• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

brain/mind

maatorc said:
As to proof that mind is not an emergent property of matter, ordinarily those able to provide the proof do not give a damn about those who deny it is possible to give proof, and they are not performing clowns willing to indulge it. Denial, derision, and ridicule are the very reasons they will not even think about indulging skepticism.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you are saying, "If you don't know, we can't tell you, and if we can tell you, you don't need to know." How is anyone supposed to learn about this? :confused:
 
Hokulele said:
It sounds like you are saying, "If you don't know, we can't tell you, and if we can tell you, you don't need to know." How is anyone supposed to learn about this? :confused:
Click to expand...
This question is so typical of the modern skeptical and Brights movement to which all you modern Bright skeptics belong. Go back to your clubhouse and hang your head in shame!
 
It appears that something named 'maatorc' joined while I was taking a break. It needn't have bothered. I'm not impressed.

A sidekick named Invidious? Less impressive than its master.

It is not appropriate to discuss the mind/brain issue in terms of proof. You should be discussing evidence and weighing the evidence on each side.

As the result of leading a fairly self-aware life for 50 years and my reading and thinking on the subject, my working hypothesis is that mind is but an aspect of brain function, that there is no mind apart from brain, that many species have mind, and that humans have more invested in mind than do other species.

If you have questions about my lines of thought, read some Dennett - his thinking on consciousness and the mind/brain issue is quite resonant with my own. I won't waste any of my time attempting to repeat what he has put forth so very well.

If you believe that mind is not physical and is more than an aspect of brain functioning, you are invited to explain precisely how a thought in the mind influences the brain. How exactly does the non-physical influence the physical?

Being a contrarian, please also explain the converse - how does a tap on the shoulder come to the attention of the beyond-physical uberMind? Does the uberMind leave a callback for shoulder tapping, use interrupts, or does it poll regularly to see if the brain/body was tapped on the shoulder?

You people believe very silly things simply so that you can feel 'special'. Reality is more wondrous than you give it credit for, and has no need of parlor tricks.

I pity you and fear your children.
 
Invidious said:
This question is so typical of the modern skeptical and Brights movement to which all you modern Bright skeptics belong. Go back to your clubhouse and hang your head in shame!
Click to expand...

We have a clubhouse?

Hey...how come no-one told me about the club house?!?
 
articulett said:
We have a clubhouse?

Hey...how come no-one told me about the club house?!?
Click to expand...
They didn't tell you? Well, who needs them, right? Perhaps it's time you joined the winning team? That's right, I'm talking about... Team Universal Brain-Mind (TUB)!

Soon the whole world will know and fear TUB! Math will evolve and revolve around TUB! Restaurants will post signs that say, "We only serve TUBs" and TAM will change its name to TAMBs. With a silent B.

TUB!
 
davidsmith73 said:
Could you briefly guide us through that logic, with an emphasis on your starting definition of precisely what it is you are trying to explain?
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem. I thought it was obvious from the context of the thread. I am trying to explain why the mind is a physical process of the brain, and nothing supernatural or universal.

I meant that as a youngster I was indoctrinated with the concept of a ‘soul’ (which included the mind) that was somehow supernatural. But finding absolutely no evidence for that I read a lot on cognitive science and neuroscience. These fields provide lots of evidence, both empirical and theoretical, that the mind is a process of the brain.

A key thing to consider is that once human beings became self-aware, we became aware that we are all going to die. So it makes sense that we evolved the mental facilities to believe in things like a soul or universal mind to keep us from fearing death. Just as we evolve physical characteristics to survive better, we evolve mental characteristics to survive and pass on our genes better, including believing in things like souls and universal minds. But the much simpler explanation is that the mind is a physical process of the brain with no supernatural or unexplainable concepts required.
 
maatorc said:
Yes, they can be compared, but there is no means to actually materially measure non-material events. Outside of its personal realization, a mental event can only be materially inferred by others as a basis of agreement or acceptance, which is done all the time. Mind as a brain function can only be inferred, and as is the case with many people, and not entirely unreasonably because that is how it appears to be, thus agreed upon and accepted as the only possible explanation of mind. The flaw here is that the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena means the brain-mind explanation can only be inferred and not demonstrated.
Click to expand...

