-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Mind-Body Problem?
- Thread starter Philosoph
- Start date
Okay, the first step to talking on these things with people is to actually read what the people say. So, where is the drugs and alchohol comment? Read post 32!!! It's right there.
Second, you're right, Searle does say that the two affect each other, but not before the brain creates the mind. Which it does say. I'll say it again for you in case you didn't read it again. "Minds are biological products of brains."
"In that case, the problem remains the same."
This isn't even a legitimate problem, because the problem doesn't remain the same, thoughts occur in the brain, we just haven't explored it enough to know exactly how it works.
Also, Searle has defeated dualism, which is proven by the fact that nobody has successfully defended it against him. Thus we have the undefeated-defeater I mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter if people still believe it, that doesn't mean dualism isn't defeated. It's defeated because they haven't been able to defeat Searle's defeater. Again, that's how philosophy works.
Answer the alchohol question. Again it's at post 32. It looks like this:
"Another question for you then. We'll assume that our minds are the things that create our consiousness. That's a fair assumption right (or is conciousness physical?)? Our completely non-physical minds create the consciousness that we each independently experience. You said that these completely non-physical minds interact with my physical brain. My question is this, (and to quote you, "I...have never seen [it] answered [well]) how could something like drugs or alchohol affect our minds and our conciousness, if our minds and the things created by them are non-physical? How could something physical cross that gap?"
is that of some help to you? It's right above where my writing is right now, do you see it up there?
Second, you're right, Searle does say that the two affect each other, but not before the brain creates the mind. Which it does say. I'll say it again for you in case you didn't read it again. "Minds are biological products of brains."
"In that case, the problem remains the same."
This isn't even a legitimate problem, because the problem doesn't remain the same, thoughts occur in the brain, we just haven't explored it enough to know exactly how it works.
Also, Searle has defeated dualism, which is proven by the fact that nobody has successfully defended it against him. Thus we have the undefeated-defeater I mentioned earlier. It doesn't matter if people still believe it, that doesn't mean dualism isn't defeated. It's defeated because they haven't been able to defeat Searle's defeater. Again, that's how philosophy works.
Answer the alchohol question. Again it's at post 32. It looks like this:
"Another question for you then. We'll assume that our minds are the things that create our consiousness. That's a fair assumption right (or is conciousness physical?)? Our completely non-physical minds create the consciousness that we each independently experience. You said that these completely non-physical minds interact with my physical brain. My question is this, (and to quote you, "I...have never seen [it] answered [well]) how could something like drugs or alchohol affect our minds and our conciousness, if our minds and the things created by them are non-physical? How could something physical cross that gap?"
is that of some help to you? It's right above where my writing is right now, do you see it up there?
Upvote
0
Lifesaver
Fides et Ratio
A product that just doesn't exist, right?Philosoph said:
One that is on the brain itself, though scientists haven't found it yet, isn't it?
A materialism which claims the brain and the mind are separated things and that one affects the other (though one was originally created by the other), which leaves the answer of how this interaction takes place to neuroscience and also does not adress the question of how the mind can be physical hasn't defeated much except the extreme outdated dualism according to which mind and brain are completely independent.
Furthermore, the claim that minds are the product of the brain is unverifyable, for we only have access to our own minds.
We know we have brains and minds. We know fish have brains, but we don't know whether they have a mind. We can't tell whether a super-inteligent robot has a mind. We can't tell whether the mind dies when the brain is gone.
In short, all we know is that humans and some other animals have both minds and brains, and that tampering directly with the latter can have effects on the first.
Who knows how the connecting of the physical and non-physical takes place? I don't, and haven't heard of anyone who does.
Still, this connection happens, for giving electric shocks in neurons change our feelings, and drinking alcohol changes our perception and mood.
PS: there's no need to be aggressive. No-one is fighting.
Upvote
0
"A materialism which claims the brain and the mind are separated things and that one affects the other (though one was originally created by the other), which leaves the answer of how this interaction takes place to neuroscience and also does not adress the question of how the mind can be physical hasn't defeated much except the extreme outdated dualism according to which mind and brain are completely independent."
This statement clearly shows that you don't quite know the purpose or role of the philosopher in society. The role is to show what is logically possible and logically impossible. Searle has shown (because he's undefeated thus far) that materialism is the only logical view in the philosophy of mind. It is now the job of the neuroscientist to show scientifically how this is.
Simple as that. Thus far you haven't responded to my questions, just simply said I don't know, which shows me that your perspective is built on very little even in your own mind. You keep claiming that you just can't conceive of the mind being physical, which is completely vacuous as an argument because it proves nothing. Just like people who couldn't conceive of the earth being round. It didn't matter. Your failure to conceive does not disprove the point.
