4 cells (early stage of zygote) are aware that they exist and are conscious of where they are and what they're doing?....I think you dismissed the argument too early. P1 is self-evident. If you say that cells can be conscious, then that has overarching implications for all living and non-living beings. What are cells but machines with the ability to replicate? Maybe a rock is conscious by that standard.

Hmm...interesting argument. You intend to simply dismiss the concept of a consciousness within the living cells because of its apparent overarching implications???

What criteria, by means empirical or even philosophical in construct, have you used as a basis?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:33:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:56:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:42:32 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:22:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:17:38 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

This is barely short of circular reasoning.

And in fact, you've got it completely backwards. P2 is the only premise where there are no grounds for argument since the fetus is a purely physical term.

Prove P1.

So you mean to tell me that 4 cells (early stage of zygote) are aware that they exist and are conscious of where they are and what they're doing?....I think you dismissed the argument too early. P1 is self-evident. If you say that cells can be conscious, then that has overarching implications for all living and non-living beings. What are cells but machines with the ability to replicate? Maybe a rock is conscious by that standard.

I should have prefaced this with the fact that I probably subscribe to some form of physicalism. I'm simply here because I enjoy this topic :)

My argument is in support of physicalism.

I know. Just seeing what it's like from the other side of the fence.


Anyhow, as you've stated yourself, our empirical means of evaluation are wholly incapable of proving or disproving the matters of the mind. So yes, it is completely possible, as I'm sure you are aware, that zygotes and rocks are conscious. I'm not telling you that it is so, but rather that you cannot state the contrary to any degree of certainty.

That's true, however, in order for one to disprove the syllogism, we have to demonstrate something which is not only undemonstrable but lacks any form of practical evidence. However, if we say that what we call a "mind" is really just a physical sensation, we have at least some evidence to corroborate that. Therefore, as per Occam's razor, it's more reasonable to be a physicalist.

I agree that Occam's razor is in favour of the empiricist's view of the mind-body problem.

The only unanswered, relevant argument that dualism has is that of introspection. How does one begin to explain or describe the qualitative experience of human thought, emotion, and experience? Unfortunately, this argument is but a flimsy catch-all after the other walls of dualism have been knocked down.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
bump
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter). Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter). Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.

That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 10:56:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:02:16 AM, 000ike wrote:
I think the development of the fetus is an interesting place to look at for answers on consciousness. Consider this argument:

P1: An unconscious mass of cells develops into a conscious human
P2: The development of the fetus is a purely physical process
C: Therefore, consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

Number 2 is the only arguable premise. However, for those who believe that a "mind" exists, they have to demonstrate that development is also a mental process. This is impossible to demonstrate, since by virtue of being mental, it is unobservable by anyone except the person experiencing it. To say that we develop mentally would be pure conjecture.

It should follow that either consciousness is definitely caused and operated by physical things,...or it is more reasonable to believe that consciousness is caused and operated by physical things.

P1: An undrivable mass of junk develops into a drivable car
P2: The development of the car is a purely undrivable process
C: Therefore, driving is a purely undrivable phenomenon, not a driving one
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 11:04:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter). Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.

That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.

It's not presumptuous at all. It is purely fact.

You seem to agree that some form of dualism is at the very least possible, yet still try to prove that the mind is actually completely reducible to matter. Again, you can make an argument of the correlation between mind and body so strong that you might be justified in making the leap that there is no distinction between the two, but that does not affect the possibility of dualism.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 11:18:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean?
It's pretty straight forward, no?

I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical.
Yes I know. The question was more geared towards those that support the "mind." As far as denying the mind, I suppose it depends on how it is defined. If it is defined as "non-physical" but able to affect the physical but not be affected itself by the physical, then I am against it and probably with you on this point.

However, I think of the mind as product of a brain, consciousness, or the "software" (in concept form) of the brain. As such, I see no problem with accepting that the mind exists as an abstraction of the brain.

So one can ask, "does the mind, and by extension, the non-physical really exist"? I answer yes: it exists in the same way that the NUMBER 1 exists or dreams exist, etc. But such exist as an abstraction or concept that is held by a physical brain. In other words, the non-physical is predicated upon the physical.

Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.
The latter. As science has shown us: decreased brain function is accompanied by decreased mental function, etc. This is always the case for SPECIFIC parts of the brain.

I have always wondered how one get's to the position of accepting the existence of the "non-physical" without ANY empirical evidence?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 11:31:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 11:04:59 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter). Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.

That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.

It's not presumptuous at all. It is purely fact.

You seem to agree that some form of dualism is at the very least possible, yet still try to prove that the mind is actually completely reducible to matter. Again, you can make an argument of the correlation between mind and body so strong that you might be justified in making the leap that there is no distinction between the two, but that does not affect the possibility of dualism.

The basis of the mind-body problem has to do with what the mind actually is. If you start off assuming it is an ethereal substance, then of course it can't be reduced physically...but its status as an ethereal substance is what is in question. You're simply engaged in circular reasoning.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:04:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If we limit our options to theism and naturalism, it is hard to see how finite consciousness could result from the rearrangement of brute matter; it is easier to see how a Conscious Being could produce finite consciousness since, according to theism, the Basic Being is Himself conscious. Thus, the theist has no need to explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of it. Consciousness is there from the beginning. To put the point differently, in the beginning there were either particles or the Logos. If you start with particles and just rearrange them according to physical law, you won't get mind. If you start with Logos, you already have mind.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:09:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 11:31:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:04:59 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter). Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.

That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.

It's not presumptuous at all. It is purely fact.

You seem to agree that some form of dualism is at the very least possible, yet still try to prove that the mind is actually completely reducible to matter. Again, you can make an argument of the correlation between mind and body so strong that you might be justified in making the leap that there is no distinction between the two, but that does not affect the possibility of dualism.

The basis of the mind-body problem has to do with what the mind actually is. If you start off assuming it is an ethereal substance, then of course it can't be reduced physically...but its status as an ethereal substance is what is in question. You're simply engaged in circular reasoning.

I don't start off assuming so at all. That's exactly what we're trying to find out. You are arguing consciousness is wholly from the physical and the counterargument is that you cannot say that with absolute certainty.

The "mind" is consciousness. The "mind" exists. Whether or not it is grounded in the physical or the metaphysical is in question.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:11:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 12:09:03 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:31:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:04:59 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter). Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.

That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.

It's not presumptuous at all. It is purely fact.

You seem to agree that some form of dualism is at the very least possible, yet still try to prove that the mind is actually completely reducible to matter. Again, you can make an argument of the correlation between mind and body so strong that you might be justified in making the leap that there is no distinction between the two, but that does not affect the possibility of dualism.

The basis of the mind-body problem has to do with what the mind actually is. If you start off assuming it is an ethereal substance, then of course it can't be reduced physically...but its status as an ethereal substance is what is in question. You're simply engaged in circular reasoning.

I don't start off assuming so at all. That's exactly what we're trying to find out. You are arguing consciousness is wholly from the physical and the counterargument is that you cannot say that with absolute certainty.

The "mind" is consciousness. The "mind" exists. Whether or not it is grounded in the physical or the metaphysical is in question.

He's got the right perspective, it's out experience of the mind which needs an explanation of it's own right, and it seems naturalism wholly lacks in this regard. See below.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:11:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In general, physico-chemical reactions do not generate consciousness, not even one little bit, but they do in the brain, yet brains seem similar to other parts of organisms bodies (e.g., both are collections of cells totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? The appearance of mind is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. This radical discontinuity seems like an inhomogeneous rupture in the natural world. Similarly, physical states have spatial extension and location but mental states seem to lack spatial features. Space and consciousness sit oddly together. How did spatially-arranged matter conspire to produce non-spatial mental states? From a naturalist point of view, this seems utterly inexplicable.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 1:07:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter).
True that.

Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.
Perhaps, but that's only because the mind does not exist! All you do is simply define the mind into existence.

It's not presumptuous at all. It is purely fact.

You seem to agree that some form of dualism is at the very least possible, yet still try to prove that the mind is actually completely reducible to matter. Again, you can make an argument of the correlation between mind and body so strong that you might be justified in making the leap that there is no distinction between the two, but that does not affect the possibility of dualism.
If the concept you're proposing has ZERO empirical evidence and has as its ONLY caveat (pun intended) that it's not a contradiction, then you need to get a better concept!

I don't start off assuming so at all (ie that the mind is an ethereal substance). That's exactly what we're trying to find out. You are arguing consciousness is wholly from the physical and the counterargument is that you cannot say that with absolute certainty.
But you are assuming it from the start because you are assuming that "ethereal" and non-physical things exist! If you eliminate those unsubstantiated concepts, then you will arrive at the realization that the mind indeed is contingent upon the physical (or that it does not exist physically, however you wish to phrase it.)

The "mind" is consciousness. The "mind" exists. Whether or not it is grounded in the physical or the metaphysical is in question.
Again, presupposing the metaphysical to exist separate from the physical.