You talk of 'inferred' like it's a bad thing. Black holes are 'inferred' by the motions of other objects around them. Direct demonstration is great, but inference is very useful if done properly.
 
Causality said:
Sure, no problem. I thought it was obvious from the context of the thread. I am trying to explain why the mind is a physical process of the brain, and nothing supernatural or universal.

I meant that as a youngster I was indoctrinated with the concept of a ‘soul’ (which included the mind) that was somehow supernatural. But finding absolutely no evidence for that I read a lot on cognitive science and neuroscience. These fields provide lots of evidence, both empirical and theoretical, that the mind is a process of the brain.

A key thing to consider is that once human beings became self-aware, we became aware that we are all going to die. So it makes sense that we evolved the mental facilities to believe in things like a soul or universal mind to keep us from fearing death. Just as we evolve physical characteristics to survive better, we evolve mental characteristics to survive and pass on our genes better, including believing in things like souls and universal minds. But the much simpler explanation is that the mind is a physical process of the brain with no supernatural or unexplainable concepts required.
Click to expand...

Well done.
 
Complexity said:
It appears that something named 'maatorc' joined while I was taking a break. It needn't have bothered. I'm not impressed. A sidekick named Invidious? Less impressive than its master.
Click to expand...
It appears that something named Complexity joined while I was taking a break. It needn't have bothered. I'm not impressed. An obnoxious sidekick named Articulett? Equally as invidious as its master?
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
1... I just think it's soooo precious when a woo comes to a skeptics forum.......
2... I especially love it when they get all pissy and tantrum-like amidst their preachy woo nonsense.
Click to expand...
1... Everyone here knows you are a woo masquerading as a skeptic.
2... It is interesting how you keep on describing yourself everytime you get on your self-righteous high horse. No-one here is being deceived by your childish antics.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
WTF? If the predictive validity of jumping off a tall building always leads to squash pie, what does it mean to say that the human concept of gravity is equally true and equally false?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...


It is a cultural social POV, the theory of gravity has great predictive outcome and therefore has objective validity. So in that case i would say that it is a valid approximation of reality. An invisible monkey that is pulling you down at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared also has the same observational validity. Bot it has some really non-valid aspects to it as well.

The word tree has observational validity for those who agree to the defintion of what constitutes a tree. But if we start to look at some of the areas of the Japanes maple, it might be a tree or a shrub. And the word arbol is different from the word tree. So again my argument about my personal belief is that language and thoughts are a self referencing set of external and internal communications. They are maps that can approximate reality without exactly mapping it. All maps are true and false, some maps have more validity than others. It is a philosophical stance on the nature of words, thoughts and language. And it is mainly aimed at culturaly sensitive values like 'beauty' and 'good' that are socialy and culturaly variable. And it works really well for miracles, faith and god.

It applies for me, to what constitutes the nature of science, predictive approximations of an external reality. The law of gravity is a model for the observed action of masses that are attracted to each other.

The model is very valid whatever the words are that are used to describe it, if you wish to call it truth, that is fine by me.
 
Last edited:
maatorc said:
The idea of mind has no investment in the 'supernatural' There is nothing supernatural, it is a misnomer and non-sequitor in that that it is impossible for anything to be 'super' beyond the 'natural': This idea is all just the standard hangup of the modern skeptical and Brights movement. Mind is as 'natural' as matter.
Click to expand...


This is a lot like Franko, but more under control.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I agree, but that doesn't make the concept equally true and equally false, does it? If so, then absolutely everything is equally true and equally false, which makes the phrase meaningless.

Maybe I don't know what "equally true and equally false" means. It sounds dangerously postmodern to me.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Could be i just substitute the phrase observational validity for what scientists will likely call truth.

