Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Philosophy and God » Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain

Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:46 pm

Admin


Admin
Idealism, dualism, or materialism? The Mind is Not The Brain

Mind is a set of Cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, and memory. The mind is the faculty of a human being's reasoning and thoughts. It holds the power of imaginationrecognition, and appreciation, and is responsible for processing feelings and emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions. Signals.

Either my intelligence is the product of far higher intelligence or no intelligence at all. If my intelligence came from no intelligence, but by evolution, then why should I trust my thoughts? How did

Non-logic produce logic?
Non-intelligence produce intelligence?
Non-language produce language?
Non-consciousness produce consciousness?
Non-imagination produce imagination?
Non-thinking create thinking?
No thoughts create thoughts?
No feelings create feelings?
No awareness of beauty create awareness of beauty?
No emotions create emotions?

If the mind and consciousness are a product of the brain and neurons, then why is the heart, which has its own 'little brain', called the intracardiac nervous system (ICN), which monitors and corrects any local disturbances in communication, not conscious as well?
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-d-heart-neurons.html
 
Living in a universe without god reduces the mind to mere electric discharges in the tissue of the brain. Molecules in motion, so to speak. Molecules act exclusively in a lawful cause-and-effect- relation. So, humans must be input-reaction-automaton. Thinking, therefore, is just the result of physical behavior. Molecules in motion also do not generate or identify truth, so everything one could possibly express is just one's opinion dictated by molecules in motion.

If the entire universe is bound to the laws of physics, and all that is physical behaves according to these laws - and so our brain, which is made of physical stuff, and the mind is a product of the brain, then:  to what physical law is the mind bound? what law does it obey?


The Mind is Not The Brain 

The Law of identity states that each thing is identical to itself. Every neuron processes and transmits information to other cells through electrical and chemical signals. Animal brains perform the same algorithms like humans but require no consciousness, memory, will, intentions, thinking, judgment, thoughts, imagination, recognition, and appreciation, resulting in attitudes and actions.

It is nothing but sets of electrons, protons, and neutrons, in a given spatial arrangement; the electromagnetic interaction may, in fact, be attractive so that particles may attract one another and form certain geometrical arrangements in the space. Fundamental properties do not generate new properties emerging from the interaction between them. That's a fallacy of composition. The addition of more neurons does not cause them to start interacting by valuing things creating intentions and will, nor philosophical societies. Its a category error. It does not matter if there are a few, or billions of neurons interacting with each other. The human heart possesses a heart-brain composed of about 40,000 neurons. Why is our heart not conscious? 

When one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity but isn't the mental activity itself, it is the same as trying to say that a movie is merely the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can't capture the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid, which shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. The perception, understanding, and evaluation of the story adds a quality beyond, which is more than just the physical projection of the movie. 

Neurons perform physical functions resulting in behavior and reactions, but those physical functions are accompanied by consciousness for that we need something accompanied by an extra ingredient in the picture. Consciousness or qualia, this amazing inner movie which is another substance or entity, is fundamental. 

How should and could the inanimate convert into the animate? How can consciousness come from mindless swirling electrons and atoms? These are impossibilities, pure and simple. The origin of consciousness is only understood and makes sense as soon as it’s accepted that the foundation and cause of the universe, in its most basic aspect, is a conscious eternal living intelligent spirit, and not dead matter, minded, and not mindless. The ontology goes from a conscious eternal mind, to use mathematics, to create the physical laws governing the universe, physics, chemistry, biology, and as a crown of all creation: us.

Marco Biagini Ph.D. in Solid State Physics
The claim that the electric impulses in our brain are or generate sensations and thoughts, is in contradiction with the laws of physics that consider equivalent all-electric impulses, inside or outside our brain. In fact, an electric impulse is formed only by some electrons moving in a certain direction; according to the laws of physics, electrons are all equal and indistinguishable, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

Every electron is identical to every other electron. They all have the same mass, the same electric charge, and the same spin.

Now we know that our brain is only a set of particles, such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagnetic field. Every biological process is due only to the chemical reactions, which in their turn, are due only to the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons and the protons of the atoms forming our organism. Every neuron and every cell are nothing but sets of electrons, protons and neutrons, in a given spatial arrangement; the electromagnetic interaction may, in fact, be attractive so that particles may attract one another and form certain geometrical arrangements in the space. The properties of every (including also DNA molecules) and every biological process are due only to the laws of physics; more precisely, since in our organism no nuclear reactions occur and gravitational forces are too weak to interfere with molecular processes, every biological process is due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics. Science has proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness; so, materialism is incompatible with science.

Paul Davies: From Matter to Life
Our phenomenal experiences are the only aspect of consciousness that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to known physical principles. This is the “hard problem of consciousness.” Consciousness is an irreducible, fundamental property of mind, with its own laws and principles.

What about the analogy of the brain as an antenna? If you modify, manipulate, or damage a receiver, like a TV antenna, for example, you change the reception. But the signal, in this case, exists independently and externally from the antenna. Receiving a signal is what a healthy antenna does, but only when there is an independent, external signal to be received. The fact that changing the antenna changes how well the signal is received does not imply that antennae are responsible for the signals they detect.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-dualism-the-mind-is-not-the-brain


MICHAEL EGNOR, “SCIENCE AND THE SOUL” AT THE PLOUGH
The brain can be cut in half, but the intellect and will cannot. The intellect and will are metaphysically simple.
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/four-researchers-whose-work-sheds-light-on-the-reality-of-the-mind/#1

"It’s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate. It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe; or medical science failed to tell us anything about health and disease; or geology failed to tell us anything about rocks. Neuroscience has told us nothing— nothing—about how the brain gives rise to the mind. The Hard Problem (of consciousness), after two centuries of neuroscience and a vast trove of data, remains utterly unsolved."
- Michael R. Egnor, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/neuroscience-cant-dismiss-near-death-experiences/?fbclid=IwAR1JQ_qld8RC5hOLx6Zli2mfYIiIQ0Yk4TeUyqJysNIElZ9D2UDT-LjMY88

Mental is involving the mind or an intellectual processBehavior - Psychology.


Why should merely changing the position of physical objects like electrons cause the emergence of an apparently completely unconnected phenomenon: the feeling of consciousness?

Flowering plants of the genus Musa will always only generate Bananas. Citrus species will always only produce citrus fruits like Orange, lemon etc.
Only an intelligent mind, capable of logical reasoning, is an adequate cause to create other minds able to reason. If we as humans possess the capability to intellectually understand and to know, then the cause must have the same or better capabilities of the same sort.
Arguing that matter can produce a mind, consciousness, intelligence, and the capability of logical reasoning is special pleading.

Read and repeat in your mind: " Saying that matter produces thoughts is as saying that the color blue produces the smell of perfume channel ".  That thought of yours is not in its essence of material causation, but mental. It's not because some electrons fired in some special way in your neurons, that you had this thought. That's an error of category. It's actually the contrary. Your thoughts had a material consequence in your neurons.  Therefore, the supernatural realm exists. And is right amongst us. Our mind and thoughts are in their essence not a manifestation of matter, but of a supernatural realm.

The Mind is Not The Brain
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-the-mind-is-not-the-brain

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1284-near-death-experience-evidence-of-dualism

Mind and brain: A scientific discussion leading to the existence of the soul
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2798-mind-and-brain-a-scientific-discussion-leading-to-the-existence-of-the-soul

The universe: Caused by a Conscient creator, information and energy
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2061p100-my-articles#6037

In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint no longer is credible scientifically, due in large part to the experiments of the renowned Australian physiologist Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles, who won the Nobel Prize for his discoveries regarding how certain portions (known as “neural synapses”) of the brain work, documented that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former (the librarian) is not reducible to the latter (the library). Eccles explained his scientific methodology and his conclusions in The Self and Its Brain, a book he co-authored with the eminent British philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper.
http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0102.pdf

Einstein's Gulf: Can Evolution cross it? by John Oller, Ph.d
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1283-einstein-s-gulf

The mind cannot emerge from matter

Albert Einstein, undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists of all time, described the "gulf' that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other. He wrote: We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf-logically unbridgeable which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

A small part of the materialists problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas.

Albert Einstein, “Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge,” The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 5 of The Library of Living Philosophers, editor Paul Arthur Schilpp (LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court, 1944), p. 289.

I am convinced that ... the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all—when viewed logically—the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. ... we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf—logically unbridgeable—which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions




You can know for sure just with a moment's reflection that your brain is not your soul.

The headline in the article says, "A memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern." In other words, they are saying that a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern. It is not correlated with a mind state such that the brain cells firing causes your mind or soul to have a memory. It is saying that that's all it is.

That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light.

Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation.

When one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity, but isn't the mental activity itself, it is the same as trying to say that a movie is merely the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can't capture the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid, which shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. What's more, if you look at the light on the celluloid, you will never, ever even see the movie.

11-year-old conjoined twins have a connected brain, see through each others’ eyes, but have separate minds - November 6, 2017
Excerpt: Krista and Tatiana Hogan share the senses of touch and taste and even control one another’s limbs. Tatiana can see out of both of Krista’s eyes, while Krista can only see out of one of Tatiana’s.
Tatiana controls three arms and a leg, while Krista controls three legs and an arm. They can also switch to self-control of their limbs.
(But their personalities are not conjoined; indeed, they are typical for twins):
The girls have very different personalities. Tatiana is outgoing, talkative and high strung while Krista is quieter, more relaxed and loves to tell jokes.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/11-year-old-conjoined-twins-have-a-connected-brain-see-through-each-others-eyes-but-have-separate-minds/


Blue Brain Project – Brain Waves Simulation – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qTuZlMvFgY

Although, as the preceding video shows, descriptions of what is happening in the brain can be quite elaborate, in regards to consciousness, the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is never honestly addressed in these elaborate models of brain activity. This following neuroscientist agrees that the 'how' of consciousness is never properly addressed:

Consciousness: What are some concise ways to convince people that consciousness is not an emergent property?
Excerpt: First off, “emergent property” is one of those hand-wavey terms people like to throw around without much substance behind it. A basic definition is something like complex properties that results from the interaction of simple behaviors.
That doesn’t actually answer the how of consciousness particularly well by itself.,,,
How do you explain the subjective experience of “redness”, let’s say. Saying simply that it’s the correlate of the neurophysiological response to certain rods and cones sensitive to certain light waves does not answer the question of why there is a gestalt qualitative experience of red.
- Marc Ettlinger, Research Neuroscientist, Department of Veterans Affairs
http://www.quora.com/Consciousness/What-are-some-concise-ways-to-convince-people-that-consciousness-is-not-an-emergent-property/answer/Marc-Ettlinger?srid=4tp&share=1

In other words, materialists/atheists, with their elaborate descriptions of what is happening in the brain, never really ever honestly address the 'hard' question(s) being asked about the brain:

Fallacies of Contemporary Neuroscience: “A Vast Collection of Answers, with No Memory of the Questions” – Michael Egnor – February 20, 2014
Excerpt: [Scruton:] Neuroenvy… consist[s] of a vast collection of answers, with no memory of the questions. And the answers are encased in neurononsense of the following kind:
‘The brains of social animals are wired to feel pleasure in the exercise of social dispositions such as grooming and co-operation, and to feel pain when shunned, scolded, or excluded. Neurochemicals such as vasopressin and oxytocin mediate pair-bonding, parent-offspring bonding, and probably also bonding to kith and kin…’ (Patricia Churchland).
As though we didn’t know already that people feel pleasure in grooming and co-operating, and as though it adds anything to say that their brains are ‘wired’ to this effect, or that ‘neurochemicals’ might possibly be involved in producing it. This is pseudoscience of the first order, and owes what scant plausibility it possesses to the fact that it simply repeats the matter that it fails to explain. It perfectly illustrates the prevailing academic disorder, which is the loss of questions.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/02/fallacies_of_co082351.html

David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:

David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

a bit more in-depth look at the ‘hard problem’ is here:

The impossible Problem of Consciousness – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FglKcWBKEu8

Here are a few more comments, from atheists, that agree with Chalmers on the insolubility of ‘hard problem’ of consciousness,,

Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem”
Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
- per UD News

“We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do

Here a Harvard neurosurgeon, who is now a former atheist who had a life changing Near Death Experience, comments on the ‘hard' problem:

The Science of Heaven by Dr. Eben Alexander – Nov. 18, 2012
Can consciousness exist when the body fails? One neurosurgeon says he has seen it firsthand—and takes on critics who vehemently disagree.
Excerpt: Many scientists who study consciousness would agree with me that, in fact, the hard problem of consciousness is probably the one question facing modern science that is arguably forever beyond our knowing, at least in terms of a physicalist model of how the brain might create consciousness. In fact, they would agree that the problem is so profound that we don’t even know how to phrase a scientific question addressing it. But if we must decide which produces which, modern physics is pushing us in precisely the opposite direction, suggesting that it is consciousness that is primary and matter secondary.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/11/18/the-science-of-heaven.html

Basically, Materialists/Atheists, when they proclaim that consciousness is merely an ‘emergent property’ of the brain, are, in essence, saying that consciousness is merely an illusion. But as Chalmers pointed out in his video via Rene Decartes (i.e. ‘I think therefore I am’), the fact that we are conscious is the most concrete thing we can know about reality. And as Decartes first elucidated, we can reasonably doubt everything else we perceive about reality, but the fact that we ourselves are conscious, within this reality we are trying to describe, is the one thing that we can doubt least about reality. In fact, if consciousness is held to be merely an illusion (merely ‘an emergent property’ of the brain), as atheists hold, then our ability to know anything else is real/true about reality is undermined from within by that presupposition (see Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism and Bruce Gordon on Boltzmann’s Brain). This ‘undermined from within’ epistemological failure inherent within the atheist’s materialistic worldview is reveled in a rather humorous fashion here:

The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014
Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.)
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

William J Murray gets the basic point of the necessity of the ‘primacy of consciousness’ across more clearly than anyone else I’ve ever read:

“In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.”
- William J. Murray

William J Murray is in VERY good company in his reasoning:

“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
(Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

“It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” -
Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 – received Nobel Prize in 1963 for ‘Quantum Symmetries’

Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Verified to 80 orders of magnitude)
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

Although atheists have the impossible task of trying to ‘explain away’ the hard problem of consciousness, the Theist has a much easier task at hand. The Theist merely has to show that the mind is not the same thing as the brain. Here are a few simple ways to prove that the mind is not the same thing as the brain.