It's been fun.
Peace.
This statement clearly shows that you don't quite know the purpose or role of the philosopher in society. The role is to show what is logically possible and logically impossible. Searle has shown (because he's undefeated thus far) that materialism is the only logical view in the philosophy of mind. It is now the job of the neuroscientist to show scientifically how this is.
Simple as that. Thus far you haven't responded to my questions, just simply said I don't know, which shows me that your perspective is built on very little even in your own mind. You keep claiming that you just can't conceive of the mind being physical, which is completely vacuous as an argument because it proves nothing. Just like people who couldn't conceive of the earth being round. It didn't matter. Your failure to conceive does not disprove the point.
It's been fun.
Peace.
Upvote
0
Lifesaver
Fides et Ratio
Again, I have given evidence of the impossibility of the mind being physical.
Our experiences are nowhere in the physical world. They exist only and exclusively to us, and only inside our minds.
They will not be "found" inside a gland or at the tips of neurons, and scientific research to explain the "location" of the mind is futile. What it can find are the brain processes involved in the creation of ideas, the storage of memories, etc.
The thoughts and memories themselves, as they are experienced by the subject, are not anywhere in the neurons, but only in his mind.
That is the reason why anyone who claims the mind exists in the physical world is wrong. It might be a product of the physical world, as you constantly repeated, but it is not located there.
Can you show some evidence of the mind being physical (and not a product of something physical, nor something which relates somehow to the physical world)?
Until this is brought forward (and it can't, due to the impossibility of reaching someone else's experiences), materialism can't be logically defended.
You can keep on repeating that scientists will find it, someday they will, and believe whatever, but it doesn't change the logical impossibility of the mind being physical.
Our experiences are nowhere in the physical world. They exist only and exclusively to us, and only inside our minds.
They will not be "found" inside a gland or at the tips of neurons, and scientific research to explain the "location" of the mind is futile. What it can find are the brain processes involved in the creation of ideas, the storage of memories, etc.
The thoughts and memories themselves, as they are experienced by the subject, are not anywhere in the neurons, but only in his mind.
That is the reason why anyone who claims the mind exists in the physical world is wrong. It might be a product of the physical world, as you constantly repeated, but it is not located there.
Can you show some evidence of the mind being physical (and not a product of something physical, nor something which relates somehow to the physical world)?
Until this is brought forward (and it can't, due to the impossibility of reaching someone else's experiences), materialism can't be logically defended.
You can keep on repeating that scientists will find it, someday they will, and believe whatever, but it doesn't change the logical impossibility of the mind being physical.
Upvote
0
"You can keep on repeating that scientists will find it, someday they will, and believe whatever, but it doesn't change the logical impossibility of the mind being physical."
The reality is, if they showed something in the brain and said, "this is the mind" you would say "no it isn't" because in this argument, you've begged the question. You automatically presuppose that the mind can't be physical and so any evidence to the contrary you will deny. Question begged right from the beginning.
Also you haven't shown how it can't be in the brain, you've just denied that it can be. Denial isn't an argument.
Peace.
The reality is, if they showed something in the brain and said, "this is the mind" you would say "no it isn't" because in this argument, you've begged the question. You automatically presuppose that the mind can't be physical and so any evidence to the contrary you will deny. Question begged right from the beginning.
Also you haven't shown how it can't be in the brain, you've just denied that it can be. Denial isn't an argument.
Peace.
Upvote
0
I've heard it said that a proper theory of concepts and emotions, that shows that the ultimate source of emotions is conceptual, makes the mind/body "problem" moot.
Upvote
0
Only if objections are raised against the idea the person is denying. Objections other than, "I can't believe that" or, "it'll never happen that _______" without a reason why it'll never happen other then saying "because, it can't."
But thanks, for encouraging me to explain further.
But thanks, for encouraging me to explain further.
Upvote
0
Lifesaver
Fides et Ratio
You are right that I will not accept it to be the mind.Philosoph said:
I have shown it is impossible for the mind to be physical. I have repeated over and over, in different ways, the reason why it cannot.
I'm open to the possibility that science might find something to help your position, but if scientists come saying certain neurons or some cerebral liquid are the mind, they are wrong.
I have not just denied, I have provided an argument for it (in many different posts). Now it is me who urges you to read them.
And I still wonder how it has been proven that the mind is the biological product of the brain (the only new thing Searle's argument has claimed).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