It is like a koan that is meant to make people stop and think about what thoughts and words are. They are limited behaviors that are part of a closed self referencing set of communications. Then we have people ending up using words like 'mind', phenomena','non-physical', 'noumena' and 'incommensurable' as though they are Platonic concepts that exist is some magic Happy Place Where Words Live In Peace and Harmony. Which is really dangerous when we look at words like 'patriot', 'infidel' and 'dangerous'.

All current evidence would point to the existance of these words only in human skulls and behaviors. Si I make this argument to keep some people from acting as though 'good' and 'evil' really exist.

It is a personal thing, I started as a materialist raised by an anthropologist and english lierature major.
 
maatorc said:
The 'proof' is possible only on a personal experiential level, as phenomena and noumena are incommensurable. This is why the JREF MDC will not work beyond demonstrating scientifically currently inexplicable events which are accepted as but have not been proven to be psychic, supernatural or occult events or powers.
As to proof that mind is not an emergent property of matter, ordinarily those able to provide the proof do not give a damn about those who deny it is possible to give proof, and they are not performing clowns willing to indulge it. Denial, derision, and ridicule are the very reasons they will not even think about indulging skepticism.
Click to expand...


i agree but the knife cuts both ways. The denial of supernatural phenomena is a matter of defintion. just because someone has an experience does not mean that it is valid to external reality.

I have met so many occultists who are mentaly ill (something about me being a wiccan HP), and what do they spend most of thier time doing? Imagining that they are being persecuted by 'the others' and then getting involved in these 'mage wars' that exist only in thier heads. And what about the psychics, they run around saying things like vaccines cause autism and that mother nature wants us all to live in peace and harmony, but goodness forfend that they speak reasonably about someone who disagrees with them.


The reason that they don't want to indulge in scepticism is that they get a charge from thinking that they are 'special' and that they are 'better' and it goes along with thinking other people are 'stupid' and 'out to get then'. (That is a great over generalization, but as someone who has tried many times to create networks for pagans and occultists I have met many a flying woo who sniffs at me for not being 'the right brand' and they act as though they have the 'real truth' , when all they have done is read a book.)

I have a good friend who is a very nice man but because he discusses things politely and rationaly he is viewed as being some sort of evil wizard in the weak minded pagan community. So you get it both ways, you create this great rumor of statanists (true story) when you get seen in robes and candles and then you get called a 'Black Magician' just because you don't clap your hands and say "I do believe in fairies".

There is much validity in the nature of human experience but when people say that there drunken boyfriend died in a car crash because the 'black magicians put a curse on him', I have to draw the line. And when they cower on satan's birthday i just have to laugh to myself.
 
articulett said:
We have a clubhouse?

Hey...how come no-one told me about the club house?!?
Click to expand...

:do the Swagart walk waving Darwin in the air:

Because only those who believe in the Ivory Tower will be able to enter, you must believe in the popcorn bar before you can enter the wonderful hot tub, I say to you , you must have faith in rationalism, you must beleeeeve in science and It's Prophets Darwin, Randi and Dawkins. So place your hands in the air and SHOW ME THAT YOU ARE BRIGHT!

It is not by experiment that man shall come to understanding, nooo, it is not by observation that man will come to truth, nooo, it is not by peer review that you will be saved BUT ONLY by belief in the Goodness of Science... that and a donation to the JREF.
 
Last edited:
Maatorc said:
The idea of mind has no investment in the 'supernatural' There is nothing supernatural, it is a misnomer and non-sequitor in that that it is impossible for anything to be 'super' beyond the 'natural': This idea is all just the standard hangup of the modern skeptical and Brights movement. Mind is as 'natural' as matter.
Click to expand...
Except that there is absolutely no evidence for its independent existence. However, I am glad that you are willing to entertain the notion that if it does have independent existence, its existence is naturalistic. Most people claiming independent existence of mind make it supernatural.

As to proof that mind is not an emergent property of matter, ordinarily those able to provide the proof do not give a damn about those who deny it is possible to give proof, and they are not performing clowns willing to indulge it. Denial, derision, and ridicule are the very reasons they will not even think about indulging skepticism.
Click to expand...
Who needs to indulge skepticism? To hell with skepticism. Just provide some sort of evidence that mind has an independent existence.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom