|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Jim D Guest |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence of the soul | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
If we play the devils advocate (Man if ever there was irony)then in order for there to be a spirit/soul/mind which is seperate from mere matter then we should be able to detect the presence of a form of energy which directs the biological workings of the brain if the brain is indeed controlled to any extent by the spirit /soul/mind.
We have four fundemental forces which we have detected and they are in order of relative strength(electromagnetism,strong nuclear force,weak nuclear force,and gravity).We shall rule these out unless someone can give justification of such so we are left wondering what could possibly be the means of interaction. We can rule out a force stronger than electromagnetism as well as a force weaker than gravity however the strong nuclear force only works within the nucleus of atoms and the weak nuclear force is that which is reponsible for radioactive decay.Is it possible for us to be missing a new force undiscovered by science? In all probability no but we are after all only human and prone to error.However,and this is the crux of the matter,if proponents of the spirit /soul/mind hypthesis wish to be taken seriously they must do the work and not merely conjecture and assume.I therefore challenge any living scientist who adheres to this idea to get off your ass and do yourselves a favour and instead of snapping at empty air in the vague hope of nourishing yourselves go out and kill something and feed your starving collegues. I await the feast but not forever
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Ah c'mon Guys I'm STARVING. Surely you can present some real tangible evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2792 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
sidelined writes:
As so often happens in these debates: Evidence based argument often results in silence among our esteemed opponents. I can only hope this means that they have been stunned by our brilliance or have retreated for the purpose of further study. Ah c'mon Guys I'm STARVING. Surely you can present some real tangible evidence? All that remains is the softly moaning spirit (wind) coursing through these hallowed halls. Rather disappointing, I know, but be patient. There's one born every minute. ------------------"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
doctorbill writes:
Aw, c'mon, gimme a break! I get back in the office today and check up on the forum and I find that my temporary absence has been interpreted as a concession? What gives? Fogive me for actually having plans over the holiday weekend. As so often happens in these debates: Evidence based argument often results in silence among our esteemed opponents. I can only hope this means that they have been stunned by our brilliance or have retreated for the purpose of further study. I have read the replies awaiting responses from me and I intend to have them up by this evening or tomorrow. Patience is a virtue. Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2792 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
:ae: writes:
You are forgiven. Fogive me for actually having plans over the holiday weekend. Some us are more or less stuck in the mud. ------------------"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I forgive you too. We who work our asses off on holidays to clear months end have very poorly developed social skills. Without you guys I would have to watch TV (Brrr..)Not that there isnt the occasional gem but the mind candy sometimes has me bordering on diabetes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2792 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
We who work our asses off on holidays to clear months end have very poorly developed social skills.
In my daily work, social skills are essential but in my hobby: Biblical Education; politics seems to be more important.
Without you guys I would have to watch TV (Brrr..)Not that there isnt the occasional gem but the mind candy sometimes has me bordering on diabetes.
It is the occasional gem that keeps us coming back. Try PBS, if you haven't already. Mostly gems. ------------------"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
That's funny because that's exactly what everyone else around here seems to be arguing is false. Perhaps it would help for you to explain it to them?
To quibble: Actually, your mind is all you can know with certainty, and my mind is all I can know. But neither of us can be the least certain about the other's mind. crashfrog writes:
Some, yes indeed. However, when trying to theorize about the nature of consciousness, strict adherence to ontological materialism falls short.
On the other hand, objective material reality is the thing that the both of us can be as equally certain about. Ergo it makes sense to me to base conclusions on the presence of an objective material reality. crashfrog writes:
I'm talking about consciousness in general, not a particular mind. I think we can certainly develop a consesus about that. But it is the rest of the materialists on this board who are arguing that it is possible know the contents of an individual's mind given enough material facts. If you don't disagree that there are mental facts that cannot be entirely expressed in material terms, doesn't that necessarily mean that ontological materialism is plainly false?
I guess my point is, we can develop a consensus about matter. We can't do that about our individual minds. crashfrog writes:
Please see your the first statement of yours which I quoted above. It is inconsistent with your last claim here that materialism explains minds. Materialism does not explain minds, it describes behavior in objective terms. "Objective" = "independant of any mind." You see, it simply supposes that minds do not exist, then redefines "mind" to equal "exhibiting certain patterns of behavior which resemble my own." Therefore there's no reason to assume the ontological supremacy of mind, and quite a number of reasons not to do so, the greatest of which being that the simpler materialist model explains matter and minds through entities we can all agree exist. Also, which entity have I proposed which you do not believe exists? Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
schrafinator writes:
Please see my initial posts which began this discussion. I believe they begin on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread. The existence of subjective experience is hardly evidence of a non-physical basis for the mind! Indeed, every subjective experience we have a report of has been associated with a physical brain....unless you have evidence of a subjective experience not associated with a brain. If so, please provide. Indeed, subjective experience is definitely evidential of a non-physical basis for consciousness. Please take some time to inform yourself of the robust arguments advanced by David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, J.R. Lucas, William Seager and others. You can find quite a repository available here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html. Essentially, they will argue first that qualia (being necessarily subjective) are unassailable in objective terms, and further that Gdel's Incompleteness theorem precludes any complete knowledge that any material processing machine can entirely represent human cognitive capabilities. In order to assert that one does, it requires the presupposition that mind is an emergent property of matter, which blatantly begs the question.
schrafinator writes:
And that's because all those observations began by presupposing ontological materialism which blatantly begs the question.
