Mind: emergent property or "Ghost in the machine"?

[peck74]

peck74



All the physical evidence does indicate the activity of the brain does produce the effects we call the mind. If damage to certain areas produces certain types of loss in the abilities of the mind the conclusion is obvious.

I think you would agree with me, that those types of “obvious” conclusions have been historically dangerous to science. From the orbit of planets and the “ether”, to the nature of light, obvious conclusions have a way of being wrong. A vehicle can be damaged; its computer destroyed; but the driver can still walk away. Is the mind the computer or the driver or both? We don’t know, and I for one think the evidence so far is circumstantial. Like I noted earlier, there are many “anomalies”.

Recently a man who lost both arms has been manipulating an artificial arm using nothing but the thoughts in his head!
Grumpy

That’s really something and very encouraging, but shouldn’t that be expected regardless if the mind is a “ghost” or just matter? What good would the mind be to us if it couldn’t interact with the physical world? How do you know if brain activity is cause or effect? Just because the mind interacts with the physical world does not necessitate it itself must be physical. Personally, I can’t even think of an experiment that would conclusively solve this dilemma.

 

[Tomk80]

Only because you think of men in a tiny little box getting tired, and have a pre-conceived notion that you are self aware.

Quite the opposite, because I think of men not in a tiny little box, but in an open space with which they interact. Thus, contrary the suggestion of Searle, I think an electric network with simple rules acting on it can give rise to conscousness, as long as it also has access to external stimuli.

I find Searle's suggestion compelling, to say the least.

See also Alastair Reynolds'discussion on Turing Compliance... he suggests that a sufficiently advanced system can pass the Turing test (indeed, modern computer programs are close) without being self aware, in line with the Chinese room thought experiment... its just a matter of having a big enough catalogu of "if/then" instructions

Remember, when Turing came up with his ideas, a KILObyte seemed like a big memory... so modern multi gig zip drives full of if/thens are much easier to grasp, rather than Turing's idea of the self conscious machinery needed to respond to any stimulus

I do not think the machine described by Searle with pass the Turing test, because it would give conflicts as soon as you ask question that go into this self-awareness. I do not think such a machine can keep up this 'front' if you question it enough, because there are no direct rules. Each rule in conversation has it's exceptions and these only can be grasped by an entity that is self-aware to some extent.

 

[peck74]

Many people are extremely adept at making up false memories, and will even believe in them strongly afterwards:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Put simply, you cannot trust peoples' memories, even your own. The only thing you can trust absolutely is empirical data. And all empirical data relating to psychic phenomena to date has turned up no result. Thus there is ample evidence that psychic phenomena do not exist.

Hi Chalnoth, thanks for the response, but I must disagree. We wouldn’t be able to live if we didn’t trust our memories. We trust our memories every second of every day – it is absolutely vital. Also, empirical data must be interpreted, and we do this using the memories we have accumulated that forms our individual experiences. Empirical data is useless without interpretation. We wouldn’t have scientific debate if empirical data wasn’t open to interpretation – it is subjective. Also, as Trickster notes: “Absence of information isn't proof of absence”
A quick story: I never gave so-called psychic ability much thought, but for Christmas a friend gave me 1 hour with a psychic here in town that had a very good reputation. I had been to psychics before but was never impressed. Lemme tell you, this woman forced me to question my beliefs. She nailed future events so precisely I had to admit she had real ability. For example, she told me a few things:

• A man would call me and ask me to build a mantle for his fireplace – sure enough the next day it happened.
• I would get in a terrible argument with a life-long friend and we would become bitter enemies. – That happened in 2 weeks, despite my attempts to stop it.
• She told me where I would be doing work and the name of the person I would be working for – she was 100% correct.

In fact, every prediction she gave me came true. Is all that just coincidence? Did she conspire to make these prophecies actualize? You could claim that, but there is no evidence to support it. You could just call me crazy and claim my memory has failed me and none of it ever happened, but trust me it did. Experiences like this pose a problem to brain = mind.

 

[Tomk80]

Hi Chalnoth, thanks for the response, but I must disagree. We wouldn’t be able to live if we didn’t trust our memories. We trust our memories every second of every day – it is absolutely vital. Also, empirical data must be interpreted, and we do this using the memories we have accumulated that forms our individual experiences. Empirical data is useless without interpretation. We wouldn’t have scientific debate if empirical data wasn’t open to interpretation – it is subjective. Also, as Trickster notes: “Absence of information isn't proof of absence”
A quick story: I never gave so-called psychic ability much thought, but for Christmas a friend gave me 1 hour with a psychic here in town that had a very good reputation. I had been to psychics before but was never impressed. Lemme tell you, this woman forced me to question my beliefs. She nailed future events so precisely I had to admit she had real ability. For example, she told me a few things:

• A man would call me and ask me to build a mantle for his fireplace – sure enough the next day it happened.
• I would get in a terrible argument with a life-long friend and we would become bitter enemies. – That happened in 2 weeks, despite my attempts to stop it.
• She told me where I would be doing work and the name of the person I would be working for – she was 100% correct.

In fact, every prediction she gave me came true. Is all that just coincidence? Did she conspire to make these prophecies actualize? You could claim that, but there is no evidence to support it. You could just call me crazy and claim my memory has failed me and none of it ever happened, but trust me it did. Experiences like this pose a problem to brain = mind.

We trust our memories, because it is often the best we have. But even in daily life, we know our memories are not perfect. How many times have you been sure that you left your keys where you always do, only to find that they aren't there. Or that you are sure that something happened with that many people there, only to have details of this contradicted by friends. What did the woman you talk about actually predict versus your interpretation of it later. What did you already tell her before? Are you certain? Did you record the conversation, so you could check back? How do you know that what she said did not influence your actions in certain ways? Our memory works good, up to a point. It is very far from being perfect.

 

[Mystman]

I have no idea if something like this has been mentioned (reading 144 posts in one sitting = just a bit too much), but..

..at my last neurophysiology class, this was brought up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

The basic idea is that in patients where the two halves of the brain have been disconnected from each other, the patient can actively disagree with itself.

The example that my teacher brought up was that a ball was moved from right to left. The patient was asked had to look straight ahead, and was asked where the ball was.

The right side of the brain, which controls speech and can only see the ball when it's on the right side (because of the way that the optical nerves are arranged), makes the patient say that the ball is on the right.

The left side of the brain, which can only see the ball on the left side, and which controls the right arm, made the patient rise up his arm in protest over what he himself just said.

(ok, so I probably mixed up about 99% of the lefts/rights, and the teacher probably skipped over some details, but the general idea stands)

The whole idea that a patient can disagree with himself when his brain is split kinda invalidates the concept of a soul.

 

[Skaloop]

I have no idea if something like this has been mentioned (reading 144 posts in one sitting = just a bit too much), but..

..at my last neurophysiology class, this was brought up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

The basic idea is that in patients where the two halves of the brain have been disconnected from each other, the patient can actively disagree with itself.

The example that my teacher brought up was that a ball was moved from right to left. The patient was asked had to look straight ahead, and was asked where the ball was.

The right side of the brain, which controls speech and can only see the ball when it's on the right side (because of the way that the optical nerves are arranged), makes the patient say that the ball is on the right.

The left side of the brain, which can only see the ball on the left side, and which controls the right arm, made the patient rise up his arm in protest over what he himself just said.

(ok, so I probably mixed up about 99% of the lefts/rights, and the teacher probably skipped over some details, but the general idea stands)

The whole idea that a patient can disagree with himself when his brain is split kinda invalidates the concept of a soul.

I loved the split-brain stories from back when I studied psychology. We were told of a man who had severed his corpus callosum ina suicide attempt. He was, essentially, two people in one body. Sometimes his right brain would want to get dressed but his left brain didn't; his left arm would be putting on his shirt while at the same time his right arm would be trying to stop him from putting on the shirt.

So yeah, if there were some kind of soul, then this guy somehow ended up with two of them.

 

[birdan]

I loved the split-brain stories from back when I studied psychology. We were told of a man who had severed his corpus callosum ina suicide attempt. He was, essentially, two people in one body. Sometimes his right brain would want to get dressed but his left brain didn't; his left arm would be putting on his shirt while at the same time his right arm would be trying to stop him from putting on the shirt.

So yeah, if there were some kind of soul, then this guy somehow ended up with two of them.

The books by Oliver Sachs are fascinating reading. He's a neurologist who writes of various case studies, delving into what makes humans human, the boundaries between mind and brain.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hi Chalnoth, thanks for the response, but I must disagree. We wouldn’t be able to live if we didn’t trust our memories. We trust our memories every second of every day – it is absolutely vital.

Nope, not at all. There is no problem in not trusting our memories. What I mean is, you can thinking of them as they are: a tentative, imperfect recording device, subject to addition and deletion.

Also, empirical data must be interpreted, and we do this using the memories we have accumulated that forms our individual experiences.

This isn't good enough in science. You have to show mathematically why the data do or do not fit a hypothesis. A completely independent person has to be able to come to the same conclusion. Or it is worthless.

We wouldn’t have scientific debate if empirical data wasn’t open to interpretation – it is subjective.

Again, not true. Empirical data aren't open to interpretation. Why is it, do you think, that scientific debate can be settled? There is only a debate in the absence of conclusive evidence. And, of course, scientists are very good at coming up with alternative explanations, so it often requires quite a lot of evidence before something is conclusive.

Also, as Trickster notes: “Absence of information isn't proof of absence”

True, but we don't have an absence of information here. There have been many experiments done to try to prove various supernatural phenomena, and every single one that has had careful methodology has come up empty. Of course, one can never absolutely prove that it doesn't happen, but the large number of experiments conducted seem to indicate that it doesn't.

A quick story: I never gave so-called psychic ability much thought, but for Christmas a friend gave me 1 hour with a psychic here in town that had a very good reputation. I had been to psychics before but was never impressed. Lemme tell you, this woman forced me to question my beliefs. She nailed future events so precisely I had to admit she had real ability. For example, she told me a few things:

• A man would call me and ask me to build a mantle for his fireplace – sure enough the next day it happened.
• I would get in a terrible argument with a life-long friend and we would become bitter enemies. – That happened in 2 weeks, despite my attempts to stop it.
• She told me where I would be doing work and the name of the person I would be working for – she was 100% correct.

In fact, every prediction she gave me came true. Is all that just coincidence? Did she conspire to make these prophecies actualize? You could claim that, but there is no evidence to support it. You could just call me crazy and claim my memory has failed me and none of it ever happened, but trust me it did. Experiences like this pose a problem to brain = mind.

I imagine she conspired for the first one (that one would be really easy once she found out what you did). You made the second one happen. She knew people that worked at the company in the third, and made an educated guess.

There may possibly be much better explanations, but not knowing the full exchange that went between you and the psychic, I couldn't be sure as to what other explanations there might be.

 

[Chalnoth]

I have no idea if something like this has been mentioned (reading 144 posts in one sitting = just a bit too much), but..

..at my last neurophysiology class, this was brought up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

The basic idea is that in patients where the two halves of the brain have been disconnected from each other, the patient can actively disagree with itself.

That is just awesome

 

[Mystman]

That is just awesome

I find it <bleep><bleep> scary.

For the "dominant" brain half, it isn't extremely bad. You control the body in the majority of situations, you can communicate via speech, etc.

The non-dominant brain half however, is completely locked up in itself. It can see, it can hear, it can feel, but it can't talk. It can't decide where he/she/it is going. It get's even worse if many memories have been stored in the non-dominant brain half. To remember how life was before the surgery/accident/whatever-what-caused-the-situation, and now just being forced to wait and experience everything that your other brain half throws at you, must suck, really bad.

 

[peck74]

Nope, not at all. There is no problem in not trusting our memories. What I mean is, you can thinking of them as they are: a tentative, imperfect recording device, subject to addition and deletion.

We *must* trust our memories. You have trusted your memory in writing a response to me, in even remembering points to discuss with me. When a scientists looks at data, he does so through memory – i.e. his education, his experiences, his former memories that lead him to a conclusion. Even the ability to recognize something as data relies on memory. To suggest other wise is juts silly, if that is what you’re suggesting. Unfortunately, evidence doesn’t speak for itself.

This isn't good enough in science. You have to show mathematically why the data do or do not fit a hypothesis.

Nonsense. Although nice to imagine science actually doing that, if it were true we wouldn’t have a debate over MET. Most of the dissention from MET is on the mathematical side.

