Falsifiability

[Kylie]

I did not say souls can't interact with this world. You said that. I said the soul uses the brain to interact with the world. The world as in, the rest of the world besides your brain which is also a part of the world.

So why aren't we just souls without brains? If souls don't actually need the brains for anything, why do we have them? Brains are pretty energy demanding pieces of equipment.

Questions are not refutations, because they contain no clear conclusions, or sequitor process. If you would like to present a refutation present a formal refutation. If you think asking me how souls can interact with the world stands for a refutation then receive a reciprocal refutation. How does matter have intentionality?

Someone has never had a toddler try to blame the flour thrown all over the house on the cat, and prove the toddler wrong by saying, "Then why doesn't the cat have any flour on him?"

The potential of Tryptophan qubits are a real thing even if you don't understand it.

Irrelevant. What you said is still a non-supported claim. How about you provide something to show that it's actually relevant in souls making use of brains?

As I said Maxwells demon has been shown to work even in the real world without violation, information can be a medium for transferring energy. (The point being called here is not it's possible non violation, but it's use as a medium.)

Please show me Maxwell's Demon in the real world.

You have ignored my question again Kylie. Will you answer it? Why is your mass of matter (brain) capable in regards to truth acquisition? If you are sticking to your adopted view of refutation through questions, then consider yourself refuted until you answer it.

Are you asking why I think my brain can get the truth?

Because the way you phrased it is incredibly clunky and awkward.

 

[Sanoy]

So why aren't we just souls without brains? If souls don't actually need the brains for anything, why do we have them? Brains are pretty energy demanding pieces of equipment.



Someone has never had a toddler try to blame the flour thrown all over the house on the cat, and prove the toddler wrong by saying, "Then why doesn't the cat have any flour on him?"



Irrelevant. What you said is still a non-supported claim. How about you provide something to show that it's actually relevant in souls making use of brains?



Please show me Maxwell's Demon in the real world.



Are you asking why I think my brain can get the truth?

Because the way you phrased it is incredibly clunky and awkward.

I never said souls don't need a brain, you keep saying that. Questions are not refutations, they are questions. You ask the question "why doesn't the cat have flour on him" because there might be an explanation for that. It's the lack of a child's response, (much like your own), that leads someone to conclude the child is guilty. Questions are not refutations, refutations are proofs that demonstrate something is right or wrong. Questions do not demonstrate something is right or wrong.

I can't demonstrate the causal chain of soul interaction, I can only state that there is nothing preventing it, and there are presently hypotheses of how it could be happening, which I listed. I noticed you gave no reply to how matter can have intentionality. It is the inability to answer such questions that make a nonphysical hypothesis necessary. Positing a necessary causal factor is perfectly normal and done all the time.

I am asking why do you think that your brain can acquire the truth? and I am also asking how can matter have intentionality? (per your own view of questions consider yourself refuted until you answer both) I have patiently waited for your answer for a while now, but from now on I will not answer your questions until you do.

 

[Kylie]

I never said souls don't need a brain, you keep saying that.

So if souls don't need brains, why do we have brains?

 

[Sanoy]

So if souls don't need brains, why do we have brains?

I have patiently waited for your answer of my two questions for a while now, but from now on I will not answer your questions until you answer them. Consider yourself refuted, by your own view of what stands for refutation, until you do.

 

[Kylie]

I have patiently waited for your answer of my two questions for a while now, but from now on I will not answer your questions until you answer them. Consider yourself refuted, by your own view of what stands for refutation, until you do.

First of all, a question doesn't refute a point unless the answer to the question exposes a contradiction or other flaw in the issue being questions.

Okay, your two questions:

Why do you think that your brain can acquire the truth?

How can matter have intentionality?

These are the two clunkiest questions I have read for a long time, and they seem like something Deeprak Chopra would come up with.

As for the first question, I get truth by examining information and comparing it to what others have learnt of the same thing I am learning about. If the information I get is consistent with other things that I have concluded are true, I am likely to accept the new information as true as well. If it contradicts what I have previously concluded to be true, then I examine both the new information as well as the information I already have. I do this because the two in such a case cannot both be true, and I want to know where the incorrect information is. And when I have access to an expert in the field, I am inclined to accept that what they say is true when they are talking about the field they have expertise in. Is there a part of this that you disagree with?

As for the second question, I assume that you are asking how a brain made of matter can have thoughts and make decisions. I see thoughts as an emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions within our brain. Still, I really wish you would learn how to be clearer with the way you phrase questions. Next time, I'll give you Deeprak Chopra style answers when you ask me Deeprak Chopra style questions.

Now, I trust you will answer my question. Why do we have brains if they are not needed for our souls to interact with the world?

 

[Sanoy]

Why do you think that your brain can acquire the truth?

How can matter have intentionality?


As for the first question, I get truth by examining information and comparing it to what others have learnt of the same thing I am learning about. If the information I get is consistent with other things that I have concluded are true, I am likely to accept the new information as true as well. If it contradicts what I have previously concluded to be true, then I examine both the new information as well as the information I already have. I do this because the two in such a case cannot both be true, and I want to know where the incorrect information is. And when I have access to an expert in the field, I am inclined to accept that what they say is true when they are talking about the field they have expertise in. Is there a part of this that you disagree with?

As for the second question, I assume that you are asking how a brain made of matter can have thoughts and make decisions. I see thoughts as an emergent property of the electro-chemical interactions within our brain. Still, I really wish you would learn how to be clearer with the way you phrase questions. Next time, I'll give you Deeprak Chopra style answers when you ask me Deeprak Chopra style questions.

Now, I trust you will answer my question. Why do we have brains if they are not needed for our souls to interact with the world?

I didn't ask how you think you acquire the truth, I asked how your brain acquires the truth. I doesn't matter what you think your are doing, it matters what your brain is actually doing. You are giving me a mental description, I didn't ask for that, I want a description about how your brain acquires the truth. For example why is your brain better at acquiring the truth than the gut of a Giraffe. What is the fundamental reason that your brain is capable of acquiring the truth whereas the gut of a Giraffe is not.

I am asking how any matter can have intentionality. Intentionality is a philosophical term. You didn't answer how matter can have intentionality, you just stated that you perceive that it does as an emergent property. Are you referring to epiphenomenalism?

And now your question. I didn't say brains aren't needed by the soul to interact with the world. I said the exact opposite. From post #503

Me: I never said souls don't need a brain, you keep saying that.
You: So if souls don't need brains, why do we have brains?

 

[Kylie]

I didn't ask how you think you acquire the truth, I asked how your brain acquires the truth. You are giving me a mental description, I didn't ask for that, I want a description about how your brain acquires the truth. For example why is your brain better at acquiring the truth than the gut of a Giraffe. What is the fundamental reason that your brain is capable of acquiring the truth whereas the gut of a Giraffe is not.

You assume that I am not my brain. I am my brain.

And when you ask why my brain is better at acquiring truth than the gut of a giraffe, the question is just absolute nonsense. Why is my car better at going fast than the colour blue? Why is my bluetooth speaker better at playing sounds than my front door key? Because that's what they have developed to do, whether by design in the case of going fast or playing music, or by evolution in the case of my brain gathering truth.

I am asking how any matter can have intentionality. Intentionality is a philosophical term. You didn't answer how matter can have intentionality, you just stated that you perceive that it does as an emergent property. Are you referring to epiphenomenalism?

Maybe if you were actually clear about what you are asking...

And now your question. I didn't say brains aren't needed by the soul to interact with the world. I said the exact opposite. From post #503

Me: I never said souls don't need a brain, you keep saying that.
You: So if souls don't need brains, why do we have brains?

And in post #474, you said:

"...under dualsim the soul uses the brain to interact with the world."

Why do souls use brains as a proxy if they do not need to? A brain is an expensive thing to run. If our souls do not require them, why do we have them?

I have asked you this question twice now, in posts 501, and 503.

 

[Sanoy]

You assume that I am not my brain. I am my brain.

And when you ask why my brain is better at acquiring truth than the gut of a giraffe, the question is just absolute nonsense. Why is my car better at going fast than the colour blue? Why is my bluetooth speaker better at playing sounds than my front door key? Because that's what they have developed to do, whether by design in the case of going fast or playing music, or by evolution in the case of my brain gathering truth.



Maybe if you were actually clear about what you are asking...



And in post #474, you said:

"...under dualsim the soul uses the brain to interact with the world."