*********************************

At 7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.
Ditto

*********************************

At 7/12/2012 12:11:58 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
In general, physico-chemical reactions do not generate consciousness, not even one little bit, but they do in the brain, yet brains seem similar to other parts of organisms bodies (e.g., both are collections of cells totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? The appearance of mind is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. This radical discontinuity seems like an inhomogeneous rupture in the natural world. Similarly, physical states have spatial extension and location but mental states seem to lack spatial features. Space and consciousness sit oddly together. How did spatially-arranged matter conspire to produce non-spatial mental states? From a naturalist point of view, this seems utterly inexplicable.

Fixed in order to more clearly see the absurdities...

In general, electrical reactions do not generate a video game, not even one little bit, but they do in the CPU, yet CPUs seem similar to other parts of computer bodies (e.g., both are collections of circuits totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? The appearance of a video game is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. This radical discontinuity seems like an inhomogeneous rupture in the natural world. Similarly, physical states have spatial extension and location but video game states seem to lack spatial features. Space and software sit oddly together. How did spatially-arranged matter conspire to produce non-spatial video game states? From a naturalist point of view, this seems utterly inexplicable.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 2:23:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 1:07:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:19:30 AM, caveat wrote:
At 7/12/2012 10:13:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/12/2012 9:42:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
How is it that the "mind" can affect the physical but the physical not affect the mind? Seems rather convenient, no?

What do you mean? I'm trying to argue that there is no mind altogether, or it's more reasonable to deny that one exists simply because we started out being purely physical. Either a mental state can spontaneously generate from something physical, which would have to be proven, or what we think is mental is just a sophisticated physical experience.

You can try all you like, but the most you can do is prove a correlation between the mind and body (matter).
True that.

Proving the mind is reducible to matter is impossible.
Perhaps, but that's only because the mind does not exist! All you do is simply define the mind into existence.

It's not presumptuous at all. It is purely fact.

You seem to agree that some form of dualism is at the very least possible, yet still try to prove that the mind is actually completely reducible to matter. Again, you can make an argument of the correlation between mind and body so strong that you might be justified in making the leap that there is no distinction between the two, but that does not affect the possibility of dualism.
If the concept you're proposing has ZERO empirical evidence and has as its ONLY caveat (pun intended) that it's not a contradiction, then you need to get a better concept!

I don't start off assuming so at all (ie that the mind is an ethereal substance). That's exactly what we're trying to find out. You are arguing consciousness is wholly from the physical and the counterargument is that you cannot say that with absolute certainty.
But you are assuming it from the start because you are assuming that "ethereal" and non-physical things exist! If you eliminate those unsubstantiated concepts, then you will arrive at the realization that the mind indeed is contingent upon the physical (or that it does not exist physically, however you wish to phrase it.)

The "mind" is consciousness. The "mind" exists. Whether or not it is grounded in the physical or the metaphysical is in question.
Again, presupposing the metaphysical to exist separate from the physical.

*********************************

At 7/12/2012 10:29:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
That's a very presumptuous statement. The way we conceive of the mind makes it impossible to be reduced to physical events. However, we can't assume the mind is as independent and real as we think it is. When we change that perception, it will be easier to see how the mind is actually purely physical.
Ditto

*********************************

At 7/12/2012 12:11:58 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
In general, physico-chemical reactions do not generate consciousness, not even one little bit, but they do in the brain, yet brains seem similar to other parts of organisms bodies (e.g., both are collections of cells totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? The appearance of mind is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. This radical discontinuity seems like an inhomogeneous rupture in the natural world. Similarly, physical states have spatial extension and location but mental states seem to lack spatial features. Space and consciousness sit oddly together. How did spatially-arranged matter conspire to produce non-spatial mental states? From a naturalist point of view, this seems utterly inexplicable.

Fixed in order to more clearly see the absurdities...

In general, electrical reactions do not generate a video game, not even one little bit, but they do in the CPU, yet CPUs seem similar to other parts of computer bodies (e.g., both are collections of circuits totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? The appearance of a video game is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. This radical discontinuity seems like an inhomogeneous rupture in the natural world. Similarly, physical states have spatial extension and location but video game states seem to lack spatial features. Space and software sit oddly together. How did spatially-arranged matter conspire to produce non-spatial video game states? From a naturalist point of view, this seems utterly inexplicable.

In that analogy, you're still presupposing a mind, namely, he engineer's- so then your example actually goes to help my point and dismantle yours! ... Fix'd.