Again, not true. Empirical data aren't open to interpretation. Why is it, do you think, that scientific debate can be settled?

Of course it is. How can you possibly claim that data isn’t open to interpretation? Data doesn’t speak for itself, only interpreters of data do. Scientific debate usually isn’t solved. Take cosmology; take biology; debates rage on and on because two groups see two different things looking at the same data.

True, but we don't have an absence of information here.

19th century physicists urged students to get into other fields of research, because in physics, they already “knew all there was to know”

I imagine she conspired for the first one (that one would be really easy once she found out what you did). You made the second one happen. She knew people that worked at the company in the third, and made an educated guess.

For the first one, I was a software developer at the time but did carpentry in my spare time as a hobby. A friend gave my name to this man he met through his work, and the man contracted me to do the work. The second, I did everything I could to avoid it, and the situation was such that it could not be avoided. The third is not a company, and like I said at the time I wasn’t even in this line of work. The probability she conspired to do all this is astronomically low, not to mention would require a staff of full time workers to do it for all of her clientele. When I see debunking like this, it honestly saddens me that so many people simply stick their heads in the sand in the name of “reason” when faced with anomalies that don’t conform to materialism.

 

[Chalnoth]

We *must* trust our memories. You have trusted your memory in writing a response to me, in even remembering points to discuss with me. When a scientists looks at data, he does so through memory – i.e. his education, his experiences, his former memories that lead him to a conclusion. Even the ability to recognize something as data relies on memory. To suggest other wise is juts silly, if that is what you’re suggesting. Unfortunately, evidence doesn’t speak for itself.

No, we don't have to trust our memories. I'm wrong all the time, and I continually rework problems to be certain that I'm right, instead of just trusting that I can remember the answer. I trust my logic, but I don't trust my memory.

Nonsense. Although nice to imagine science actually doing that, if it were true we wouldn’t have a debate over MET. Most of the dissention from MET is on the mathematical side.

What is MET?

Anyway, people disagree because people make mistakes, or the data is not conclusive. It's not differences of interpretation in science: some are right, some are wrong. It's that simple. Science advances by demonstrating who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Chalnoth]

I find it <bleep><bleep> scary.

For the "dominant" brain half, it isn't extremely bad. You control the body in the majority of situations, you can communicate via speech, etc.

The non-dominant brain half however, is completely locked up in itself. It can see, it can hear, it can feel, but it can't talk. It can't decide where he/she/it is going. It get's even worse if many memories have been stored in the non-dominant brain half. To remember how life was before the surgery/accident/whatever-what-caused-the-situation, and now just being forced to wait and experience everything that your other brain half throws at you, must suck, really bad.

Well, I know what I would do: learn to write (or type) with either hand. That way I could talk to myself

 

[Tomk80]

We *must* trust our memories. You have trusted your memory in writing a response to me, in even remembering points to discuss with me. When a scientists looks at data, he does so through memory – i.e. his education, his experiences, his former memories that lead him to a conclusion. Even the ability to recognize something as data relies on memory. To suggest other wise is juts silly, if that is what you’re suggesting. Unfortunately, evidence doesn’t speak for itself.

When I type a post like this, to a text like yours, I regularly read back my responses to see whether they answer the points in your text. Especially with longer points, I keep going back and forth between what the other has written and what I wrote, to see whether I'm not forgetting anything or misread something. I do not trust my memory here, otherwise I wouldn't keep on going back and forth checking.

I'm writing my thesis now, and I keep going back and forth with the data and text to check what results I had gotten. I also keep reading and rereading articles, for exactly the same reason. I do not trust my memory here, except on some very broad outlines which are completely insufficient for the thing I am writing.

As with everything, memory is only trustworthy for in a very broad way. And even for some of the broader lines, you keep having to check it. That is not a bad thing, as long as you keep doing that.

Nonsense. Although nice to imagine science actually doing that, if it were true we wouldn’t have a debate over MET. Most of the dissention from MET is on the mathematical side.

Science does do that. Diseases like measles and cholera, atomic theory, theory of evolution etc etc, lots of areas where a consensus has been reached in science on many of the issues. The debate is in the details, and those details get smaller and smaller. But on the large picture, consensus has been reached here and not changed. It only changes with new data. That has nothing to do with the interpretation being stable before that new data was found.

Of course it is. How can you possibly claim that data isn’t open to interpretation? Data doesn’t speak for itself, only interpreters of data do. Scientific debate usually isn’t solved. Take cosmology; take biology; debates rage on and on because two groups see two different things looking at the same data.

On the details, yes. For example, in biology no scientists who seriously works on it (no, Behe, Dembski and their ilk do not seriously work on it) disagrees with evolution. The data is also mostly agreed on, as is on the broad lines. But for many of the more detailed cases, most debate is caused by the lack of data, not because the data itself is interpreted differently.

19th century physicists urged students to get into other fields of research, because in physics, they already “knew all there was to know”

Yup, when new data comes, new models need to be made. Again, nothing to do with the data and how it is interpreted, but with the lack of data.

For the first one, I was a software developer at the time but did carpentry in my spare time as a hobby. A friend gave my name to this man he met through his work, and the man contracted me to do the work. The second, I did everything I could to avoid it, and the situation was such that it could not be avoided. The third is not a company, and like I said at the time I wasn’t even in this line of work. The probability she conspired to do all this is astronomically low, not to mention would require a staff of full time workers to do it for all of her clientele. When I see debunking like this, it honestly saddens me that so many people simply stick their heads in the sand in the name of “reason” when faced with anomalies that don’t conform to materialism.

How do you expect us to verify your tale? All we have is your memory, we don't have audiofiles of your session, neither have we got full data on what you told this woman, what friends of you might have told this woman (I mean, you got it from a friend who presumably went there right, and yes I checked this going back, despite having read it before), etc etc. We simply do not have anything to go on. As Chalnoth said, those are a few options, it's not the whole bunch of them. The only way we have to check this is through double-blinded testing, and all those tests with psychics gave no results.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Mine too. I don't want you to divulge your personal beliefs, but you must have some theories (maybe even "illogical" ones?) about consciousness/mind. If you had to guess, what would you say it is?

I wouldn't guess...I would probably define the mind apophatically if forced to do so at all.

Trickster

 

[peck74]

When I type a post like this, to a text like yours, I regularly read back my responses to see whether they answer the points in your text. Especially with longer points, I keep going back and forth between what the other has written and what I wrote, to see whether I'm not forgetting anything or misread something. I do not trust my memory here, otherwise I wouldn't keep on going back and forth checking.

Thank you. I appreciate the time you took. But Tom, are you claiming that our memories are not that important in science? That is, empirical data speaks for itself without the need of recollection of past experience by the interpreter? If so, there’s not much more to say in this thread is there? It’s obvious even to a child that we use and depend on our memories constantly. Just because you have to go back and read a post proves nothing and does not mean your memory has no use. Do you have to go back and remember how to read too?

For example, in biology no scientists who seriously works on it (no, Behe, Dembski and their ilk do not seriously work on it)

This is basically a textbook way to discredit yourself: simply dismiss those you oppose. Simple and effective, hence a reason why ID is growing in leaps and bounds, to the dismay of those such as yourself.

Yup, when new data comes, new models need to be made.

Hmm…you *remembered* that piece of history?

How do you expect us to verify your tale?

That’s the point – it can’t be verified. Just as consciousness = brain cannot be verified, so it is my belief that those like you and Chalnoth should follow your own advice and keep an open mind until that point in time when science does know what mind is – because right now it most certainly does not. The bone I have to pick, and the reason I posted in this thread in the first place, is because I see many people (usually atheists, although I’ve known a few who were open minded) who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility (just the possibility) that they may be wrong about the nature of mind or the universe. To them, absence of information *is* proof of absence, and they are absolutely firm in their resolve. Take m-theory for example. We have no proof at all that there may be other universes, even the math is highly disputed, but since it provides a creation story without a God, many atheists/materialists/naturalists speak as though they know people from other universes. It’s such a double standard it’s sickening.

“What should you do when you find you have made a mistake... Some people never admit that they are wrong and continue to find new, and often mutually inconsistent, arguments to support their case...” – Stephen Hawking

But how can a mistake be made when data speaks for itself? When there is never interpretation?

 

[Chalnoth]

Thank you. I appreciate the time you took. But Tom, are you claiming that our memories are not that important in science? That is, empirical data speaks for itself without the need of recollection of past experience by the interpreter? If so, there&#8217;s not much more to say in this thread is there? It&#8217;s obvious even to a child that we use and depend on our memories constantly. Just because you have to go back and read a post proves nothing and does not mean your memory has no use. Do you have to go back and remember how to read too?

Nobody is saying that memory has no use. We're just saying that memory is flawed and is not to be trusted. Therefore, if comparing a result to a previous experiment, I will not rely upon my memory, but will dig up the results of the previous experiment.

This is basically a textbook way to discredit yourself: simply dismiss those you oppose. Simple and effective, hence a reason why ID is growing in leaps and bounds, to the dismay of those such as yourself.

You're right in that ad hominem arguments aren't valid arguments, but his point still stands: these people do not work in biology. Everybody who does supports evolutionary theory as a good theory.

That&#8217;s the point &#8211; it can&#8217;t be verified. Just as consciousness = brain cannot be verified, so it is my belief that those like you and Chalnoth should follow your own advice and keep an open mind until that point in time when science does know what mind is &#8211; because right now it most certainly does not.

Oh, I do keep an open mind, always. If empirical data are shown to me that prove me wrong, I'll switch my beliefs in a heartbeat. But all empirical data to date support my current view: that psychic phenomena and a spiritual soul do not exist. Sure, there's always the possibility, but given the amount of trying to find evidence for these things, I'm not going to hold my breath.

And also bear in mind that for me, it also comes down to history: the vast, vast majority of highly intelligent theories put forth by prominent scientists turn out to be flat-out wrong. If scientists are usually wrong, how likely is it for a person or group of people who have no understanding of the science of the field in which they are arguing to be right?

 

[Tomk80]

Thank you. I appreciate the time you took. But Tom, are you claiming that our memories are not that important in science? That is, empirical data speaks for itself without the need of recollection of past experience by the interpreter? If so, there&#8217;s not much more to say in this thread is there? It&#8217;s obvious even to a child that we use and depend on our memories constantly. Just because you have to go back and read a post proves nothing and does not mean your memory has no use. Do you have to go back and remember how to read too?

I did not say memory has no use. I did say that it isn't as perfect as you imply. Why do you think every scientific article is littered with references? Do you honestly think that scientists are walking encyclopedias that have all those little detailed facts in their heads?

Psychology experiments have shown that memory is unreliable. For example, if you ask a test subjects who you showed a video tape of a car crash, whether the cars were driving fast when they crashed into each other, they will say the cars were driving fast. When you ask test subjects who you showed the same video tape how fast cars what speed they had when they bumped into each other, they will say they did not drive that fast.

When you let someone ask directions to another person and disturb them by walking between them with a large wooden board so they cannot see each other for a few seconds, and in that time replace the person asking directions with someone of approximately the same height and of the same sex, more people will not notice. Etc, etc. Memory works up to a point, but psychological testing has shown again and again that it doesn't work all that well.

This is basically a textbook way to discredit yourself: simply dismiss those you oppose. Simple and effective, hence a reason why ID is growing in leaps and bounds, to the dismay of those such as yourself.

It is not a simple dismissal. What scientific research has Dembski actually done in the past 15 years on ID? What scientific research has Behe actually done in the past 15 years on ID? I'll tell you how much. None. They've produced nothing that is remotely scientific, have not produced any study based on actual evidence and have been shown to ignore data that contradicts their claims. What about that behavior is scientific?

Hmm&#8230;you *remembered* that piece of history?

As I already said, memory is fine for some broad outlines. But it often fails. I never said it was completely useless. It would be a good point if you actually responded to what I say.

That&#8217;s the point &#8211; it can&#8217;t be verified. Just as consciousness = brain cannot be verified, so it is my belief that those like you and Chalnoth should follow your own advice and keep an open mind until that point in time when science does know what mind is &#8211; because right now it most certainly does not. The bone I have to pick, and the reason I posted in this thread in the first place, is because I see many people (usually atheists, although I&#8217;ve known a few who were open minded) who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility (just the possibility) that they may be wrong about the nature of mind or the universe. To them, absence of information *is* proof of absence, and they are absolutely firm in their resolve. Take m-theory for example. We have no proof at all that there may be other universes, even the math is highly disputed, but since it provides a creation story without a God, many atheists/materialists/naturalists speak as though they know people from other universes. It&#8217;s such a double standard it&#8217;s sickening.

&#8220;What should you do when you find you have made a mistake... Some people never admit that they are wrong and continue to find new, and often mutually inconsistent, arguments to support their case...&#8221; &#8211; Stephen Hawking

But how can a mistake be made when data speaks for itself? When there is never interpretation?

If there is insufficient data, mistakes can be made. Nobody said mistakes cannot be made. What people did say is that data is not up to interpretation. Combinations of different datapoints are, and this is what causes debate. Not the data itself, but the combination of this data into models and theories. The more datapoints you get, the sounder the model is going to be.

Regarding the mind, we know have an enormous amount of datapoints, quite a lot of them already presented here. They all show that if different parts of the brain are affected, the personality changes. Personality is the actual person. The only logical conclusion you can draw from this, is that the 'mind' is not a seperate thing from the 'matter' (brain).

I will not pretend to know how the universe started, and think Hawkins has a tendency to state with absolute surety what we have too little data for to be absolutely sure of. I do posit that we have enough data to conclude that the mind is not seperate from the brain, and unless you can give something that gainsays that evidence, we have no reason to think otherwise.

 

[peck74]

I did not say memory has no use. I did say that it isn't as perfect as you imply.

I never implied it was perfect. Let me refresh your memory with what was actually said:
Chalnoth: "Put simply, you cannot trust peoples' memories, even your own. The only thing you can trust absolutely is empirical data."
He said this to debunk my story. This implies that empirical data somehow speaks for itself, but of course it doesn't. We look at data through the framework of our experiences (memories). Hence mistakes are made. Do you deny this?

Do you honestly think that scientists are walking encyclopedias that have all those little detailed facts in their heads?

Of course not, and I think you know that's not what we're speaking about.

Psychology experiments have shown that memory is unreliable.

You guys kill me.

It is not a simple dismissal. What scientific research has Dembski actually done in the past 15 years on ID? What scientific research has Behe actually done in the past 15 years on ID? I'll tell you how much.

I'm sure you would. And how exactly would they get anything peer-reviewed without the word evolution used in a positive way?

What people did say is that data is not up to interpretation.

And you agree with this? This is absolutely absurd Tom.
1. Sensory input is recieved.
2. The mind creates a perception from this input.
3. The mind then uses accumulated knowledge (memory) to interpret it.

Data does not, cannot, speak for itself. Period. Without the mind, there is no data to interpret, and it all comes back to one thing: consciousness. Data, like the mind, is subjective, because everything must pass through the mind. It is the lens, the filter, the interpreter of the world, like it or not.

Personality is the actual person.

What empirical data do you have to back this up?

The only logical conclusion you can draw from this, is that the 'mind' is not a seperate thing from the 'matter' (brain).

Oh you can draw conclusions, but that's not the last word. You could say "at present, research points to the conclusion that matter somehow gives rise to mind, although the mechanism is not in the least bit understood" And I would accept that wholeheartedly. What you cannot say however, is something like this:
Chalnoth: "And imagination is a physical thing. It is a process in the brain." Because you simply don't know that to be true. You can say that is your *belief*, but that wasn't what was said.

"I do posit that we have enough data to conclude that the mind is not seperate from the brain, and unless you can give something that gainsays that evidence, we have no reason to think otherwise."

Sure Tom, that is your belief based upon the data you have seen and choose to accept. What is the mind? How about a definition to start with? Then describe to me the mechanism(s) which cause mind to exist, to pop-out of matter, then describe the way it interacts with the brain, then describe exactly how thoughts are formulated, step by step, then construct one in the lab. That would do it no? Because until you can even describe what mind is, it's foolish to say what it is not.

 

[peck74]

Oh, I do keep an open mind, always. If empirical data are shown to me that prove me wrong, I'll switch my beliefs in a heartbeat.

But Chalnoth, what emperical data do you have that proves beyond any doubt that you're right? You've made matter of fact statements, so where's your proof? It is your belief that matter is mind, nothing more. And I guess this also means you don't believe in M-theory right?