Why do souls use brains as a proxy if they do not need to? A brain is an expensive thing to run. If our souls do not require them, why do we have them?

I have asked you this question twice now, in posts 501, and 503.

You just told me your mental experience was an emergent property of your brain. Now you are telling your mental experience is identical to your brain. Are you sure you know what you believe? Which is it?

You protest my question by dividing things according to their function, like cars and door locks, rather than the matter that composes it. My question is about the matter, and why it has the function of truth acquisition. I know how keys acquired the function of opening doors, and how cars acquired the function of driving, but how does the brain have the function of acquiring the truth? There must be an explanation.

How can matter have the property of intentionality. Intentionality is being "about" something. "In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents. Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality." So you should now have the understanding to answer the question.

I keep telling you over and over, the soul needs the brain to interact with the world. I can't be more clear than that, and I feel that I have.

Also, you didn't answer my question about epiphenomenalism. Are you a materialist, epiphenomenalist, other?

 

[Kylie]

You just told me your mental experience was an emergent property of your brain. Now you are telling your mental experience is identical to your brain. Are you sure you know what you believe? Which is it?

Why do you think they are two different things? My mental experience is what happens when my brain works. It requires my brain. Without my brain, there is no mental experience.

You protest my question by dividing things according to their function, like cars and door locks, rather than the matter that composes it. My question is about the matter, and why it has the function of truth acquisition. I know how keys acquired the function of opening doors, and how cars acquired the function of driving, but how does the brain have the function of acquiring the truth? There must be an explanation.

Not all matter has the function of truth aquisition.

Honestly, you are being very confusing. Your language is unclear and it's hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to ask. I get the feeling that you are just muddying the waters.

How can matter have the property of intentionality. Intentionality is being "about" something. "In philosophy, intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents. Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality." So you should now have the understanding to answer the question.

Philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Living things needed ways of reacting to the world, to find food, avoid dangers, etc. Brains and nervous systems evolved as a way to do that. As they became more advanced, the were able to do more abstract things until here we are today with human brains.

I suspect that your questions stem from a viewpoint I do not share, although as I said your language is so filled with jargon that it's hard to tell.

I keep telling you over and over, the soul needs the brain to interact with the world. I can't be more clear than that, and I feel that I have.

So now you say that souls need brains to interact with the world, and yet earlier you were saying, "I never said souls don't need a brain." Post 503.

So, what is it? Do souls need brains or not?

Also, you didn't answer my question about epiphenomenalism. Are you a materialist, epiphenomenalist, other?

I wouldn't say materialist, unless that includes energy and such. I also wouldn't say epiphenomenalist either. You do realise that not everyone has looked at all these options and figured it out, right? I'm just someone who thinks that a brain is a physical structure which produces biochemical and bioelectrical activity, and this activity is what creates my conscious mind. I don't think there's a separate soul, but I do think there's more than purely physical process going on.

 

[Sanoy]

Why do you think they are two different things? My mental experience is what happens when my brain works. It requires my brain. Without my brain, there is no mental experience.



Not all matter has the function of truth aquisition.

Honestly, you are being very confusing. Your language is unclear and it's hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to ask. I get the feeling that you are just muddying the waters.



Philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Living things needed ways of reacting to the world, to find food, avoid dangers, etc. Brains and nervous systems evolved as a way to do that. As they became more advanced, the were able to do more abstract things until here we are today with human brains.

I suspect that your questions stem from a viewpoint I do not share, although as I said your language is so filled with jargon that it's hard to tell.



So now you say that souls need brains to interact with the world, and yet earlier you were saying, "I never said souls don't need a brain." Post 503.

So, what is it? Do souls need brains or not?



I wouldn't say materialist, unless that includes energy and such. I also wouldn't say epiphenomenalist either. You do realise that not everyone has looked at all these options and figured it out, right? I'm just someone who thinks that a brain is a physical structure which produces biochemical and bioelectrical activity, and this activity is what creates my conscious mind. I don't think there's a separate soul, but I do think there's more than purely physical process going on.

You said your mental experience is an emergent property from within your brain. The semantics of that sentence require two different things, otherwise it's a tautology.