All the observations science has made of behavior point towards the mind as a product of the brain. schrafinator writes:
Where did I indicate that I thought it would?
People who receive damage to the right parietal lobe lose awareness of their surroundings on their left side. There is no damage to their eyes, hearing, etc. They become unconscious of that which is on their left.Why would a non-physical mind have this problem? schrafinator writes:
Where did you get the idea that I would expect it to?
People who receive damage to certain portions of the visual cortex of the brain are no longer able to recognize faces. They can still see as perfectly as before the damage; their brains, however, are no longer capable of recognizing faces. Even if they look at themselves in a mirror, they have no conscious recognition of who's face it is.Why would a non-physical mind have this problem? schrafinator writes:
And...? Why do you think that this refutes anything that I've asserted this far? Indeed, all of these effects would still be expected within a panpsychic ontological framework. Affecting the material image of the mind would certainly be expected to produce changes in our observations of it. Moreover, there exist aspects of these changes that cannot be explained in material terms, namely, the qualia associated with these experiences.
Hallucinations (changes in conscious experience) which are induced by LSD are caused by the action of the chemical on the brain.The changes in states of consciousness associated with sleep and dreaming occur in the context of certain brain states. These are changes in conscious experience (subjective experience} which are brought on by chemical or physical changes in the brain. schrafinator writes:
This evidence only points to that basis if it is assumed to begin with.
There is a great deal of evidence which points to a physical basis of mind. scrafinator writes:
If you like, I can copy and paste one of the arguments from Chalmers' online repository of papers on consciousness. Again, you can reference the articles I originally supplied to PaulK earlier in this thread.
You simply point to any gap in our knowledge and try to claim that as evidence to support the notion of a non-physically produced mind. I've asked you repeatedly for evidence of mind which isn't a product of the brain. There might be some we have not discovered yet, but so far it pretty much appears as though, "You stick a icepick in Johhny's brain and he starts acting funny." schrafinator writes:
Not at all. It should be obvious that subjective experience cannot be assailed in obejctive terms. That's like trying to explain circles in terms of right angles.
You're making precisely the same logical error as Intelligent Design folks, who when asked for positive evidence of ID point to some complex structure and say "Evolution couldn't do that". scrhafinator writes:
I agree, however up to this point you've ignored the knowledge we do have with regard to subjective experience in order to draw inferences which presuppose ontological materialism.
Just because we do not have perfect knowledge does not mean that we cannot or should not draw inferences from the knowledge we do have. schrafinator writes:
Where did I say that this had anything to do with supernaturalism? Naturalism does not exclude panpsychism. Naturalism is not equivalent to materialism.
Just because you are incredulous about how the brain could account for subjective experience doesn't mean you have to resort to magical or supernatural thinking. schrafinator writes:
Excuse me? What? Any and all claims you make which assert that mind is an emergent property from a physical brain are also claims to the basis for subjective experience ultimately asserting that said experience is illusory.
All of this is just arguments on how to account for subjective experience. I make no particular claims on that matter. schrafinator writes:
So would I. Good thing that's not my position. I do question what your positive evidence is for a supernatural "mind" that does not depend upon the physical. Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
Zhimbo writes:
Okay, well that's a start, however it is important to note that a person could not falsify the zombie hypothesis with only objective evidence. That is to say, you have no way of being certain that other's have subjective experience, and if you encountered a zombie human (a normally behaving human without subjective experience), you would have no way to know it. That is the insufficiency of materialism with regard to consciousness.
Oh god no, I don't believe anyone here is denying subjective experience. "I think, therefore I am" and all that. Yes, I have subjective experience, and through my appraisal of objective evidence I conclude that others share this experience. Zhimbo writes:
That is the heart of the matter (pun intended) indeeed. I think it is coherent to discuss subjective evidence since all of those with subjective experience can observe it and thereby have said evidence. Indeed, even so-called "objective" evidence is deemed so based on an a priori rejection of solipsism.
What is evidence that is non-objective? Is non-objective evidence useful to discuss? Is it even a coherent concept? Zhimbo writes:
RE #1: I disagree that inventing new illusions qualifies as assailing subjective experience. IMO, it only tricks the physical interface of the mind which, as you indicated, can be predicted according to our knowledge of the brain's visual processing. What it is like to be tricked is entirely subjective and unassailable through objective evidence. There are at least 2 ways to approach this.1. I do that all the time. I'm a psychologist. You might think I'm not "really" studying "really" subjective things. Psychologists can invent new illusions based on knowledge of the brain's visual processing - that is, predict people's subjective experience of an illusion. If that's not subjective "enough", then let me move on to the second way to answer that... 2. Then is what you're discussing capable of being discussed in a productive manner? Certainly, if you're saying objective evidence isn't good enough, then you have completely removed yourself from Science. Fine. Agreed? RE #2: Disagree. Science is methodolgically naturalistic, not methodologically materialistic.
Zhimbo writes:
I think it lays some foundations for theories which resolve some peripheral issues related to evolution, first and foremost being abiogenesis. In addition, I think there may be predictive power in explaining quantum state reduction and especially in the context of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory. I don't have well formulated theories at this point, but that's beside the point. Then I just want to know what possible consequences there are to your viewpoint? Why should anyone care? What does this do for us to say that minds exist independent of physical brains? Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
PaulK writes:
First, a quick lesson on the distinction between rebuttals and refutations. A rebuttal is a response in opposition to some set of assertions. A refutation is a rebuttal that shows the opposed assertions to be false. You may think that my rebuttals do not constitute refutation, but to assert that no rebuttals exist is simply ignorant. If you want to provide a REAL rebuttal you need to discuss the effects of severing the corpus callosum and explain how it is that they are NOT effects on the operation of the mind. You haven't even explained why the supposedly disembodied minds from OBE's somehow do not seem to have any use for the corpus callosum while embodied minds clearly do.You have not done that. So your claim to have provided rebuttals is false. Next, I do not agree that embodied minds have an intrinsic need for the corpus callosum. The absence of one surely affects the interaction of the mind with physical reality, but I do not agree that it necessarily affects any fundamental attributes of the mind itself. To recall Crash's bridge crossing analogy, knocking out a bridge in front of someone doesn't mean that the person is no longer intrinsically capable of crossing a bridge, there is simply no bridge to cross.
PaulL writes:
Not at all. Please read my statements more carefully in the future. It seems to me you are asserting that the intrinsic ability is lost when the CC is severed in parallel to the analogy that a person would be instrinsically incapable of crossing a bridge when there is simply no bridge present to be crossed.
Instead you for some strange reason assume that I am asserting that the the ability to communicate GIVEN a channel like the corpus callosum is lost. PaulK writes:
Not hardly. The replacement is necessary only to restore the objective measurability of the instrinsic capability. I don't deny that the CC is necessary for inter-hemispherical communication, I deny that this is an affect to the fundamental properties of the mind itself. To conclude that it is presupposes ontological materialism and begs the question.
Not only have I not said that - but in fact I have explicitly pointed out that the need for such a channel for the mind to function normally is evidence FOR my view. And it is despite your suggestion to the contrary - saying that a replacement is needed confirms that the mind IS dependant on the physical corpus callosum for communication between the hemispheres - the very point you are attempting to deny. PaulK writes:
Your evidence is not evidence of what you think it is. You think it is evidence for a materialistic basis of mind only because you presuppose ontological materialism in collecting what you think is evidence. Your evidence can also be perfectly accounted for under a different ontological framework which is why it cannot differentiate the two. You need also to show how this evidence CANNOT be accounted for within a framework with mind as the ontological foundation, and so far nothing of the sort has been supplied.
Mreover you have made numerous unfounded and unsupported assumptions about my presuppositions in examining the evidence - which could only be relevant if we were to actually DISCUSS the evidence which you clearly refuse to do. These are ALL evasions. PaulK writes:
Please see the opening lesson on the distinction between refutations and rebuttals.
So this explains why I "ignore" your rebuttals. There aren't any to ignore. I can't dismiss something out of hand if it doesn't exist. PaulK writes:
As I said, the "evidence" which you supplied fails to distinguish between the proposed ontological frameworks. It can be completely accounted for in either one. Therefore, I have no need to dispute it, but rather your interpretation of it. That's why I'm focusing on the preusppositions which lead you to interpret it this way.
And yes you really do evade the issues rather than make actual rebuttals. You NEVER discuss the actual evidence any further than vague assertions like your suggestion that SOME aspect is disputed - without even saying what is disputed. PaulK writes:
Where have I said something which is demonstrably false and how can you demonstrate that I knew it to be false when I said it? That is what constitutes dishonesty, my friend, so to accuse me of it without such a demonstrable instance is itself dishonest. Pot, meet kettle. So yes, I think the level of hostility in my posts repesents an entirely understandable frustration with your evasions and dishonesty. Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
doctorbill writes:
Solipsism says that the only thing which can be truly verified is the personal mind. Recall Descartes systematic doubting which resulted in this epistemological foundation. No one can falsify solipsism. Instead, it must be presupposed false a priori. The entire notion of the existence of an objective material world is founded on this completely subjective supposition. This is where the question is begged in the mind/body debate, specifically that the gathering of so-called "objective evidence" rides on the a priori supposition that solipsism is false. Perhaps you would like to define the terms: solipsism and qualia, and explain how they might be considered "facts." These words are not included in my old Thordike Barnhart. Qualia are the phenomenolgy associated with subjective experiences. Qualia refer to the "introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives" as stated here:
Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Essentially what it is like for you to taste, smell, see, etc... Consider this illustration: A neurobiologist has made an incredible breakthrough: She has designed an apparatus which, when implanted in the appropriate part of the brain, enables the patient to see infrared with his eyes along with the rest of the visible spectrum. Now, being the inventor of it she may know everything that there is to know about the construction of this device, the parts of the brain which it affects, and exactly how the brain reacts, etc... but unless she actually implanted the device in herself so to experience the sight of infrared, she would never know what it is like to see infrared by virtue of this device. She could not access the qualia unless she herself were the subject. These are the real phenomena which purely objective material explanations cannot assail.
doctorbill writes:
Your point being? Obviously changes to the state of the mind's interface with physical reality will affect how the mind interacts with that reality. Obviously the mind's reading of the bodily state will affect its reaction. This is entirely permissible and even expected within a panpsychic framework. I'm concentrating on aspects of those phenomena which lie beyond the reach of material explanation.
Much of my "subjective experience" may be attributed to a natural injection of hormones - triggered by the brain in response to internal and/or external stimuli. Thus, thrills, chills, tingles and spooky feelings are a reading of bodily state, i.e. a physical reality in which the brain acts as both initiator and detector. Such "subjective experiences" may also accompany certain diseases of the central nervous system including, especially, brain tumors. doctorbill writes:
Associated, yes. Entirely attributed, no. Moreover, values may have the first effect on the formation of those states making the values actually primary.
Significance, meaning, and value may be associated with particular brain states known as: Education, Training, and Prejudice. doctorbill writes:
One quale, many qualia. See the link I offered above. So, What's a Qualia? Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7212 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
doctorbill writes:
I invite you to read PaulK's posts more thoroughly, then. He has argued that our inability to observe communication between the hemispheres of the brian once the corpus callosum is severed indicates that this ability no longer exists, and that therefore this indicates that the mind is entirely dependant upon the state of the brain.
I agree. And I do not hear anyone contesting that. doctorbill writes:
Which are those? Note: Watch the question begging with your response, please.
a) One can account for many mental phenomena from a materialistic position. doctorbill writes:
The fact that they are unanswerable in material terms does.
b) The fact that questions remain unanswered does not constitute falsification. doctorbill writes:
Regardless, we have a brain which is entirely inoperative, yet meanwhile subjective experience for the subject (allegedly) continues. That life signs can be subsequently restored does not diminish that fact. Please understand that I find your appeal to future discovery wholly unconvincing.
My point exactly. No signs of life detected by current technology. But even so, true death has not occurred. "Clinical Death" is not Real Death but may become real death if the procedure falls short of success. doctorbill writes:
I invite you to browse the online repository of papers here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html If you would like to discuss one in particular, I'd be happy to copy and paste one, but they are somewhat lengthy. I might recommend something in the section on pansychism by William Seager, or something on the topic of Gdel's Incompleteness theorem.
Please share those arguments here. doctorbill writes:
I think you may have misconstrued my intent then. Could you be more specific? Even so, you cite objective tests in support of your hypothesis claiming the lack of objective evidence as confirmation of your assumptions. This seems illogical to me. Blessings, ::
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I am so sorry, I thought you were complaining that I was ignoring substantive points raised by you. If they were not then your claim that I inored them is unjustified. Indeed if you only make unsupported assertions - and misrepresent my points into the bargain an out-go-hand dismissal would be warranted.
If your "rebuttal" is supposed to be simple denial - which is all you have managed - then your complaints lack merit. If you are asserting any more then my objections stand.
quote: I notice that immediately following the "not at all" you give a description of your claims that is fundamentally in agreement with the point you just denied. I suggest that you read more carefully rather than producing such obvious contradictions. Again you refuse to address the evidnece instead preferring to make unfounded and false assertions about my assumptions. Obviously you evade the subject becaue you have no adequate answer. [This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well here's an example of an outright lie
quote: I propose neither that argument, nor that conclusion in ANY of my posts. And since you obviously claim to have read closely there is no way you can claim an honest misunderstanding. [This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-03-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024