How do you know that all matter doesn't have the function of truth acquisition when you can't even explain how the matter in your brain has the function of truth acquisition? I'll ask it a different way. When you make the statement "Mental states are identical to the Brain", why should I believe that your brain has the capability of acquiring true propositions about states of affairs.

I understand you disdain philosophy, but you are in most need of it because you don't even recognize when your thinking is circular. I am asking HOW does matter have intentionality. I didn't ask why living things need intentionality. I asked HOW does matter have intentionality.

I have been saying that that souls need brains to interact with the world the whole time. You are the one that keeps saying that I said the opposite. The statement "I never said souls don't need a brain." Is not a statement saying "souls don't need a brain", it's a statement saying that I have NOT SAID that "souls don't need a brain".

A physicalist is like materialist but includes things like energy, fields, forces. Basically physical is everything that can be described by physics and chemistry. If you are a physicalist then you must also believe that mental experience is fully described by physics and chemistry. You declare yourself a "non-physicalist" in saying there is more than purely physicalist processes. You believe in something that transcends the physical world. So do I.

 

[Kylie]

You said your mental experience is an emergent property from within your brain. The semantics of that sentence require two different things, otherwise it's a tautology.

How do you know that all matter doesn't have the function of truth acquisition when you can't even explain how the matter in your brain has the function of truth acquisition? I'll ask it a different way. When you make the statement "Mental states are identical to the Brain", why should I believe that your brain has the capability of acquiring true propositions about states of affairs.

I understand you disdain philosophy, but you are in most need of it because you don't even recognize when your thinking is circular. I am asking HOW does matter have intentionality. I didn't ask why living things need intentionality. I asked HOW does matter have intentionality.

I have been saying that that souls need brains to interact with the world the whole time. You are the one that keeps saying that I said the opposite. The statement "I never said souls don't need a brain." Is not a statement saying "souls don't need a brain", it's a statement saying that I have NOT SAID that "souls don't need a brain".

A physicalist is like materialist but includes things like energy, fields, forces. Basically physical is everything that can be described by physics and chemistry. If you are a physicalist then you must also believe that mental experience is fully described by physics and chemistry. You declare yourself a "non-physicalist" in saying there is more than purely physicalist processes. You believe in something that transcends the physical world. So do I.

You seem to think that the construction of a thing is the same thing as the way the thing works. This is not true. That's why we have MRIs and FMRIs. The MRI looks at how the brain is structured. The FMRI looks at how activity in the brain changes over time.

Another example. My computer is structurally the same when it is turned on as it is when it is turned off. But when it is turned on, it has changing activity, and that makes a big difference.

And you seem to be going all over the place with this souls and brain thing.

Let me ask you a simple question, and I want a yes or a no.

Can a soul interact with the world without using a brain? Yes or no?

 

[Sanoy]

You seem to think that the construction of a thing is the same thing as the way the thing works. This is not true. That's why we have MRIs and FMRIs. The MRI looks at how the brain is structured. The FMRI looks at how activity in the brain changes over time.

Another example. My computer is structurally the same when it is turned on as it is when it is turned off. But when it is turned on, it has changing activity, and that makes a big difference.

And you seem to be going all over the place with this souls and brain thing.

Let me ask you a simple question, and I want a yes or a no.

Can a soul interact with the world without using a brain? Yes or no?

Nope you get your question answered when you dutifully answer the questions I gave you in the last reply. Quid pro quo. I am not going to answer your questions why you ignore mine. Until you answer them, by your own standards, consider yourself refuted.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nope you get your question answered when you dutifully answer the questions I gave you in the last reply. Quid pro quo. I am not going to answer your questions why you ignore mine. Until you answer them, by your own standards, consider yourself refuted.

I recommend you restate those questions with as much clarity as you can achieve. As currently stated they are ambiguous as is your entire thesis. Kylie appears to be doing her best to understand your position. You seem more intent upon aggressively attacking and quite ignoring the perceived confusion of your position. A restatement of your questions would help reduce that perception.

 

[Sanoy]

I recommend you restate those questions with as much clarity as you can achieve. As currently stated they are ambiguous as is your entire thesis. Kylie appears to be doing her best to understand your position. You seem more intent upon aggressively attacking and quite ignoring the perceived confusion of your position. A restatement of your questions would help reduce that perception.

Oh hey, i thought you put me on ignore. My last reply was a reformulation of my questions, and she chose again to ignore those questions and make comments around them. I don't share your opinion that she is doing her best to understand when she calls philosophy "mumbo jumbo". If you wish to rejoin the conversation I believe you have your own questions to answer, which stand as refutations until they are answered per your own understanding. But if that is just going to infuriate you I prefer we avoid that so we can have future conversations.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh hey, i thought you put me on ignore. My last reply was a reformulation of my questions, and she chose again to ignore those questions and make comments around them. I don't share your opinion that she is doing her best to understand when she calls philosophy "mumbo jumbo". If you wish to rejoin the conversation I believe you have your own questions to answer, which stand as refutations until they are answered per your own understanding. But if that is just going to infuriate you I prefer we avoid that so we can have future conversations.

You are still on Ignore. I clicked the remove ignore button to see who I was trying to ignore in this thread, read your post and thought my comments might be helpful to further the discussion between you and Kylie. Obviously I was mistaken.

I understand that you probably think you are writing with great clarity. From where I sit that simply isn't true. Your posts just manage, some of the time, to avoid being pure word salad. The reformulation of the questions your refer to left me none the wiser as to what you were asking. Sanoy, if you cannot make your meaning clear to your readers you cannot reasonably blame them for not understanding you or giving what seem to you poor answers.

I'm out of this again. I'll try not to check on whom I'm ignoring in future and avoid a further pointless exchange.

 

[Kylie]

Nope you get your question answered when you dutifully answer the questions I gave you in the last reply. Quid pro quo. I am not going to answer your questions why you ignore mine. Until you answer them, by your own standards, consider yourself refuted.

Just asking questions doesn't refute anything. I explained how it works. And I answered your questions. If they're not the answers you want, then perhaps you should try using clear language when you ask.

Until then, you're just trolling.

 

[Sanoy]

Just asking questions doesn't refute anything. I explained how it works. And I answered your questions. If they're not the answers you want, then perhaps you should try using clear language when you ask.

Until then, you're just trolling.

Oh ok, only your questions are refutations. I see. No, you didn't answer my questions, you don't even bother to understand them calling philosophy mumbo jumbo.

Here are the questions you failed to answer in the last reply.
1. How do you know that all matter doesn't have the function of truth acquisition when you can't even explain how the matter in your brain has the function of truth acquisition? (You made the statement that it doesn't so you should have an explanation why it doesn't)
2.When you make the statement "Mental states are identical to the Brain", why should I believe that your brain has the capability of acquiring true propositions about states of affairs. (why should I believe that you have apprehended the truth when you make that statement)
3. I am asking HOW does matter have intentionality. I didn't ask why living things need intentionality. I asked HOW does matter have intentionality. (There is a state of affairs where matter has it, and a state of affairs where it doesn't so you should have an explanation for the change)

Points you failed to respond to.
1.You said your mental experience is an emergent property from within your brain. The semantics of that sentence require two different things, otherwise it's a tautology.
2.If you are a physicalist then you must also believe that mental experience is fully described by physics and chemistry. You declare yourself a "non-physicalist" in saying there is more than purely physicalist processes. You believe in something that transcends the physical world.

The reason you can't answer them is because you don't know the answer, or have any hope of answering it. I could ask these questions to anyone in a philosophy forum and they would understand it. There is nothing wrong with their wording, what is wrong are your intentions here.

 

[Sanoy]

You are still on Ignore. I clicked the remove ignore button to see who I was trying to ignore in this thread, read your post and thought my comments might be helpful to further the discussion between you and Kylie. Obviously I was mistaken.

Really? You expect me to believe that you put me on ignore and were curious who the person on ignore is in the very thread you ignored me on. It's just me, and Kylie here. If your intent is to take me off ignore, make jabs at me, then put me back on ignore I'll just put you on ignore. The reason I haven't is because I hope you will be capable of future conversation. Next time you do that you will be on an actual permanent ignore, as opposed to bluffing.

 

[Kylie]

Oh ok, only your questions are refutations. I see. No, you didn't answer my questions, you don't even bother to understand them calling philosophy mumbo jumbo.

No, any question - even ones you ask - can be a refutation if the act of answering it points out a piece of information the exposes a logical flaw in the argument of the person being asked.

I do not understand how you have failed to grasp this concept. Other people here have understood this.

Here are the questions you failed to answer in the last reply.
1. How do you know that all matter doesn't have the function of truth acquisition when you can't even explain how the matter in your brain has the function of truth acquisition? (You made the statement that it doesn't so you should have an explanation why it doesn't)

I was quite clear that my position was that it was not just the physical structure of the matter, but how it functions that causes consciousness. Please see my post 511 where I talk about the need for both MRIs and FMRIs. The F part is very important.

Brains have the capacity to function in this way, other body parts don't. Asking why my brain can determine truth while my gut can't is like asking why my computer can run Google Chrome while my toaster can't. It's because my toaster is incapable of functioning the way required for Chrome to be run because does not have the proper structure. It is entirely possible that if you take the raw materials from my toaster, melt them down and reform them you could get a computer that could run chrome.

2.When you make the statement "Mental states are identical to the Brain", why should I believe that your brain has the capability of acquiring true propositions about states of affairs. (why should I believe that you have apprehended the truth when you make that statement)

Mental states are, as I have stated numerous times now, not just the result of the physical structure of the brain, but how electrochemical signals propagate through the brain. My brain has the capacity to determine if things are true by testing the evidence that it receives and seeing if that evidence is self-consistent and also consistent with other true things it has determined. I explained this in post 505. You immediately complained about my answer saying, "I didn't ask how you think you acquire the truth, I asked how your brain acquires the truth." This assumption of yours - that I am something separate from my brain - is entirely unwarranted, is an assumption of the point you wish to prove, and also is inconsistent with the position I have made abundantly clear I hold. In essence, you are asking me to disregard my explanation for how consciousness works, and then ask me to come up with a completely new explanation because you don't like that I used an idea you disagree with to answer it the first time.

3. I am asking HOW does matter have intentionality. I didn't ask why living things need intentionality. I asked HOW does matter have intentionality. (There is a state of affairs where matter has it, and a state of affairs where it doesn't so you should have an explanation for the change)

And I have REPEATEDLY told you that mental states are not just a result of the physical structure of matter, but how the matter reacts with electrochemical signals.

Points you failed to respond to.
1.You said your mental experience is an emergent property from within your brain. The semantics of that sentence require two different things, otherwise it's a tautology.

I have been quite clear that my mental experience is a result of electrochemical interactions within my brain. That is not a tautology. By your logical, the claim that a series of points the same distance from an initial points makes the circumference of a circle is a tautology as well.

2.If you are a physicalist then you must also believe that mental experience is fully described by physics and chemistry. You declare yourself a "non-physicalist" in saying there is more than purely physicalist processes. You believe in something that transcends the physical world.

Well, since you seem to think physical means only the way something is put together and doesn't include the way it functions, you can see why I was hesitant to say that. In any case, let me spell it out for in clear terms - there is nothing metaphysical about the brain.

The reason you can't answer them is because you don't know the answer, or have any hope of answering it. I could ask these questions to anyone in a philosophy forum and they would understand it. There is nothing wrong with their wording, what is wrong are your intentions here.

And I've pointed out how I HAVE answered them. Although I wouldn't be surprised if you still don't accept my answers because you disagree with the position I am answering them from.

And yet you can't answer a simple little question of mine - can a soul interact with the real world without using a brain? Yes or no.

I've spent enough time answering your questions, time for you to answer mine.

 

[Sanoy]

No, any question - even ones you ask - can be a refutation if the act of answering it points out a piece of information the exposes a logical flaw in the argument of the person being asked.

I do not understand how you have failed to grasp this concept. Other people here have understood this.



I was quite clear that my position was that it was not just the physical structure of the matter, but how it functions that causes consciousness. Please see my post 511 where I talk about the need for both MRIs and FMRIs. The F part is very important.

Brains have the capacity to function in this way, other body parts don't. Asking why my brain can determine truth while my gut can't is like asking why my computer can run Google Chrome while my toaster can't. It's because my toaster is incapable of functioning the way required for Chrome to be run because does not have the proper structure. It is entirely possible that if you take the raw materials from my toaster, melt them down and reform them you could get a computer that could run chrome.



Mental states are, as I have stated numerous times now, not just the result of the physical structure of the brain, but how electrochemical signals propagate through the brain. My brain has the capacity to determine if things are true by testing the evidence that it receives and seeing if that evidence is self-consistent and also consistent with other true things it has determined. I explained this in post 505. You immediately complained about my answer saying, "I didn't ask how you think you acquire the truth, I asked how your brain acquires the truth." This assumption of yours - that I am something separate from my brain - is entirely unwarranted, is an assumption of the point you wish to prove, and also is inconsistent with the position I have made abundantly clear I hold. In essence, you are asking me to disregard my explanation for how consciousness works, and then ask me to come up with a completely new explanation because you don't like that I used an idea you disagree with to answer it the first time.



And I have REPEATEDLY told you that mental states are not just a result of the physical structure of matter, but how the matter reacts with electrochemical signals.



I have been quite clear that my mental experience is a result of electrochemical interactions within my brain. That is not a tautology. By your logical, the claim that a series of points the same distance from an initial points makes the circumference of a circle is a tautology as well.



Well, since you seem to think physical means only the way something is put together and doesn't include the way it functions, you can see why I was hesitant to say that. In any case, let me spell it out for in clear terms - there is nothing metaphysical about the brain.



And I've pointed out how I HAVE answered them. Although I wouldn't be surprised if you still don't accept my answers because you disagree with the position I am answering them from.

And yet you can't answer a simple little question of mine - can a soul interact with the real world without using a brain? Yes or no.

I've spent enough time answering your questions, time for you to answer mine.

Ah, but Ophiolite called it a refutation before I even responded with an answer. My questions to you thus far been unresponded to in the manner they were asked so they stand as refutations per your standards for what constitutes a refutation. I know for a fact you haven't answered them in your reply just now because no one has an answer for these questions. That is why they are called the "hard Problem" of consciousness, but lets look at them.

Q1. You say "Brains have the capacity to function in this way, other body parts don't". There has to be an explanation for why brains have this capacity while other body parts don't. That has nothing to do with MRIs, or fMRI's. What is the explanation for why brains have this capacity to acquire true propositions about states of affairs.
Q2. Your answer to why I should believe your brain can acquire a true proposition about actual states of affairs is to tell me that your brain states are electrochemical. That does nothing in telling me why I should believe your brain can acquire true propositions about states of affairs. You further state that you know your brain can acquire true propositions by testing the evidence that it receives and seeing if that evidence is self-consistent and also consistent with other true things it has determined. But that is circular. The brain itself is telling you that the brain can acquire true propositions about states of affairs. A calculator can be explained in fully physical terms. If you push 1+1 and hit = pixels form in the shape of a 2. But it can't be explained in physical terms why the 2 on the display has the meaning of being a true proposition. The explanation for that lies in the designer of the calculator. Why does the output of your brain have any meaning regarding the truth. You claimed it had processes but those are just electrochemical signals which say nothing about why it should result in true propositions.
Q3. To my question of how matter can have intentionality you reply that you have repeatedly told me that mental states are due to physical matter and electrochemical signals. But that doesn't answer how matter or electrochemical signals can have intentionality. It's just a dodging of the question. If some things have intentionality and others don't then you must explain why and how.

S1.We can establish now that you consider mental events as discreet from the brain matter, but are the mental events also discrete from electrochemical signals?
S2. Ok, so if there is nothing metaphysical about the brain then it should be fully, or capable of being fully described physics and chemistry. That would make it determined. If there is nothing metaphysical here, and everything that you are is reducible to deterministic properties then you haven't really thought about or reasoned through a single claim you have made to me. You were merely determined by the physical and chemical situation in your body to make your remarks while having the experience that you actually thought and reasoned them through. Why should I believe your physical and chemical situation any better than someone else's?

If you think you have answered the hard problems of consciousness here on this forum you are very mistaken. However you did put in considerable effort in trying so I'm going to answer your question in the trust that you continue to either try to answer these questions, or earnestly admit than you have no answer to them.

Q:Can a soul interact with the real world without using a brain? Yes or no. It's a little more complicated than yes or no because you ask me things beyond my capacity to answer. If it's true that demons and ghosts can move objects and interact with someones consciousness and experiences then yes they can do so without a brain. But you cannot have the full human experience without a full brain.