One simple way of demonstrating that the mind is not the brain comes from utilizing the ‘Law Of Identity’ to separate properties of mind from properties of brain:

Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – podcast and summary (Law of Identity: 6 properties of mind that are not identical to properties of the brain, thus the mind is not the brain)
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/

The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook
Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.html

Alvin Plantinga has a humorous way of getting this ‘Law of Identity’ point across:

Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument (for the existence of the mind/soul) – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0

Another simple way of proving the mind is not the brain is by utilizing Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

Alan Turing, who invented computers, infamously thought that his brain was merely a ‘Turing Machine’. This following poem teases the ‘merely a machine’ notion of Turing

Alan’s brain tells his mind, “Don’t you blow it.”
Listen up! (Even though it’s inchoate.)
“My claim’s neat and clean.
I’m a Turing Machine!”
… ‘Tis somewhat curious how he could know it.

Yet, in spite of Turing’s irrational belief, and although I don’t believe Turing ever actually admitted it, Alan Turing actually succeeded in extending Godel’s incompleteness to material computers, and thus undermining his own materialistic belief that he was merely a machine in the process. This point is illustrated in the following videos and quotes:

Alan Turing & Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (with Gregory Chaitin)
http://www.metacafe.com/w/8516356
Quote from video: Turing recast incompleteness in terms of computers and showed that since they are logic machines, there would always be some problems they would never solve. A machine fed one of these problems would never stop (halting problem). And worse, Turing proved there was no way of telling beforehand which these problems were.”

The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
Excerpt: “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”,,,
http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

“Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine”
~ Kurt Godel

Gödel’s philosophical challenge (to Turing) – Wilfried Sieg – lecture video
(“The human mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine.”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je9ksvZ9Av4

It is also interesting to note that even though, as was shown in the Godel-Turing video, Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, Turing failed to realize that his entire idea for computers came to him suddenly, ‘in a vision’ as he put it, thus confirming, in fairly dramatic fashion, Godel’s contention that humans had access to the ‘divine spark of intuition’. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Godel, had found in the incompleteness theorem for computers, mathematics, (and even for all of material reality in general (Jaki)).

Of related note, the following paper gives the ‘secret’ away for defeating the infamous ‘Turing test’:

Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas G. Robertson – 1999
Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information.
“… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf

I consider the preceding proofs (Law of Identity and Incompleteness) to be a pretty simple and solid 'logical' proofs for demonstrating that the mind is not the brain. On the emotional side, here is a touching proof that the mind is not the same thing as the brain

This following video, although the girl in the video was written off as hopelessly retarded by everyone who saw her, reveals that there was/is indeed a gentle intelligence, a “me”, a “soul’, within the girl that was/is trapped within her body. And that that “me” was/is unable to express herself properly to others because of her neurological disorder. Here is a short teaser for her book telling the struggle of her ‘miracle’ breakthrough to be enable her to communicate with the outside world:

Carly’s Café – Experience Autism Through Carly’s Eyes – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDGvquzn2k

Here is another 'touching' proof that the mind is not the brain.

Miracle Of Mind-Brain Recovery Following Hemispherectomies – Dr. Ben Carson – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zBrY77mBNg

In other words, if the mind of a person were merely the brain, as materialists hold, then if half of a brain were removed then a ‘person’ should only be ‘half the person’, or at least somewhat less of a ‘person’, as they were before, but that is not the case. The ‘whole person’ stays intact even though the brain suffers severe impairment during a hemispherectomy:

Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics’ Lives:
Excerpt: “We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor,” Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining; In further comment from the neuro-surgeons in the John Hopkins study: “Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/science/removing-half-of-brain-improves-young-epileptics-lives.html

Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One – May 2007
Excerpt: Most Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are five to 10 years old. Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. ,,,
Another study found that children that underwent hemispherectomies often improved academically once their seizures stopped. “One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely,” Freeman says.
Of course, the operation has its downside: “You can walk, run—some dance or skip—but you lose use of the hand opposite of the hemisphere that was removed. You have little function in that arm and vision on that side is lost,” Freeman says. Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. ,,,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole

The preceding evidence from hemispherectomies is a rather dramatic, and convincing, confirmation for the ‘argument from divisibility’ for the soul:

Case for the Existence of the Soul – (Argument from Divisibility at 38:20 minute mark) – JP Moreland – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWjkbNkMiMo&feature=player_detailpage#t=2299

Another rather dramatic proof that the mind is not the same thing as the brain has been from the studies of people who were born blind who have had Near Death Experience (NDE). Blind people who could see for the first time in their lives during their NDE. There simply is no rational explanation within the materialistic/atheistic framework for why this should happen, whereas, in the theistic framework, this is result expected:

Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) – Pim von Lommel – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This ‘anomaly’ is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1997-16-101-147-1.pdf

“I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact. I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!” –
Vicky Noratuk’s NDE – Blind since birth – quote taken from the following video
Coast to Coast – Vicki’s Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y

Here are some ‘simple’ ways to empirically demonstrate, at home or school, that the mind is not the same thing as the brain:

Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects.
http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/index.html

Telephone Telepathy – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDhhOT7SuD8

The Mind Is Not The Brain – Scientific Evidence – Rupert Sheldrake – video
https://vimeo.com/33479544/

Here is another way, though not quite as simple, to show that the mind is not the same thing as the brain.

An absolutely astonishing fact that seems to be completely lost on hard core Darwinists is that a single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. Yet supercomputers with many switches have a huge problem dissipating heat,,,

Supercomputer architecture
Excerpt: Throughout the decades, the management of heat density has remained a key issue for most centralized supercomputers.[4][5][6] The large amount of heat generated by a system may also have other effects, such as reducing the lifetime of other system components.[7] There have been diverse approaches to heat management, from pumping Fluorinert through the system, to a hybrid liquid-air cooling system or air cooling with normal air conditioning temperatures.
per wikipedia

But the brain, though having more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth, does not have such a problem dissipating heat,,,

Appraising the brain’s energy budget:
Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full

THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM
Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as “mental work”, it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438861/pdf/jcinvest00624-0127.pdf

Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? – By Ferris Jabr – July 2012
Excerpt: So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient.
-per Scientific American

Moreover, one source for the heat generated by computers, that is of primary concern for us, is caused by the erasure of information from the computer in logical operations,,,

Landauer’s principle
Of Note: “any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase ,,, Specifically, each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an (specific) amount (at least kT ln 2) of heat.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

And any computer that has anything close to as many switches as the brain has, then this source of heat will become prohibitive for the computer:

Quantum physics behind computer temperature
Excerpt: It was the physicist Rolf Landauer who first worked out in 1961 that when data is deleted it is inevitable that energy will be released in the form of heat. This principle implies that when a certain number of arithmetical operations per second have been exceeded, the computer will produce so much heat that the heat is impossible to dissipate.,,,
,, the team believes that the critical threshold where Landauer’s erasure heat becomes important may be reached within the next 10 to 20 years.
http://cordis.europa.eu/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.document&N_RCN=33479

Thus the brain is either operating on reversible computation principles no computer can come close to emulating (Charles Bennett) (and memory would be ‘consumed’ in the process of reversible computation), or, as is much more likely, the brain is not erasing information from its memory as material computers are required to do because our memories are stored on a ‘spiritual’ level rather than on a material level,,, Extensive research lends support to this conclusion,,,

A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel
Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body.
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

The Mystery of Perception During Near Death Experiences – Pim van Lommel – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avyUsPgIuQ0

To add more support to this view that ‘memory/information’ is not stored in the material brain, but on a higher ‘spiritual’ level, one of the most common features of extremely deep near death experiences is the ‘life review’ of a person where every minute detail of a person’s life is reviewed in the presence of God:

Life After Life – Raymond Moody – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z56u4wMxNlg

And then, though not simple, there is the argument for God from consciousness in quantum mechanics. i.e. due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):

The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

Verse and Music:

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video)
http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch



Last edited by Admin on Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:07 am; edited 40 times in total

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Re: Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:18 pm

Admin


Admin
All Brain, No Mind

http://www.str.org/articles/all-brain-no-mind#.U8b1-PldXA0

i am not going to go into all the reasons right now why that is self- evident, but I am going to count on the fact that you have a self-conscious awareness of your own consciousness as something different from your physical body. I am going to give you some evidence why I think that that is true. But I guess I just want to say that that is just the most common sense approach to reality with regards to human beings. We just seem to know that to be the case.

Indeed, for those who believe differently, they have to be talked out of the obvious witness of their own self-reflection and their own experience. That is why I think that, as one philosopher put it, "the prevailing opinions in the science of mind are obviously false." You don't need to be a philosopher to figure this out. A few moments of reflection will do that. You don't need to be a scientist because you know something that a scientist couldn't possibly know.

Before I go any further, I want to make a recommendation to you. You really need to take about three hours of your time and read a book. It is not out of your reach, but you are going to have to go slowly and pay attention to what is being said. But once you do, you will never be up-ended about these kinds of articles again with regards to your faith and the nature of the soul and the brain. The book is entitled Immortality, The Other Side of Death , published by Thomas Nelson. The authors are J.P. Moreland and Gary Habermas. J.P. Moreland gives his defense of what is known in philosophy as substance dualism. It is the idea that not only do you have a substantial body, but you have a substantial soul. The two work together, but they are separate. You cannot reduce the soul and all mental activity to mere activity of the brain.

The rest of the book is excellent, as well.

If you feel intimidated in dealing with this issue because you are not a neurologist, I want to put your fears to rest because you know something that the scientists do not know. What the scientists know has to do with the brain. But my discussion now is not principally about the brain, it is about the mind. There is only one person who has access to your mind. You. No one else knows your thoughts. No one else knows your feelings. No one else knows what it is like to be you. Technically, it is called de se knowledge. In other words, you have entirely private, first-person access to your own consciousness.

If I develop that a little further, that in itself would be a good defense for the idea that the soul is not the body, that the mind is not the brain because the brain and all other physical objects have no first-person priority or privileged access. They all have third-person access. Anybody can look at any physical thing and have the same kind of access to it as anyone else. It's a different argument. I'm not going to go into it now.

The main point that I want to make is that you know some things about your own consciousness because you have first-person access. Just what you know, the limited amount that you happen to know, is enough to let you know that you are not the same as your brain.

I think Paul is even on to this in 1 Corinthians 2:11. He mentions essentially the same thing: "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man e is talking about spirit in the context of the soul. He is using it synonymously with the inner man.

An important distinction to understand is between identity and constant correlation. I mentioned earlier that I think the article makes a very powerful point. Certain physical states of the brain certainly influence the soul.

But in identifying this fact, the neurologists have drawn the mistaken conclusion that since certain states are correlated, certain brain states are correlated with your soulish functions--memory, thinking, choices, feelings-- and that means there is no self, there is no soul, there is just a brain state. That is a big mistake. I know that they are not the same thing.

You can know for sure just with a moment's reflection that your brain is not your soul.

The headline in the article says, "A memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern." In other words, they are saying that a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern. It is not correlated with a mind state such that the brain cells firing causes your mind or soul to have a memory. It is saying that that's all it is.

That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light.

Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation.

When one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity, but isn't the mental activity itself, it is the same as trying to say that a movie is merely the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can't capture the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid, which shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. What's more, if you look at the light on the celluloid, you will never, ever even see the movie.

This is a very apt metaphor because of a statement made in the article. "Using sensitive electrodes inserted deep into the gray matter of test animals, researchers have watched vision as it percolates inward from the eye's retina to the inner brain." See what it says there? It says that the researchers have watched vision. It goes on to say, "Scientists watch a thought taking place. They can see the red glow of fear erupting from the structure known as the amygdala or note the tell-tale firing of neurons as a long-buried memory is reconstructed."

They say they can watch the thought, they can watch vision, but what are they actually seeing when they are watching that physical activity? They are watching the retina and the inner brain respond, but they are not seeing what the test animal sees? They are not watching vision. In other words, they are not watching the movie, they are watching the celluloid go past the light.

When they say they watch a thought taking place because they can see the red glow of fear erupting from a structure known as the amygdala, are they seeing a thought? No, they are seeing a part of the brain. When the doctors look at the brain, they can't see the thoughts, just like looking at the film in the celluloid, you can't see the movie. The scientists apparently can turn the projector on, but they can't see your movie no matter how many electrodes they have in your brain. Even in these scientific tests, you must have a viewer to know what the memory is. Can they put electrodes in my brain, stimulate a memory, and tell me what the memory is? No. Why? They cannot see the projection on the screen. Only I can see that on the inside.

If it was all physical, they should be able to see all the physical stuff, including the memory. But they can't see the memory. They can't see the projection. They can't see the movie. Why? The movie is not physical. It's these physical things that they watch that produces an image that occurs in my mind--an image that no one else can see. Why? All they can see are physical things and your mind is not physical.

There is a caption under a picture that says, "Mind probe. The pet scan. A key tool of brain research lets scientists watch mental processes as they happen." But what does it watch? It watches physical changes. It can't see your thoughts. It can't see your images, nor can it feel your feelings.

Think about your feelings for just a moment. A feeling is not just a chemical reaction. How do I know? Chemical reactions don't hurt, but feelings do. Feelings have a quality about them. What could be more obvious? As a matter of fact, it is so obvious that I feel silly even talking about it because you know this as well as I know this. Feelings have a particular texture to them that can't be captured in a chemical description. But someone in a white coat wants to tell you that you are not having a feeling, you're having a chemical reaction. And this one person told me, if it is just a chemical reaction, then why does it hurt so much?

C.S. Lewis wrote in God in the Dock , "It is disastrous when instead of merely attending to a rose, we are forced to think of ourselves looking at the rose with a certain type of mind and a certain type of eyes. It is disastrous because if you are not careful, the color of the rose gets attributed to our optic nerves and its scent to our noses and in the end, there is no rose left." Lewis is on to something here because if you follow this article to its logical conclusion, in the end there is no feeling left. There is no love, no pain, no compassion, no comfort, no beauty. There are no roses, no Mona Lisas, no Beethoven sonatas, no teenage puppy love. All that's left is chemical reactions, light waves and vibrating molecules. You know better, ladies and gentlemen, you know better.

The article is basically an assessment of the physical capabilities of the brain, which is fine. I think it is great to map out the brain. I think it is great to look at what the brain can do, and I think it is very helpful in many cases to see the correlation between brain activity and mental activity. My deep concern, though, is that this work on the brain by scientists and by science has an additional agenda behind it, much like the agenda that evolutionary science in its birth and subsequent development has had also. It wasn't just science that it was interested in. There were theological, philosophical, metaphysical aspects to it.

Darwin's attempt was to get God out of the picture with regards to the issues of origins, and I suspect that much of what is going on in neurology is an attempt to get rid of the mind so that all you have left is the brain. That's why even though all of this assessment is interesting and I think contributes greatly to our understanding of the relationship of the brain to the mind, there is certainly a tenor in this magazine article that is trying to give you the scientific explanation in order to argue that our belief that we exist as a center of consciousness, as a rational soul, is just simply mistaken.

Here's my final point on this issue. If the mind is reduced to the brain, pretty soon everything is lost. Feelings become chemical reactions, beautiful objects become light waves, beautiful music is reduced to vibrating molecules. Where did the music go? Where did the beauty go? Where did the feeling go? It's all gone. It ought to be obvious to us that this reduction is insane. It can't be made. It isn't valid. It's misleading.

Of course I think you know better than to accept this, but you may be intimidated by scientists in white coats telling you that you aren't really feeling love, you're just having a chemical reaction. You're not really seeing something beautiful, this is just light of various wave lengths. You're not really hearing something wonderful, it is just vibrating molecules.

But there is a deeper problem. If consciousness is just a property created by the brain, then when you make a decision who or what does the deciding? If consciousness is a mere effect of chemical reactions in the brain, then your conscious act of deciding is not a free will act of your own, it is a result of some physical process that came before it. Your choices are controlled by physical events outside of your will. To put it more bluntly, you have no will at all. Not really. Why not? According to this view, physical states produce particular mental states, which produce particular physical states all following one after another in a determined pattern just like railroad cars following an engine. guess what? You have not only lost the rose and Beethoven and your teenage puppy love, you've lost you, too. And by the way, that is exactly what this article says.

Let me read it to you: "Despite our every instinct to the contrary, [which is a tacit admission we already know what is right here and we have to deny] there is one thing that consciousness is not. Some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the self. Some kernel of awareness that runs the show as the man behind the curtain manipulating the illusion of a powerful magician in the Wizard of Oz. After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain and that it simply doesn't exist."

That is the most bizarre statement I have heard in a long time. It's like the man looking for the invisible rabbit. He said, I have looked high and low and I can't find it, therefore it doesn't exist. If there are invisible rabbits, you are not going to find them anywhere. Why not? They are invisible. That doesn't prove they do exist, it just simply points out that you can't disqualify the existence of something by looking for it in a way that won't turn it up. You don't look for the mind in the brain and try to find a location for it because the mind is not something physical by definition . You can't conclude that it doesn't exist because you haven't found it after a century of looking. You don't find it that way. You infer it from other things, and we have inferred it very directly and very successfully with a couple of very simple arguments. There are more in Moreland's book on immortality.

Lewis put it this way and he really captured it: "I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

Do you see the price that you have to pay to buy this point of view? Everything gets lost. Even you. Even the scientists that think they're thinking these conclusions. They're gone, too. So, why trust the conclusions?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Mind and brain: A scientific discussion leading to the existence of the soul

Introduction
Certainly the problem of consciousness has been widely discussed in philosophy. Since the aim of this article is to discuss the subject of consciousness from a scientific point of view, I will not dwell upon the different definitions and conceptions adopted by philosophers. I limit myself to define consciousness or psychical life as our capacity to feel sensations, emotions, thoughts etc. I will use the word "intelligence" because today this word is often combined to the concept of artificial intelligence, which does not imply and kind of consciousness. Science, contrary to philosophy, is always based on the observation of phenomena; the possibility of an experimental check is basically what distinguishes a scientific theory from a philosophical idea. Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon, of which we have then a full experimental evidence (indeed, it represents the foundations of every other experimental observation, since if we were not conscious, we could observe no phenomena); the phenomenon "consciousness" deserves then to be analysed from a scientific viewpoint.

What is the brain?
Now we know that our brain is only a set of particles, such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagnetic field. Every biological process is due only to the chemical reactions, which in their turn, are due only to the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons and the protons of the atoms forming our organism. Every neuron and every cell are nothing but sets of electrons, protons and neutrons, in a given spatial arrangement; the electromagnetic interaction may in fact be attractive so that particles may attract one another and form certain geometrical arrangements in the space. The properties of every (including also DNA molecules) and every biological process are due only to the laws of physics; more precisely, since in our organism no nuclear reactions occur and gravitational forces are too weak to interfere with molecular processes, every biological process is due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics.
   Science has proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness; so, materialism is incompatible with science. On the other hand, every materialistic attempt to explain the existence of consciousness implies that what suffers, loves, desires, feels etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc. Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom. There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed. In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.
  The claim that the electric impulses in our brain are or generate sensations and thoughts, is in contradiction with the laws of physics that consider equivalent all electric impulses, inside or outside our brain. In fact, an electric impulse is formed only by some electrons moving in a certain direction; according to the laws of physics, electrons are all equal and indistinguishable, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.
  Besides, the laws of physics establish that electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields; so the materialistic hypothesis that the electric impulses in the brain generate sensations, emotions and thoughts is in striking contradiction with the laws of physics. The electromagnetic waves generated by the electric impulses in our brain are absolutely equivalent to the ones generated by any other electric impulses; such waves go out of our brain and travel in the external space at the velocity of light, as every electromagnetic wave.
  The laws of physics establish which kind of processes occur in the physical reality; excluding nuclear and subnuclear reactions, that do not occur in biological systems, the only possible processes are the movement of particles and the exchange of energy among particles (collisions) or between a particle and the electromagnetic field (absorption and emission of photons). The only possible physical processes are determined by a mathematical operator called "Hamiltonian", which determines also the only possible kind of energy of the physical reality; in fact, the Hamiltonian is formed by the sum of a few terms, each determining a specific kind of energy, such as the kinetic energy of the electron or the energy of the photon. In order to have new processes or other kind of energy it is necessary to add some new term to the Hamiltonian; however, this would modify the equations of physics, and consequently it would change all their solutions (see the paragraph entitled "The laws of physics and History").
   In conclusion, the laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by cerebral processes. The laws of physics do not allow us to explain (neither conceptually ), the existence of consciousness; they allow to explain neither the existence of the most banal sensation.

Biological life does not imply consciousness
Science has proved that our brain is only a set of particles (that is an object), and that biological life consists uniquely in a succession of chemical reactions, which, in their turn, consist uniquely in physical processes (more precisely, in quantum-electromagnetic processes). On the other hand, consciousness transcends the laws of physics and cannot then be considered the product of biological and cerebral processes. This implies that our mind and our brain are not the same entity, but two different yet interacting entities. I use the word "psyche" to indicate this non-physical/non-biological element, necessarily present in man, that is man's component responsible of the existence of our consciousness and psychical life. Of course, other words could be used, such as mind, spirit or soul.
  At this point, we should try to understand whether there is a scientific evidence of the existence of some sort of consciousness also in animals. Now we know that it is possible to simulate with a computer every feature of the behavior of animals, including their capacity to learn and their apparent capacity to recognize their image in a mirror. An adequate software can allow the computer to record input data, analyze them and give specific outputs; all these operations occur automatically, without any consciousness, any sensations, any emotions, any thoughts. For example a computer, connected to a camera, can analyse the external images; this occur automatically through some mathematical algorithms, and the computer has no visual sensations. This proves that the fact that a dog can distinguish a bone from a stick, does not imply that the dog has a visual sensation.
  Therefore it is not possible to exclude from a scientific and rational point of view, that the life of animals is only a purely biological/chemical process without any kind of consciousness (neither sensations or emotions). In other words, science cannot exclude the possibility that the animal is only a biological robot, feeling nothing at all, which actions and reactions are uniquely determined by a chemical software implanted in its brain. It is also possible to explain those behaviors of animals, which are usually considered as an indication of emotions. For example, the dogs which, because of some genetic mutations, presented some affectionate behaviors, had a greater probability to be adopted by man, and consequently, to survive. It was sufficient that the animal presented those behaviors also towards only a member of the family (even not the one who gave it food) to be accepted by the family. It would be only a case of natural selection, even if unawares induced by man, who has programmed the behavior and the reactions of the dog. Since we have no way to observe directly the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, and the hypothesis of existence of consciousness in animals is not necessary to explain the observable phenomena in animals, we can conclude that there is no experimental or scientific evidence of the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, neither sensations or emotions.
  The idea that animals have sensations and emotions is then only an arbitrary hypothesis, without any scientific or rational foundations. Such an hypothesis can be considered only a reminiscence of childhood, since all children tend to ascribe to animals thoughts, sensations and emotions. Besides, primitive peoples were used to anthropomorphize many natural elements; the sun, the moon, the mountains, animals, etc. During history man has then understood that natural phenomena occur automatically because of specific natural laws: man has understood that nature is only an object and not a person. The anthropomorfic concept of animals is then only the last residue of this inclination to anthropomorphize natural processes. Now the technological and scientific progress allow us to explain the behavior of animals without ascribing them any anthropomorphic features.

Cerebral activity and consciousness
I would like to point out that the fact that brain damages or drugs induce changes in our mental capacities simply proves the existence of an interaction between the brain and the psyche. By no means this can be considered a proof that the brain is the origin of consciousness and the capacity to feel sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc. If you have a problem in your eyes, your visual capacities would be altered, but this certainly does not mean that it is your eye which has the visual sensation; this simply proves that your eye has a preliminary role in the process of generation of the visual sensation. The eye is only an instrument used by the psyche to see, but the eye can see nothing at all and has no visual sensations. In the same way, the brain has only a preliminary role in the process of generation of sensations or emotions, and it can be considered an instrument used by the psyche. All neurological studies on brain only prove the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain. But the existence of this interaction is obvious; in fact, without this interaction, our psyche would be completely isolated from the external reality, and we could not interact with the external reality.
  It must be stressed that the physical stimulus and the sensation we feel are two completely different phenomena. For example, the vibrations of the molecules of the air are not the sensation "sound" we feel; the molecules of the air hear nothing, and it would be absurd to say that the molecules of the air are an auditory sensation. The sensation "sound" exist only in the psychical reality, and not in the physical reality; the auditory sensation is generated only by the psyche and is the psychical elaboration of a physical stimulus. In the same way, the chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness; they are only physical stimuli. It is the our psyche who elaborates and translates these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc.

The laws of physics and the other natural sciences
Now I would like to give some considerations about the reliability of our scientific knowledges. First of all I would like to explain the difference between a phenomenological theory and a first-principle theory. A phenomenological theory is only an approximated and simplified version of a first-principle theory, that represents the exact explanation of natural phenomena. Biology and neurology are examples of phenomenological theories, while physics is the only first-principle theory, from which all the other natural sciences derive. Of course, since first principle calculations are very lengthy and arduous, we need also simplified theories in order to treat more easily systems formed by many atoms.
  The laws of physics have a general validity, but in their application to specific systems, it is possible to use simpler rules, specific for that kind of system; these rules are neither extraneous, nor independent from the laws of physics, but they are a direct consequence of the law of physics. A result of these phenomenological theories cannot be accepted if it results to be in contradiction with the laws of physics, which are the only true principles at the origin of the phenomenological theory. Only the laws of physics represent the first-principle explanation of the material reality, both inorganic and organic matter. Obviously, an approximated theory (such as biology and neurology) cannot be used to deny the exact theory from which the approximated theory derives.
  All natural sciences are then subordinate to physics. We can also point out that all natural sciences (biology, neurology, etc.) use in their studies and in their microscopic analysis only instruments that have been designed uniquely on the basis of the laws of physics. The data studied and analysed by these natural sciences have sense only because the laws of physics assure the correct working of their instruments. If the laws of physics are questioned, all other natural sciences would immediately fall down to pieces, because all the microscopic data used by these sciences to support their theories, would lose any meaning. Therefore , no natural sciences can elaborate theories in contradiction with the laws of physics. This would mean to make all data to lose sense, data on which the phenomenological theories have been built; it is an obvious logical contradiction. The laws of physics are then the foundations of all natural sciences.
  To understand better the relationship between Physics and the other natural sciences, consider the following example: to open a combination lock, we need know the combination. Even if we do not know the combination, and therefore we cannot open the lock, we already know what kind of process will occur when we find the combination. The laws of mechanics establish that the only kind of process we will get is the opening of the lock; the laws of mechanics establish that the combination will not make the lock begin to think, feel pain or pleasure, feel sadness or joy. Similarly, Quantum Electrodynamics establish that every biological process consists only in some successions of chemical reactions, which, in their turn, consist in successions of kinetic and electromagnetic processes, that is movement of particles, emission and absorption of photons. We do not know yet the exact successions of chemical reactions occurring in all biological processes, and biology has the task to discover these successions; however, exactly as in the case of the combination lock, the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.

The laws of physics and history
  The laws generating all chemical, biological, neurological processes are now perfectly known. Never before in history, science has been able to explain the principles by which all biological processes are originated. This represents a true turn in history. All that physics will discover in the future will have nothing to do with the biological processes in our organism, or any other organism. Even if there are still some things not perfectly known in astrophysics, these astrophysical process do not affect biological processes, which are due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics. There is then no reason to question the validity of the laws of physics in the explanation of biological or neurological processes.
  The laws of physics consists of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.

First principle Calculations
  Today we are able to do first-principle calculations for molecular systems formed by many atoms; this means that we can calculate the solutions of the equations of quantum physics also for macroscopic systems. The point is that we already know what KIND of information we can get from a first-principle calculation for every possible molecular system. In fact from the solution of the Schroedinger equation for a molecular system we know that we can obtain information such as charge distributions or energy spectra. By no means we can obtain consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. These are not possible outputs of a first-principle calculation. Even if we had a supercomputer with the capacity to find the wave function for our brain, we could find from the wave function only properties such as charge density or energy spectra. We could not find consciousness from the wave function calculated with the super computer. In fact we already know what KIND of properties can be obtained from every possible wave function. We are already able to do first-principle calculations for many different molecular systems, but the kind of properties we can find from their wave functions does not depend on which molecular system we have studied, because they are general outputs of every first-principle calculation, and it is independent from the kind of atoms or the number of atoms of the system. If the psyche did not exist as a non-physical component of man, according to our scientific knowledges we should be only a sort of biological robots, without any consciousness and without feeling anything, which actions and reactions were due only to chemical reactions . All the neurological studies prove only the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain, but they reveal nothing about the nature of the psyche.

Conclusions
   Materialism is incompatible with the scientific view of biological processes. Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. This view of biological processes does not allow (neither conceptually) to account for the existence of consciousness;nor it allows to account for the existence of the most banal sensation. This result acquires a very deep meaning if we analyse the state of our present scientific knowledges. First of all, all natural sciences are subordinate to the laws of physics, which represent the principles from which they derive and of which they are only approximative versions. Today in fact we know the laws which determine all molecular, electromagnetic, chemical, biological and neurological processes: they are the laws of Quantum Electrodynamics, the scientific laws which have received the most wide, general, systematic, numerous and precise experimental confirmations in all history. The laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the explanation of molecular systems, and in particular, of biological systems.
    On the other hand, the rigidity of the mathematical structure of quantum electrodynamics, makes absolutely unreasonable the hypothesis of a possible change of such laws, since this would have dramatic consequences on all the correct solutions we have presently obtained. This means that quantum electrodynamics can be considered the ultimate theory for the explanation of molecular processes, and, consequently, for the explanation of biological processes.
    The laws of quantum electrodynamics can be considered the first principles which determine all molecular and biological processes. The point is that such principles give (at least conceptually) a mechanicistic explanation of all molecular and biological processes, but they do not allow to explain (neither conceptually ) the existence of consciousness. The laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by biological or cerebral processes. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, and therefore, the cause of the existence of consciousness cannot be identified with the brain; consciousness is necessarily originated by a non-physical/non-biological (that is, a supernatural) component: the psyche or soul. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical and biological process; the psychical reality, which transcends such laws, and consequently, transcends the physical reality.
  At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the physical reality. We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent. This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God. I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved.

A note about the theory of evolution
  I would like to add a brief consideration about the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can be applied only to biological organisms. We do not have sufficient elements to establish whether the human biological organism is the result of an evolution process; neither we have sufficient elements to exclude this possibility. However, the point is that consciousness is transcendent to the physical/biological reality and requires the existence in man of a transcendent component (the psyche or soul).
  Since no fossils of psyche exist, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the origin of consciousness and human psychical life. So, even if our organism derived from a previous animal organism, we could have no conscious psychical life if God had not created in each of us a soul. Without a soul, we would be only biological robots, able to act and react, but without any consciousness and incapable of feeling any sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.

Materialists deny the existence of the psyche as an entity transcendent to physical reality and claim that sensations, emotions and thoughts are generated by cerebral processes, that is by matter. In my previous article I have explained how these ideas are denied by modern science, but here I will analyze in detail the logical and scientific inconsistencies of materialistic arguments.
In materialism, consciousness is considered a complex, emergent or macroscopic property of matter, but this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called macroscopic properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes. An example of macroscopic property often used by materialists is roughness; the materialist claims that quantum particles have o roughness, and therefore roughness is a new property, emerging only at the macroscopic level. This is completely wrong; in fact, roughness is only a concept used to describe a certain kind of geometrical distribution of the molecules in a surface. The laws of physics establish that there is an infinity of possible geometrical distributions of particles, and we can classify such possible distributions with different names, and elaborate the concepts of roughness or smoothness, etc. However these are only arbitrary and subjective concepts and classifications,used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is .
Also the concept of a macroscopic rigid and compact object is only an optical illusion, and not a physical entity. The image of the object we see is in fact only an approximate representation of the real physical object. No object exist in nature as we see it; solid objects appear to us as if they were uniformly filled with motionless matter, while they are only sets of rapidly moving particles; matter is concentrated in a very small fraction of the space occupied by the solid object, mostly in the atomic nuclea, and it has no uniform distribution as it appears to us. The laws of physics establish that the possible properties of every particle or molecule are the same, that is the property of exchange energy with other particles or photons, and the property of movement; these are the properties of every quantum particle, and no aggregate of quantum particles can have new properties. Therefore, no real macroscopic properties exist. The macroscopic properties quoted by materialists, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only abstractions or concepts used to describe our sensorial experiences; in other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes, and these ideas exist only in a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, the macroscopic property, being only an abstraction, presupposes the existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property of the physical reality, because the macroscopic property itself presupposes the existence of consciousness. We have then a logical contradiction. No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.
Another argument used by materialists is the hypothesis that psychical life could be generated by the fact that in the brain there are many exchanges of information. Also this is a case of logical contradiction, because the concept itself of information presupposes the existence of consciousness, and so this concept cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness. Materialists often say that also in computers there are many informations, but this is an improper language. In fact, in computers there are only electric impulses. It is the human mind who has established a conventional code that allows to identify specific successions of electric impulses as pieces of information. It is the same for the Morse alphabet: a succession of points and lines is not by itself an information; it becomes an information only if a conscious and intelligent mind has established a conventional code to attribute a given meaning to that succession of points and lines. So, every information is always the product of conscious psychical life, which proves that the concept of information cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness.
I would like to add a comment on a typical argument used by materialists: the psychical life exists in the brain because of its complexity. The invalidity of this argument can be easily proved with the following considerations. First of all, the concept of complexity refers to a problem; but a problem exists only as a question which someone is trying to answer. It is then man who, being conscious and intelligent, puts a problem and tries to solve it; the man then decides to classify such problem as easy or complex. So, consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any problems and complexity; in absence of consciousness, no problems and no complexity would exist, which proves that complexity cannot generate consciousness. Besides, the concept of complexity is an arbitrary and subjective; a given problem may be considered complex by a person and simple by another person. Since subjectivity presupposes the existence of consciousness, no subjective concept (such as the concept of complexity) can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Also this is sufficient to prove the invalidity of the argument of complexity from a logical point of view. In mathematics some definitions of complexity are used, but, as every mathematical definition, they are only arbitrary definitions, without any scientific value. In mathematics, in fact, it is possible to invent infinite definitions, equations, properties, and give them any kind of name, but they are only abstract concepts which existence presupposes the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The equations of physics are the only mathematical equations which have a scientific value because they are the only ones which have been attested by experiments. A common definition of complexity is the following: "a complex system is a set where the evolution of the single elements is predictable while it is not possible (or it is very difficult) to predict the evolution of the system". From the above definition we can clearly see how complexity has an intrinsic conceptual nature, and therefore it cannot exist independently from an intelligent mind. If fact complexity is defined in relation to the capacity to predict the evolution of a system. Only an intelligent mind can try to predict the evolution of a system. Therefore, the existence of the psychical life is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of complexity. Hence complexity cannot generate psychical life. We can also observe that typical examples of complex systems are ecosystems, meteorologic phenomena, the Earth Crust in relation to the possibility to predict earthquakes. If by absurd we hypothesized that complexity is the cause of existence of psychical life, then also the Earth Crust or every ecosystem would have a psychical life. The concept of complexity does not exist in the laws of physics, where only concepts such as charge, mass, velocity, etc. are present. The laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science and every natural process is determined uniquely by the laws of physics; in the laws of physics there is no law of complexity and no law establishing that complexity generates consciousness! The concept of complexity is necessary to explain no chemical, biological or cerebral processes, being all these natural processes explainable by the only laws of physics.
Let us analyse some typical examples quoted by materialists in the attempt to prove that the properties of the whole are not reducible to the properties of the parts. The first example is the electric conductor, where the electrons are free to move along all the crystal; in quantum terms, one says that their wave function is delocalized. The materialist claims that this delocalization is a new property, not-reducible to the ones of the components. This is clearly false. In fact, also the wave function of a single free electron can be delocalized, and therefore the delocalization is by no means related to the complexity of the system.
The materialist usually claims that the whirling motion of fluids is not reducible to the properties of the components, which is clearly false. In fact the motion of fluids is nothing but the motion of the particles making up the fluid. Since the calculation of the motion of all the particles would be too difficult, one usually make use of some simplified models to describe the fluid from a macroscopic point of view. However the properties of these models are not real properties, existing in nature, but they are only approximate descriptions of the real phenomena, which consist only in the motion of the particles, forming the fluid.
Another typical argument is the existence of some energy gaps in the electronic structures of crystals. By no means this property is related to the complexity of the system, since also in the hydrogen atom, which is made of two particles only, the possible values of energy are separated by gaps. Actually, the existence of permitted and forbidden values of energy is a typical feature of all quantum systems. The materialist usually claims that the bicycle is not only the sum of its components, which is clearly false; the bicycle is in fact only the set of its components in a given geometrical arrangement. Obviously, consciousness is not a geometrical figure, and cannot be explained as a geometrical arrangement of mechanical pieces.
In general, one can observe that the definition of every set is arbitrary, as well as it is arbitrary to establish which element is to be considered as a part of the set and which not. The holistic or collective properties, i.e. the properties of the whole set, are necessarily subjective and arbitrary, because they depend on the definition of the set. Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of arbitrariness (and consequently of every arbitrary property), it follows that consciousness cannot be considered an holistic or collective property.
The incapacity to give any valid example of real properties, not-reducible to the properties of particles and the laws of quantum physics, proves the failure of the holistic (that is, antireductionist) philosophies. The laws of physics always allow to explain directly all the properties of atomic and molecular systems; both in macroscopic and microscopic systems, there are no properties which are not directly reducible either to ordinary geometrical properties (since matter is placed in the space) or to the properties of elementary particles and to the laws of quantum physics. The only observable phenomenon, not-reducible to the laws of physics is consciousness.
Man can establish arbitrary criteria to classify natural phenomena, but these criteria exist only in human mind, and not in the physical reality, which is determined only by the laws of physics. All processes occurring in our brain are uniquely determined by the laws of physics, and it is not possible to use concepts extraneous to such laws (the concept of complexity or information etc.) to try to explain consciousness as a product of some cerebral processes. Such concepts presuppose the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind, transcendent to the physical reality; therefore, such concepts cannot be used to deny the existence of a reality transcendent to the physical reality. Let me give an example: if we put some bricks one over another, we will get always a heap of bricks, regardless of the fact that we can call it "house", "bridge" or "tower". The concepts of "house", "bridge" or "tower" exist only in the human mind; what exists in the physical reality are only quantum particles, such as electrons. These particles may occupy different positions in the space, so we may obtain sets of particles with different geometrical shapes. Since the electromagnetic interaction may be attractive, these particles may attract one another, and remain close to one another, forming some solid macroscopic objects. We may then choose to call a set of particles with a given shape "chair" and another set of particles with a different shape "table", etc. However these names and concepts are only abstract ideas which do not exist in the physical reality; these names and concepts presuppose the existence of consciousness, that is the existence of a conscious and intelligent person who analyses the external reality and conceives arbitrary concepts to classify it.
The fact itself that to try to explain consciousness, materialists need resort to such concepts, extraneous to the laws of physics, is a further evidence of the transcendent nature of consciousness. No concept extraneous to the laws of physics is in fact necessary to explain chemical, biological, neurological or cerebral processes; all these processes are perfectly explained by the laws of physics. It is correct to say that the laws of physics are the cause of every physical, chemical and biological process. If the explanation of consciousness requires the introduction of some new principle, extraneous to the laws of physics, this means that consciousness transcends the laws of physics; this is equivalent to say that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, unless we changed the laws of physics. As I have already explained, any change in the equations of physics implies the radical change of all their solutions, and then the lost of all those billions and billions of correct solutions obtained in this last century by the law of physics. Since the laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science, to change the laws of physics would imply the lost of all modern science and new start from zero. To hypothesize a change in the laws of quantum electrodynamics means to get out of science and get into purely speculative philosophy.
The logical process of materialism is the same of idolatry; in fact, the idolater thinks that the object (idol) under certain circumstances has a psychical life, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material; this is exactly what the materialist thinks, because he thinks that the object (brain) has a psychical life under certain circumstances, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material (electrons, electromagnetic fields, etc.)
A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in the brain generate consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in our brain are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of our brain (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields. Actually, materialists simply take some key words from the language of physics, such as "electric impulse", "energy", etc. and then attribute to these words new properties incompatible with the laws of physics; this is a clear abuse of scientific language.

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/brainandmind.html

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Mathematics as Supernatural on Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:00 am

Admin


Admin
Perhaps the best example of the astonishing accuracy that a mathematical theory can achieve is provided by quantum electrodynamics (QED), the theory that describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles and light. In 2006 a group of physicists at Harvard University determined the magnetic moment of the electron (which measures how strongly the electron interacts with a magnetic field) to a precision of eight parts in a trillion. This is an incredible experimental feat in its own right. But when you add to that the fact that the most recent theoretical calculations based on QED reach a similar precision and that the two results agree, the accuracy becomes almost unbelievable. When he heard about the continuing success of QED, one of QED’s originators, the physicist Freeman Dyson, reacted: “I’m amazed at how precisely Nature dances to the tune we scribbled so carelessly fifty-seven years ago, and at how the experimenters and the theorists can measure and calculate her dance to a part in a trillion.” 

James Clerk Maxwell, who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetism, showed in 1864 that the theory predicted that varying electric or magnetic fields should generate propagating waves. These waves— the familiar electromagnetic waves (e.g., radio)—were first detected by the German physicist Heinrich Hertz (1857–94) in a series of experiments conducted in the late 1880s. In the late 1960s, physicists Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam developed a theory that treats the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force in a unified manner. This theory, now known as the electroweak theory, predicted the existence of three particles (called the W, W– , and Z bosons) that had never before been observed. The particles were unambiguously detected in 1983 in accelerator experiments (which smash one subatomic particle into another at very high energies) led by physicists Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer. 

The physicist Eugene Wigner, who coined the phrase “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,” proposed to call all of these unexpected achievements of mathematical theories the “empirical law of epistemology” (epistemology is the discipline that investigates the origin and limits of knowledge). If this “law” were not correct, he argued, scientists would have lacked the encouragement and reassurance that are absolutely necessary for a thorough exploration of the laws of nature. Wigner, however, did not offer any explanation for the empirical law of epistemology. Rather, he regarded it as a “wonderful gift” for which we should be grateful even though we do not understand its origin. Indeed, to Wigner, this “gift” captured the essence of the question about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. At this point, I believe that we have gathered enough clues that we should at least be able to try answering the questions we started with: Why is mathematics so effective and productive in explaining the world around us that it even yields new knowledge? And, is mathematics ultimately invented or discovered?

The role of the consciousness of the physicist as an observer thus becomes part of the reality of the subatomic natural world. This takes us far from the mechanistic understanding of an objective physical reality existing outside ourselves that had long dominated physics, and still informs the common sense thinking of most people. As Bohr would later put it in a 1957 essay (he died in 1962), “the inadequacy of the mechanical concept of nature for the description of man’s situation [in the world] is particularly evident in the primitive distinction between soul and body” that had reemerged as a large issue in light of the discoveries of twentieth-century physics. A new focus on the soul—historically meaning the domain of human consciousness outside any material reality—has resulted from our search for the true workings of nature. According to twentieth-century physics, it has turned out that physical nature, objective natural reality, physical causation, etc., are all parts of a set of illusions that flickered for much of modern existence, as Plato once described the human circumstance in the cave. Physicists, as one might say, have
now finally shone a true light, thereby necessitating a large revision in our understanding of the circumstances of our own human existence.

The leading physicists of the late 1920s and 1930s typically spent part of their times together discussing the radical metaphysical—indeed theological, even if few of them were devout religious believers themselves—implications of their remarkable recent discoveries. Bohr, for example, frequently sparred at these meetings with Einstein, who famously complained about quantum mechanics that “god does not play dice.” A number of these leading physicists in later years would themselves write books and essays exploring the radical philosophical and religious implications raised. If a minority, other leading physicists since then have also entered into such discussions. In this chapter, I will rely heavily on the writings of such leading physicists of the twentieth century (and their mathematician compatriots)— and also a few from the twenty-first century—to examine the “theological” consequences, including the
effects of their discoveries on the question of a god, even if they did not normally address this subject explicitly in their own writings.

Mathematics as Supernatural
There is no real need for a working physicist today to consider the question of why the natural world seemingly always and everywhere exhibits a mathematical order. It is simply a matter of an (often implicit) faith of the physicist that has been amply rewarded in the past with an astonishing array of scientific discoveries by earlier physicists. It was not a main subject of the 1920s and 1930s discussions among physicists but Einstein in this respect—as in others—was an important exception. As he considered, “a priori” one would expect that the world would be “chaotic”; in the absence of some outside agency with the power to “impose an order,” why would the world exhibit the lawfulness and “comprehensibility” that has been revealed by modern science? Einstein had no good answer but could only marvel at “the ‘miracle’ which becomes more evident as our knowledge develops” through scientific discovery of the order underlying the functioning of the universe. More recently, a few other leading physicists have on occasion wondered why the mathematical methods of physics “work” so well in understanding the natural world. As noted in the Introduction, although he is not of the stature of an Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, or Schrodinger, Princeton professor Eugene Wigner ranks among the important physicists of the twentieth century, winning the Nobel prize in 1963. Besides his many scientific contributions, he was another one of those physicists who ventured to explore from time to time the deeper human implications and meaning of physics. One of these contributions was a frequently noted 1960 article on “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” 

Speaking more bluntly and candidly than most of his fellow physicists, Wigner acknowledged that the mathematical foundations of the natural world are a true “miracle” that lies outside any scientific understanding itself. Indeed, as he further explained, it seemed to him that there are actually “two miracles,” first the very “existence of [mathematical] laws of nature” and a second miracle “of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.” Wigner thus considered as implausible any suggestion that the electrical and chemical workings of the physical brains of human beings could have created the complex abstractions—themselves lacking any physical reality—of higher mathematics of the kind routinely used by physicists.

For him, it was also remarkable how “the mathematical formulation of the physicist’s often crude experiences leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena” in the natural world. Full candor required acknowledging “that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it” in the methods of physics itself. Indeed, there was no way to avoid the fact that “mathematics plays an unreasonably important role in physics.” Moreover, it was not a case of mathematicians drawing on the physical world as the inspiration for their development of mathematical ideas. Rather, as Wigner wrote, “whereas it is unquestionable true that the concepts of elementary mathematics and particularly elementary geometry were formulated to describe entities which are directly suggested by the actual world, the same does not seem to be true of the more advanced concepts [in mathematics], in particular the concepts that play such an important role in physics” at its most advanced levels today.

The typical mathematician, Wigner observes, is motivated by a desire to explore abstractions that “demonstrate his ingenuity and sense of formal beauty.” Despite its miraculous character, the workings of mathematics and physics are products of rational thought. At present, “the great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is . . . [yet another] miracle in itself.” Admitting almost to a modern heresy, Wigner then confesses his strong sense that “certainly, it is hard to believe that our reasoning power [in areas such as higher level physics and mathematics] was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.” Wigner, simply put, finds it impossible to believe in biological evolutionary accounts of the development of human consciousness with its amazing mathematical and other high level rational facilities. Indeed, a physical explanation such as evolutionary biology is inherently incapable of explaining an outcome such as the worlds of mathematics and the laws of physics—both existing as elements of human consciousness and thus outside measurable time and space. Wigner does not say this explicitly himself but he is coming close to the idea of a preexisting supernatural intelligence shared in surprisingly large degree by human beings—or, as it would more traditionally have been put in religious language, human beings are made “in the image of God” who is himself rational and they also participate at least to some degree with him in the exercise of shared rational faculties.

God as Mathematician
Maxwell’s theory of electromagneticism shared with Newton’s theory of gravity the fact that it could not be given any plausible physical interpretation beyond the mathematics itself. Electrical and magnetic fields did not have any physical existence or mechanical explanation—like gravity, they simply exist. Thus, for those who persisted in believing in the existence of matter as the foundation of an ultimate physical and mechanical reality, in both the cases of Newton and of Maxwell their manner of practice of physics must appear as relying on a form of magic. 

Even such a distinguished British physicist as Sir William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) charged that “in his departure from a mechanical model of thought he [Maxwell] had lapsed into mysticism.”

As Einstein would remark, in Maxwell’s theory “the equations alone appeared as the essential thing and the field strengths as the ultimate entities, not to be reduced to anything else.” As a result, serious scientists had to give up “belief in the justification, or the possibility [as with Newton and gravity], of a mechanical explanation of Maxwell’s equations.” As a result, as Einstein wrote, of the “changes wrought by him in our conception of the nature of physical reality, we may say this: before Maxwell people conceived of physical reality -- in so far as it is supposed to represent events in nature -- as material points … After Maxwell, they conceived physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable, which are subject to partial differential equations,” the mathematics having become the ultimate reality for post-Newton—and now post-Maxwell physicists—however magical this might seem to be. For any kind of rational answer, it would be necessary to turn to theology—to invoke the actions of a supernatural being, a god of some kind. Rational thought could thus lead to a conclusion of a strong existing likelihood of there being a god that guides the “material” world, if in a mysterious manner outside of any material explanation.

God, very probably: VERY PROBABLY Five Rational Ways to Think about the Question of a God ROBERT H. NELSON page 51

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Re: Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:03 am

Admin


Admin
Idealism, dualism, or materialism? 

Read and repeat in your mind: " Saying that matter produces thoughts is as saying that the colour blue produces the smell of perfume channel ".  That thought of yours is not in its essence of material causation, but mental. It's not because some electrons fired in some special way in your neurons, that you had this thought. That's an error of category. It's actually the contrary. Your thoughts had a material consequence in your neurons.  Therefore, the supernatural realm exists. And is right amongst us. Our mind and thoughts are in their essence not a manifestation of matter, but of a supernatural realm.

The Mind is Not The Brain
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-the-mind-is-not-the-brain

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1284-near-death-experience-evidence-of-dualism

Mind and brain: A scientific discussion leading to the existence of the soul
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2798-mind-and-brain-a-scientific-discussion-leading-to-the-existence-of-the-soul

The universe: Caused by a Conscient creator, information and energy
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2061p100-my-articles#6037

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Re: Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:51 am

Admin


Admin
Only a non-thinker and wilful ignorant asks for proofs and to demonstrate that absolutely nothing has no causal powers.

Only a non-thinker and wilful ignorant asks for proofs that intelligence comes only from intelligence.

Flowering plants of the genus Musa will always only generate Bananas. Citrus species will always only produce citrus fruits like Orange, lemon etc.
Only an intelligent mind, capable of logical reasoning, is an adequate cause to create other minds able to reason. If we as humans possess the capability to intellectually understand and to know, then the cause must have the same or better capabilities of the same sort.
Questioning and doubting that matter can not produce a mind, consciousness, intelligence, and the capability of logical reasoning is the expression of stupid skepticism to the extreme.

Only a non-thinker and wilful ignorant claims that the laws are not descriptive. Obviously the laws are laws because a law-giver did set them up to be laws, and so the order upon which the universe works.

Are the laws of physics evidence of God's existence ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8VYZwzLbk8

The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other. Origins make only sense in face of Intelligent Design.

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

Only a non-thinker and wilful ignorant asks for 15 years for evidence of Gods existence.

Something that is self-evident, and the Bible does not even question, but clarifies in Genesis 1:1 with exceptional information content, and the highest semantic weight in worlds literature.

In information theory, semantics can be defined as the weight of the meanings” per sentence or per paragraph. There are literally thousands of books about origins, the beginning of the universe, life, and biodiversity, but none provide genuine answers. Max they can say is; " probably, most likely, we suggest, it seems, it appears " etc. That extends through ALL evolutionary biology. Nobody provides clear certain answers. The Bible, on the other hand, describes the origin of the physical universe in one remarkable sentence:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

(Gen 2:7). And the origin of man: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (Gen 2:7). These few words comprise a remarkable information content, since they provide answers to many questions. A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space, and matter.

Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

The sentence can be divided in two categories: the physical universe: time, matter, and space
And the second:
God = the cause
action = the creation event.

Everything that BEGINS TO EXIST ( action ), has a cause. ( God ).

Once this is compared with the scientific evidence, and philosophical considerations, it provides an intellectually SATISFACTORY explanation of our origins. An epistemological sound triple team in action: science, philosophy, and theology.

In order to understand our place in the cosmos, and the reason of our existence, we need to know about our origins. The Bible gives that answer in an epic, remarkable, unique sentence in Genesis 1. The highest weight of meaning in one sentence.

There is a dictum: “Truth does not require many words, but a lie cannot use enough words”,

What we have here represents the highest possible semantic information density. Other passages in the Bible also exhibit superlative semantic densities (e. g. John 3:16 contains all the information necessary for man’s salvation).

Here you can download one of my favored authors and sources of sound scientific information: Dr.Werner Gitt's excellent book for free:

In the Beginning was Information:

https://bruderhand.de/download/Werner_Gitt/Englisch-Am_Anfang_war_die_Info.pdf

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

7Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Re: Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:27 pm

Admin


Admin
a there's a moral law that guides the
universe well it was the negative
existence so the the definition I would
be using is the importance worth or
usefulness of something for value and so
on the sanctity of existence yeah so all
this the goal is existence you can't
have goal unintentionally well I would
say that usefulness is true whether or
not you have a goal or not it is useful
whether or not you have the goal the
goal the usefulness is the goal you know
but it's true whether but the function
exists regardless of whether someone has
is there to actually have a goal about
it but that is the goal you're saying
the goal is existence in it instantiates
unintentionally but it is intentional by
definition that's what it is but I don't
have to intend to use a ladder but it
still will function as a ladder that's
objectively true that's right so how do
you justify an objective value without
an objective value what it does what its
function is I'm not talking about how it
does it the very fact that it does is is
something that is necessarily but a
function of volition or person you can't
value unintentionally I mean if we're
defining it as the usefulness of
something then you certainly can
usefulness toward the sanctity of
existence

you can't have goals
unintentionally you can have tell us
that intelligently but what does that
mean useful for the sanctity of
existence I would say that's what your
same functionality is if something leads
to the sanctity of existence if
something can make something to last
longer or give fullness of life it is
therefore good because life matters but
you have to give me a justification for
saying what life matters in an in an
impersonal universe what is the like how
can you say that something is useful for
sanctity I would say sink to tea is a
property it's not really a function to
you to say it's useful toward what you
answer the question anything so nothing
to kill people
no well a weapon is useful for killing
or defending yourself so it could be
good or bad sure so it's not for
anything it's anything that leads to the
sanctity of existence
well that would concern ethics of how we
decide what is actually leading towards
that getting us more sanctity or less
sanctity and the goal is always that
that which leads the sanctity existence
for example you know him or not he was
he was promoting the sanctity of
existence he was but that would be wrong
but he thought he was saving the
universe
humanity yeah in that the goal is to be
correct well yeah your your pursuit of
safety existence but still the goal is
the same for Hitler for me
we're both seeking the same thing but it
doesn't matter if your goal is to be
correct or incorrect the correctness or
incorrectness of it is true regardless
of what your goal is that's right and
it's always the sanctity of existence
Hitler's perception was wrong mm-hmm so
you need to justify unintentional
purpose it's an oxymoron you're
violating a lot of identity so if a tree
falls in the woods
it can unintentionally provide the
function of a bridge if it falls over
like a river say hmm so that's one way
that something can unintentionally have
a function well a tree falling is not a
is not a personal being
now that tree falling can be for
sentient creatures who have a volition
can move toward the sanctity of
existence but a tree if we say a tree
dies were saying he didn't follow its
function its formal principle was not
fulfilled it was destroyed everything is
a formal principle that's growing all
right it has a goal it goes to when our
eyes don't see we say our eye is not
functioning properly because the eye is
made for see in a tree falling of course
it could be a result of death and it
could be functional toward the human
perspective and so we could say that
tree falling is good thing it's been
made a bridge for me and to save my life
I made my life easier or something like
that but it's always the sanctity of
existence everything always is and you
cannot have holy existence
unintentionally why not because in the
the goal of existence is a function of
volition but why can't something exists
without having a goal what if something
exists your that's not what we're saying
you're saying that there's always a goal
of existence I'm not saying that there
is a goal
I'm saying that it just exists but
you're saying it's better to exist and
not to exist yeah they said that's a
question of good that's a goal you're
saying that's an objective value no
because we don't have to have any goals
to take account of what it can do and
what it can't do we don't have to take
it again and in the Senate we don't have
to have a goal to take into account what
an object can and cannot do I'm not
understanding your point there so the
the capabilities the functions of an
object are true regardless of your goal
yes so you're a realist that's you can
have a goal to use it but those uses are
true regardless of whether you have a
goal or whether you don't have a goal or
whether you have the goal to misuse it
or something like that
yeah I'm not I'm not following you there
but I would say that in so far is you
have this you say there's this cosmic
force that says that it's evil to not
value existence you're speaking
incoherently if you want to say just
long you feel that way that's when we
can deal with that and there's another
problem with that but still you can't
say objective value exists
unintentionally well I wouldn't say
there's a cosmic force that says that I
would say that that's the result of an
ethical system that this isn't about
personal right well they're made by
minds okay to try and understand things
either say yeah of existence is an
ethical system no it's the the ethical
system is the result of the sanctity of
existence so what is it would it's just
the language that we use to describe it
and to navigate it such such as math
there is no num force that is like
manifesting the number two it's just a
language thing that we used to describe
a quantity of two different things but
now you're anomalous you switch you
switch sides in your philosophical
constructs okay so know the number two
does exist
if your if the number two did not exist
then when you name it and I'm not saying
its name isn't necessarily number two in
English but then when you name it you're
naming something you're not it didn't
puff pop out in the air when you said it
otherwise you would not be able to give
an accounting for all of us having the
same perception of - as an abstract
concept of course that's we're
digressing there a little bit but you're
not very tight what you're saying so I
still need to understand how it is that
you can have an intentional tell us so I
think what we were discussing on YouTube
comments was whether or not matter was
necessary or contingent and so I think
just based on the basic laws of logic
matter is a necessity and non-existence
total complete nothingness is a logical
incoherence unless it cannot exist
that's right well since we know that we
are we know that we are there's
something to say that nothing exists is
a nonsensical statement if I be Enquirer
I'm actually asking that question mm-hmm
so that's an agreement there I was
trying to find that thread but anyway I
guess I guess you kind of you kind of
delineate it there though so you say
that that matter is necessary in being
is that what you're asserting yeah I
mean I would I guess I could say that
it's contingent upon the laws of logic
but that the laws of logic necessitate
that matter exists that there is no
other option okay but to say that
something is necessary nominally
necessary something that is necessary
because it exists is different than
saying something is ontologically
necessary in other words if something is
ontologically necessary it doesn't
change because if it changes it's
contingent upon that which affects the
change so you get two categories
necessity and contingency
you're equivocating terms are when you
say that matter must exist since we are
experiencing it that doesn't mean that
matter is necessary in existence
ontological e because the were change
would be untrue are you familiar with
Heraclitus and Parmenides yeah a little
bit
but what I was saying was that there
isn't another option that there can't be
no matter or else that would just be
non-existence right whereas or no energy
or what ir whatever matter can translate
into right because we're having this
conversation or I am having this comment
you're caught you The Enquirer Arrancar
the decart you know that you at least
exist because you're asking the question
therefore cannot be such that there is
nothing because nothing doesn't do
anything theoretically nothing might be
a possibility but the reason that I rule
it out as a possibility is because it
cannot if it is true nothingness it
cannot ever change and thus we could
never have gotten to something that's
right so if you're gonna say if
something if there is any inquiry if
you're even thinking right now there
must be something but that's not saying
it has ontological necessity ontological
necessity cannot change because either
it could be or not be for example is
your being is it possible that you'd
never existed sure so I'm not a
necessary existence okay unless we're I
mean so under but permanent about the
trees every tree that exists no does it
have to exist under determinism no
strictly speaking yes strictly speaking
it does have to exist but loosely no the
the tree could have been planted
anywhere or the tree could have died
something like that
right so it's contingent maybe there
could exist or not exist all contingent
being changes necessary being cannot
change because you cannot have an
infinite regress of effects without
causes so whatever is making matter
exists is
is necessary that's right let's go
so so why would you call that God
because you cannot have contingent being
existing in independently because it is
defended by definition well but so what
do you mean by God actually just is it
just that which causes existence to
become or to have to exist or absolutely
or is it a mind well we know that we
have we have to biology your purposing
to make the statement right this this
habits coming in yes so we know that
purpose cannot instantiate
unintentionally and yet you have purpose
so there must be an ultimate intention
that gives meaning and ability to your
intentionality so there must be an
ultimate mind Oh
furthermore you look at mathematics
which is symbolic logic and which are
mental in nature you cannot have those
instantiate unintentionally of say you
know rocks we know that rocks don't
always say don't make me philosophical
societies so my problem what that would
be I mean this the infinite regress what
purpose the mind of God say it again if
mind requires a purpose so something
must have had two purpose the mind of
God and cause God
well then that would be contingent right
well that's the problem with the
infinite regress is and the premise that
you're trying to state I'm not stating
it really well the your premise causes
an infinite regress because everything
every mind would need a purpose so even
the mind of God would need a purpose no
you're making Bertrand Russell's logical
fallacy everything doesn't need a cause
every effect needs a cause that's what
the principle of causality is it's not
everything needs a cause well I agree
that not everything needs a cause and so
I think that you don't need an intention
to get the laws of logic
oh you don't need an intention to get
the laws of logic and the laws of logic
of mental constructs right the way that
we understand them there it's yeah give
me six ounces of logic right right but
there's fundamental rules to the
behavior of how things work so a thing
cannot be what it's not no matter what
god cannot make two plus two equal five
right so he is inherently limited by
something that's outside of him no
forcing him to change to have his
behavior be it would follow a certain
rules your Ridge on one would be one was
the log us it could also be translated
in the beginning was the logic was the
coherence logic is not something God
conforms to logic is God is fine with
that until you start assigning
characteristics of like a mind to God
okay so again I'm fine saying that like
the Creator is this fundamental logic
but I wouldn't I have no reason to
believe that it has a mind
okay is this not is this creator does it
have a necessary being yeah and I would
just call that the laws of logic just
for ease of conversations sake okay so
there is such a thing that there are two
different ontology sin this University's
necessary being and there's contingent
being right mm-hmm
okay what's your problem with calling
necessary being God nothing it my
problem would be in assigning it
properties of a mind okay but you're
saying that properties of a mind
instantiate contingently right yeah I
would say minds are contingent okay does
the contingent being derive its being
from necessary necessary being yeah okay
so how do we get intentionality for
an unintentional creator well this is
one of the things I've seen from your
other debates as it's it's the fallacy
of composition where you don't need to
have the properties fundamental to get
new properties to emerge out of the
interaction between things okay well
you're afraid to tom job then tom jump
doesn't understand interesting
metaphysics and physics how many rocks
does it take to make them start valuing
things is it is it twenty McMillian or
how many well it doesn't matter whether
he values it or not because the thing
does what it does regardless of whether
he values a okay so you're saying that
rocks can create philosophical Society
said no because they can't think Oh
so everything must work according to its
being is called a Geary sequitur a Geary
sequitur si a thing works through acts
according to its being would you agree
with that sure what I'm saying though is
a bunch of rocks don't have the
properties of a wall but you can pile up
rocks and then it has the properties of
a wall right so how many what does it
take to start intending things it
doesn't never right it doesn't it's not
it's not a composition fallacy because
it's a category err rocks do not value
sayings doesn't matter how many they are
doesn't matter how many walls you build
with them they're not gonna start
valuing things when you get that big fat
pile does nothing it's not a composition
fallacy its foolishness
Tom jump is really quick with the tongue
but he's not that great with thinking
well to say that you need the properties
of a mind in order to get them to emerge
later on is the composition fallacy no
it's not because rocks boards don't
create philosophical sighs that's what
you're saying if we get enough matter is
somehow it starts valuing things it
doesn't that material does not matter
it's not efficiency and it's not it's
not final it when you talk about
Aristotelian causality it's a category
error you're confusing metaphysics with
physics
if it's self-aware then it can start to
value things so did it start it already
does so I'm not sure whether I would
describe an animal as valuing things I
guess depending on their conscious what
consciousness level they do some of them
would probably yeah but something like a
an insect would behave more like a robot
I would say no I think I think you even
see purpose everything is moving toward
the sanctity of existence even on a
microscopic level I'm not saying they
have personhood like a human or anything
like that but there is this this
movement its we're all programmed toward
the sanctity of existence and you got to
say how are we determined
indeterminately doesn't make any sense
it's a violation of law of identity
again it's determined indeterminately
it's not indeterminate it is following
the laws of physics of logic and
everything so some things yeah so all I
mean by what I would mean by the
sanctity of existence would be the based
on the definition of what good is which
is not it's not defined as existing that
would be something that we could
conclude from existence that existence
is good because it can do something okay
the circuit argument is something is
good because it exists because it can do
something which is exist sure but it's
not because it exists because it can do
something which is exist yeah so
it doesn't it's I'm not saying it it is
good because it exists existence because
it can do something good is this
existence could be doing anything so it
just depends on what we define good ass
well you're saying there's an objective
standard good because that which exists
yeah what do you mean by objective it is
objectively true that's something that
exists can do some things and you're
saying it is wrong for it not to do so
that's the problem you're making a moral
imperative where there's nothing to
define it you're saying is the it's like
rocks saying you know we should make a
philosophical Society well it is wrong
it's incorrect to not exist because
non-existence is not possible at least
on the universal scale so it's incorrect
it can't happen it's well you will cease
to exist
you didn't exist at one time you're not
necessary yeah but so I'm talking about
just the fundamentals how I'm grounding
it and then we can from that we can
produce a a sitar language or system
that we call ethics and that's how we
navigate it yes we start with the
fundamental so I would I would say that
the fundamental value and that would be
freedom volition and and then we can
produce like rules from that fundamental
value but we have but I would agree with
you that we have to ground that
fundamental value in something that is
objectively true right and how do you
have an objective goal unintentionally
I'd never describe it as a goal we just
play games though I mean it is a goal
all men should exist we should all care
for each other so that we can live as
long as we possibly can you should take
care of puppies you shouldn't kill them
well should I think you should is not
necessarily a goal that's not no if you
mix hydrogen and oxygen in a certain way
they should produce
water it's but it's not a goal it's just
the way that they okay properties of
chemical go forward about volitional
purpose that we must fulfill well I'm
talking about just a nod from an is so
there's not there's not a goal there it
just ought to be true because it is true
so are you somewhere with Humes
guillotine I think so I you look it up
basically he's basically said he can't
get him off from this and he's right
he's if he's an empiricist I mean I
don't agree with that then okay well I
mean you're wrong and he's right I mean
you can say whatever you want but he
might want to read it look it up well
I've already demonstrated and not from
it is and I think you know you just you
just you just proclaimed it you didn't
demonstrate it you just said we need to
value existence for no reason at all
it's just is you just give me a just so
story
well why we should value existence is
because it's logically coherent right
that's different from saying whether or
not it has the properties of good or not
no you're you're committing the
presuppositionalist fallacy you're just
assuming something and then imposing it
saying that's the way it is just because
I say so
well that's what I've deliberately been
trying to avoid so I don't thinks I'm
doing that at all the Oppermann is that
I'm talking about is that anything
exists at all it ought to exist because
the the alternative is impossible so if
there's an opera man is and I think you
agreed with that when I said that total
and complete nothingness is impossible
if you're making an objective statement
that existence exists that's not a moral
imperative this says that we are to
value existence well any any necessary
thing is an opera man is because it is
necessary it has to see that way it is
necessarily the way it is that's it
isn't it is necessarily true that we
exist if we're gonna have any inquiry so
epistemological II we must assume and we
start own exist
first going to be any inquiry that
doesn't mean that we are necessarily we
are ontologically necessary though as
we've already don't over yeah I've never
said that human existence isn't hot
Fuhrman is just that exhibit is this
entire universe that is changing is not
necessary if it were it wouldn't change
but something is necessary that's right
and if you've already conceded that
there's both necessary being and there's
contingent being and I'm saying that
necessary being is dot and you just
don't like the fact that he is
intentional even though we instantiate
intentionality and we cannot do that
from state rocks I'm just doing any
intention from the universe because the
fact that something has to exist is a
not from an is it it ought to be that
way did you intend it that way
yes so I am NOT an infinite in the
universe right sure but not from what
we're talking about and it's only that
instantiation is only among contingent
being but you know that a Geary sequitur
se something cannot impart something
what issues itself does not have so the
necessary being cannot impart to you
intentionality unintentionally but we
already know that things can have
properties that their constituent parts
do not have oh so you don't believe a
new gary sequitur si no I guess not
oh so rocks can create philosophical
societies no I mean if their rocks were
somehow self-aware sure that's right so
but they're not self-aware so they gotta
act like rocks they can't act like
elephants right yeah but I'm not seeing
any self-awareness from the fact that
something needs to exist it doesn't need
to be aware well I'm talking about the
fact is self-awareness how do you
justify your self-awareness
instantiating unintentionally that would
be a question of biochemistry
biochemistry so large things
have such a complex feedback loop that
they're able to basically edit their
goals in real time so in Earth's
inanimate chemicals can value things
again you're confusing physics with
metaphysics I guess you can make certain
chemicals go in you make a new number
two if you have enough if you have a
system that is able to sense the world
around it then it can form goals if it's
if it's complicated enough you could
have you could have us as a brain or a
system that just it senses one thing and
then it is just forced to take the one
action but the more complicated the
system gets the more variable variables
there are and so you can basically get
intent emerging from all of that okay so
I don't see any of that in the the fact
that the universe must exist
well you're back to saying if we get
26,000 with million rocks they will
suddenly start valuing things if their
communicative material if there's some
like electron our proton gradient
between them that creates patterns of
self-awareness then sure magic yeah
hypothetical right is just nonsense it's
like we're Kipling's you know just those
stories you're just making up a story
just watch much of evolution is the
Darwinian synthesis is just well we
can't figure this out let's just put
unknown X here quantity and give up the
properties that we like to make the
argument work and pretend like it's
compelling well we know that rocks can't
do it but we know those are the complex
systems that communicate with each other
to can do it so it doesn't seem like
this content or consciousness is
actually fundamental to matter it seems
like it's emergent but you're assuming
your conclusion you're saying that it
can arise because that's what I say so
even though you can't give justification
philosophically for
well I observe it arising I observe that
it's not in our constituent parts but it
is in how do you observe it if you
yourself already happened in other words
your again you you're assuming the very
conclusion in your in your process it's
just I think therefore I am
right so where does the Kogi go to come
from where do you get how does it
instantiate unintentionally you can't
have it you can't have an entire set I
say it's all time and I've never seen
the answer
you can't even the cyclists mention the
big diagram it's maybe one circle here
it will say it is all of them exist and
at one point in time let's say 30
trillion years ago whatever you want to
say the billion 45 billion years ago say
you got a circle here it's all
intentional and then you say
intentionality emerged from that
intentionality and so what you're having
to introduce you have to say that
unintentionally intended intentionality
but you can't do that so there's a
violation a law of identity an
intentionality cannot intend things no
because things can happen without intent
a rock doesn't have to intend to fall
off a mountain a little bit of rock on
the metal Rock does it follow up about
and turn into a boy that's the point
that would be more of a question of
evolution yeah that's right does it says
it's magic just believe me
how about creationism where God spoke
magic words into some clay and then it
happened that that's not evolution
evolution is just chemistry evolution
has no efficient cause God speaking life
into clay does have an efficient cause
there's a big difference
chemistry is an efficient cause no
chemistry is an instrumental cause it's
not efficient telling stories about a
magical being is not efficient do they
do the chemicals value people again you
don't have to value something to have a
behavior do you believe that anything
can happen unintentionally no because
contingent the contingent being cannot
be created unless it was intended so
unintentional things just don't exist no
I'm saying nothing
nothing exists unintentionally it's not
possible how if it weren't intended it
wouldn't exist so plants have intention
no I'm saying they have 180 check they
have an objective purpose otherwise it
wouldn't exist why does something need
to have a purpose to have a function
because it cannot be it cannot be
created unintentionally necessarily just
an assertion I'm sorry it seems like
that's just an assertion because you
don't need an intent to avoid what is
impossible because the universe cannot
do the impossible that doesn't require
an intent so the universe exists because
non-existence is impossible I don't see
what intend exists there contingent
existence is not necessary so necessary
ontologically if it were then it
wouldn't be changing yeah but I'm saying
that the fact that something exists is
necessary yes to talk about it but we
have to say that it isn't that but
that's not saying it's not tool actually
necessary just saying it's necessary to
be able to be able to say something if
we are to say anything contingent
existence must necessarily be but that's
not to say it's not to logically
necessary but you can get to existence
without intent how so
because non-existence is just impossible
yes but aren't you intentional I have
intentions I am NOT intentional the fact
that the fact that there's iron in my
blood is not an intention that you are
intentional speaking to the person yeah
so you would you would need to show how
my constituent parts have intention your
constituent parts have intention I'm not
saying matter is mental okay
I'm saying if you have a person you
Taylor are a person hila morphism that
you have ever thought let's say you have
form and matter but that form is your
person within you which is basically the
instruction it's it's the humanity
within you but you've got a you've got a
person and you've got a human being
which is your material form so you got
your formal and your material form your
formal is your metaphysical portion in
your physical portion they are united to
make which you are as rational animal I
think is what he would say so I'm just
not understanding where you think the
intent comes from is it some magical
force that just imbues me with the
ability but not rocks
no well God's not magical he creates
humans personal things
I mean what do you mean by magic you're
the one who's magic I'm saying it's not
magic well how do you know it's not
magic if you don't have because it's
justified I'm justifying it logically
I'm just saying magic is anything
supernatural okay and I'm saying nature
cannot be all there is because nature is
contingent on natural I'm sorry aren't
the laws of logic natural they're not
physical by the definition of physics I
would say they're physical oh really
so how much how long is the number - I'm
sorry - it's - yeah I mean you can do
what I'd it up infinitely but where's
the smella
it doesn't have a property of smell what
because
it's not a actual piece of matter it's a
language in material language is
immaterial in some function of mine yes
there's a personhood yes but it's all
accounted for by materials in our brains
okay that's just a magic talk again no
it's not
you're just saying we have a lot of
neuro chemistry and neurological studies
that show that ideas are instantiated in
physical structures in the brain okay is
we damaged if we damage the brain then
those ideas can be lost
well that's that's true there is a
synergy between the person and his his
body but if they're not the same thing I
asked that Thomas this thing in a thread
I asked them more than what an idea show
me a picture of an idea and a speaker
you put a picture of a firing neuron so
you know that's an idea that's not the
pink elephant I'm making in my mind it's
it's a basic it is quality it's a
metaphysical claw it's not physical it
is when you have the when you have
certain neurons that are reacting to the
idea of an elephant or so the color pink
causes certain neurons to fire and when
you look at an elephant it causes
certain neurons to fire and those same
neurons can fire whether you're looking
at the pink or the elephant and those
same neurons can combine yes that those
are not the idea themselves that's it
they are the firing that occurs in the
mind if they're firing without you
looking at it then that's the idea just
are firing without you looking at it
that's the idea
no that's the that's the chemical
process electrochemical process in the
mind but it's not the idea itself it's
it's causing the same neurons to fire as
if you're seeing it and it's combining
with whatever the rest of your conscious
but it's not the idea itself it's the
it's a physical reaction in your body
that is synergistically correlated to
the idea that you have it's not the
experience I can't I can't see that fire
I can't show you that that that firing
neuron to be you know pink elephant or
whatever what you could by showing what
neurons fire when you look at an
elephant no but it's not the I can't
show you that elephant by showing you
the neuron fire the same thing it's a
it's electrochemical process that is
occurring physically but it's not the
idea that's where the ideas stored and
it when it interacts with the rest of
your conscious mind that is in the idea
okay so where's where's the storehouse
of ideas where we could go and look at
it in your brain okay so if you had this
idea in your brain in a pink elephant
can you look at my brain and show me the
pink elephant library we can do that
with certain concepts like even gods
this green nobody could ask I'm sorry we
know what a brain looks like when it's
thinking about God and it looks a lot
like when you're thinking about yourself
and there are strange cases where
someone has brain damage and they
actually one side of their brain
believes in God and the other side does
not believe in God and so they caused
two different personalities to emerge
from the same brain that previously only
had one so it seems like all of
cognition is tied entirely to the brain
okay well I don't dispute that again if
there's a synergy between the person and
instrument but you can't look at
somebody else's brain and say I see you
know the abstract picture that this
person makes in their mind that is going
on in their mind I mean the same thing
if we looked at the source code for this
video right now you just see a bunch of
ones and zeros you wouldn't be able to
see the actual video but that is where
the video information is stored okay but
both of those are material right yeah
okay well that's not we're talking about
we're talking in material again
2+2 is not a something that you can hold
in your hand in a way it's it's an
abstract reality this is a problem
abstract ideas are not matter they are
creative by matter though you can't
we've never let an example of an idea
that isn't okay so wrong every Rex rocks
can have philosophical society if we
found some example of an idea that was
floating free of a brain and maybe you'd
have a point I don't think they do well
let me say this I think that uh that you
can have ideas they're not necessarily
linked to human but there is a synergy
between the human mind and the ideas
that ago currently and when something
happens to that physical instrument it
can't have an effect on the person
within if you will so you're saying that
the mere existence of ideas means that
there's some higher intention or some
higher mind if if ideas are intentions
do degree that ideas I cannot oh because
I use this term intentionality and my
atheist friends who know little
philosophy based able to be
intentionality is to basically make an
idea about something that you've see in
your mind that's an intentionality is
that's what the term means your your
purposing something in your mind like
either I see a elephant and I make that
fiction in my mind or I don't see an
elephant and I still make it up in my
mind that's intentionality it has
purpose it's necessarily teleological
and so we cannot have intentionality
unintentionally it's not possible what
about invasive thoughts
such as what do you mean lots of people
report just having unwanted thoughts
where they'll just have images of
violence pop into their mind or even if
you're just sitting in the shower and
something pops in your mind the exposure
you aren't thinking about okay and what
about that how is that intentional well
you're the one having me a mind it it's
not to say that that there's nothing
involved otherwise in other words every
every every thought that we have is
related to the world in which we live
and so it's affected some way by the
environment which were in would agree
with that
say again let's see I I would say that
intent requires a purpose and but that
function does not require a purpose so
if something is coming up without a
purpose it's just the result of function
then I would say that it's unintentional
oh yeah we're talking about being
affected by things and then having maybe
unwanted or um yeah purpose thoughts and
so I say oh I was saying that every
every every thought is in some sense is
affected by the environment in which we
are in so there is a contingency to even
thoughts that we don't purposely desire
but the very fact that we're thinking
about it and we're saying
I don't want to think about that we're
still thinking about it would you agree
with that yes okay yes was that
intentionality is just thinking at all
yeah we're abstraction in the mind we
kind of thought come into your mind
you're like I don't want think about
what you're thinking about it you cannot
think about it but what is the purpose
of that how is that purposeful it would
not happen it were you not participating
with it volitionally but if it's an
invasive thought you aren't
participating in it relationally we are
because you're the thought is in your
mind but some people have these thoughts
and they don't want them there they
actively would say that their purpose is
to get rid of them and yet they happen
anyway I mean even as far we could even
talk about hallucinations people suffer
from suffering from hallucinations are
don't want them and but yet they're
unintentionally happening they would
adopt them if they could and you're
thinking about them right yeah because
they don't have a choice
they're just experiencing it their
purpose would be to stop doing that but
they can't stop it's unintentional right
but there's a there's a part of them
that is like for example the earth giver
do something that you wish you had not
done yeah okay in what you're doing has
many differences sometimes those things
are unintentional sometimes it's just
the result of like what was I thinking
like like I have had regret of things
that I've done on purpose and regrets of
things that I've done not on purpose
right but it was like I don't know love
your volition no that happened not
necessarily I mean it's it's hard to
talk it who made the choice
like what if you forget something is
that an intention well that's a lack of
intention okay so it's unintentional we
didn't intend it because it you forgot
it it's it's a it's the opposite of
intending so if I forget my car keys in
my trunk and I lock myself out
is that intentional what was it you to
put yourself in that position I did put
down my keys without thinking right and
but then I forgot about it
so you said you just said that that's
unintentional it's without intent say
okay so if I I put my keys down maybe
that might be unintentional but then I
forgot it and you said you said that
forgetting things was a lack of
intention so it's unintentional yes
because the idea was not there to
remember so I would I think ethics
itself is intentional but that it's
grounded in something that is not
intentional which is the value of
existence I would say yeah I mean you
could say that I actually like sanctity
better Hanna okay well anyway I need to
get going Taylor I like to keep these
things around an hour usually okay I got
some stuff I need to do but I've enjoyed
talking with you and thank you for
inviting me would you keep so would you
mind telling me briefly what what's your
spiritual background I'd be been an
atheist all the time or were you a
Christian at one time or something um I
mean it's hard to categorize I grew up
kind of my only exposure to religious
ideas was through media or through other
kids okay and there was a there was a
time where I thought that there was a
God because I was aware of the concept
and basically I I thought that there was
a God helping me find things because I
would lose things a lot and I would find
it and I'd be like oh there must be a
god
and I grew up a little bit and realized
you know maybe it's just because you
knew where it was so but I didn't think
much about it and then I went to a
Catholic High School almost on
coincidence they had a pretty good
science background and everything and I
was interested in that and I guess I was
I was definitely drawn into it by the
religious aspects and so I thought if
I'm going to be able to find any
evidence of God then this is probably
the place and so I would say that I
became an atheist by because I read the
Bible basically that's the that's the
story okay well I appreciate it I was
like to know the background it's
interesting to hear people have come
from so you pretty much had a pretty
secular upbringing but then you had some
educational experience in the Roman
Catholic tradition yeah my mom grew up
Catholic my dad I think his parents were
religious too but they just they didn't
tell me not to believe they didn't tell
me to believe and actually when I
started you know complaining about
religion they were like Oh leave them
alone like stuff like that so I wasn't
raised to be an atheist well you never
really went to church so much growing up
they took me a couple of times to
churches a couple of them were just like
events held in churches but like my mom
likes to go to church on Christmas Eve
just for the tradition of it yeah stuff
like that yeah okay yeah so yeah maybe
we can have another discussion kind of
expanding a little bit sure you have to
be fun set it up all right
well I'll let you go then thanks for
coming all right we'll see you later
Taylor nice to meet you bye
all right there we go let's address the
chat real quick before we shut it down
let's see
by what mr. Chester tone Ian says by
what standard does one judge right and
wrong I would say that I think we've
been over this a few times but right and
wrong is to me is correct and incorrect
and along though the moral spectrum
would be right and wrong would be
basically good and good and evil and so
what what is good well evil would be the
violation of the moral code bad I think
you could pair that with good and bad in
terms of how we ground that so good is
just what is existence good for
existence is good for you know whatever
it does and non-existence is not good
for anything so it's bad for everything
and so that's how I ground my standard
of judging right and wrong is how how
consistent and how correct can your
logic on on states of existence be so
you would basically you would have
states of freedom as good because it can
do more things and evil would be
violating whatever system you've set up
to basically acknowledge that freedom is
the value complicated stuff yeah mr.
Chester Toni and also asked is heroic
self-sacrifice morally good by what
standards can we evaluate this again I
would just say freedom is the the kind
of the shortcut that we can go through
to do that because obviously you have to
explain why freedom is the standard but
that's if that's the standard then
heroic self-sacrifice can be
morally good if it actually increases
the amount of freedom or if there's
reason to believe that it would if you
sacrifice yourself and you don't end up
saving anyone or you know in in a in a
time of war
perhaps you sacrifice yourself and your
whole company dies anyway intent is part
of morality
so you intended to increase the amount
of freedom by saving the lives of others
maybe you failed certainly if you're
successful it would be morally good but
I would also say that forcing someone to
sacrifice themselves is not morally good
because that that creates a standard of
ethics which where you can force people
to do things and that decreases the
overall amount of freedom so it's only
good if it's done voluntarily then
consent and voluntary ISM is very
important in being in building a
consistent standard of behavior
emotionally-stunted emoticon he's saying
What did he say brain minds are a
product of brains and brains are a
product of evolution I think we can
agree there Trey obviously seems to be a
creationist yes he also asks mr.
Chesterton Ian by what standard do we
judge what age is acceptable to have sex
and that's a tough one because it's it's
it should be based on the level of
maturity of the individual but societies
can't really just go around testing
every individual for are you ready to
have sex or not so I think that it is
logical to have kind of a a cutoff where
you err on the side of caution
where we know eighteen-year-olds are
capable of actually making this decision
or most of them are and we know that
much younger than that they aren't
capable so you've got to have a cut-off
somewhere in there and it's better to
and it can get more complicated like
there are there restrictions based on
age gaps versus just your absolute age
so basically you would decide that based
on whether you can consent children
cannot consent too much so oh hey I can
do this standing for truth says hello
ladies and gentlemen tray doesn't know
what intentionality means from jasonlew
sir
yeah I would say it doesn't seem like he
has a firm grasp on intentionality and I
don't think he could show that the laws
of logic that found all of existence are
intentional he's just kind of saying
that you need a mind to explain the
intentions of Mayans which leads to an
infinite regress and I'm not I'm still
not seeing any intentionality in
something that is just behaving the way
of the Hague's
something gonna have a property without
having intentional Jason also says this
is great you just trapped ray and he's
grasping at straws to get out yeah I
think that he hasn't necessarily thought
about how he's grounding his morality or
his definitions I actually start with
the assumption that all of my grounds
and definitions are false and I see how
I can try and prove myself wrong
I mean definitions can't really be false
there it's more of a language thing it
just depends on what definition you're
using so I'd say whether your definition
works whether it can be consistently
applied and that's what morality is is
it's universally applicable behavior or
standards of behavior so we have to have
consistent terminology so if if you can
do things that are unintentional if
things can have properties and functions
that are unintentional then I don't see
why the laws of logic themselves need to
be intentional and yeah that's basically
my my main beef with any religious claim
to God because God is unnecessary in
that whole equation you don't need God
you don't need intentionality force
something to be impossible and thus the
the alternative to be possible no
intentions need to exist there and of
course the classic tray chuckle and it
seems like that is the end of our
broadcast so thanks to everyone who came
on and witnessed this debate today and
we will have more in the future

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

8Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Re: Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:54 pm

Admin


Admin
Hitler's perception was wrong 
mm-hmm 

so
you need to justify unintentional
purpose it's an oxymoron you're
violating a lot of identity 


so if a tree
falls in the woods
it can unintentionally provide the
function of a bridge if it falls over
like a river say 


hmm 

so that's one way
that something can unintentionally have
a function 


well a tree falling is not a
is not a personal being
now that tree falling can be for
sentient creatures who have a volition
can move toward the sanctity of
existence but a tree if we say a tree
dies were saying he didn't follow its
function its formal principle was not
fulfilled it was destroyed everything is
a formal principle that's growing all
right it has a goal it goes to when our
eyes don't see we say our eye is not
functioning properly because the eye is
made for see in a tree falling of course
it could be a result of death and it
could be functional toward the human
perspective and so we could say that
tree falling is good thing it's been
made a bridge for me and to save my life
I made my life easier or something like
that but it's always the sanctity of
existence everything always is and you
cannot have holy existence
unintentionally 


why not 

because in the
the goal of existence is a function of
volition 


but why can't something exists
without having a goal 


what if something
exists your that's not what we're saying
you're saying that there's always a goal
of existence


 I'm not saying that there
is a goal
I'm saying that it just exists 


but
you're saying it's better to exist and
not to exist 


yeah 

they said that's a
question of good that's a goal you're
saying that's an objective value no
because 


we don't have to have any goals
to take account of what it can do and
what it can't do we don't have to take
it again and in the Senate we don't have
to have a goal to take into account what
an object can and cannot do I'm not
understanding your point there so the
the capabilities the functions of an
object are true regardless of your goal
yes so you're a realist that's you can
have a goal to use it but those uses are
true regardless of whether you have a
goal or whether you don't have a goal or
whether you have the goal to misuse it
or something like that



yeah I'm not I'm not following you there
but I would say that in so far is you
have this you say there's this cosmic
force that says that it's evil to not
value existence you're speaking
incoherently if you want to say just
long you feel that way that's when we
can deal with that and there's another
problem with that but still you can't
say objective value exists
unintentionally 


well I wouldn't say
there's a cosmic force that says that I
would say that that's the result of an
ethical system that this isn't 


about
personal right 


well they're made by
minds okay to try and understand things
either say yeah of existence is an
ethical system 


no it's the the ethical
system is the result of the sanctity of
existence so what is it would it's just
the language that we use to describe it
and to navigate it such such as math
there is no num force that is like
manifesting the number two it's just a
language thing that we used to describe
a quantity of two different things 


but
now you're anomalous you switch you
switch sides in your philosophical
constructs okay so know the number two
does exist
if your if the number two did not exist
then when you name it and I'm not saying
its name isn't necessarily number two in
English but then when you name it you're
naming something you're not it didn't
puff pop out in the air when you said it
otherwise you would not be able to give
an accounting for all of us having the
same perception of - as an abstract
concept of course that's we're
digressing there a little bit but you're
not very tight what you're saying so I
still need to understand how it is that
you can have an intentional tell us 



so I
think what we were discussing on YouTube

comments was whether or not matter wasnullnecessary or contingent and so I think
just based on the basic laws of logic
matter is a necessity and non-existence
total complete nothingness is a logical
incoherence unless it cannot exist


that's right well since we know that we
are we know that we are there's
something to say that nothing exists is
a nonsensical statement if I be Enquirer
I'm actually asking that question

 
mm-hmm

so that's an agreement there I wasnulltrying to find that thread but anyway I
guess I guess you kind of you kind of
delineate it there though so you say
that that matter is necessary in being
is that what you're asserting 


yeah I
mean I would I guess I could say that
it's contingent upon the laws of logic
but that the laws of logic necessitate
that matter exists that there is no
other option 


okay but to say that
something is necessary nominally
necessary something that is necessary
because it exists is different than
saying something is ontologically
necessary in other words if something is
ontologically necessary it doesn't
change because
if it changes it's
contingent upon that which affects the
change so you get two categories
necessity and contingency
you're equivocating terms are when you
say that matter must exist since we are
experiencing it that doesn't mean that
matter is necessary in existence
ontological e because the were change
would be untrue are you familiar with
Heraclitus and Parmenides


 yeah a little
bit
but what I was saying was that there
isn't another option that there can't be
no matter or else that would just be
non-existence right whereas or no energy
or what ir whatever matter can translate
into 


right because we're having this
conversation or I am having this comment
you're caught you The Enquirer Arrancar
the decart you know that you at least
exist because you're asking the question
therefore cannot be such that there is
nothing because nothing doesn't do
anything 


theoretically nothing might be
a possibility but the reason that I rule
it out as a possibility is because it
cannot if it is true nothingness it
cannot ever change and thus we could
never have gotten to something


 that's
right so if you're gonna say if
something if there is any inquiry if
you're even thinking right now there
must be something but that's not saying
it has ontological necessity ontological
necessity cannot change because either
it could be or not be for example is
your being is it possible that you'd
never existed 


sure so I'm not a
necessary existence okay unless we're I
mean so under but permanent 


about the
trees every tree that exists no does it
have to exist under determinism no
strictly speaking yes strictly speaking
it does have to exist but loosely no the
the tree could have been planted
anywhere or the tree could have died
something like that


right so it's contingent maybe there
could exist or not exist all contingent
being changes necessary being cannot
change because you cannot have an
infinite regress of effects without
causes
 


so whatever is making matter
exists is
is necessary 


that's right let's go
so so why would you call that 


God
because you cannot have contingent being
existing in independently because it is
defended by definition well 


but so what
do you mean by God actually just is it
just that which causes existence to
become or to have to exist or absolutely
or is it a mind 






well we know that we
have we have to biology your purposing
to make the statement right this this
habits coming in yes so we know that
purpose cannot instantiate
unintentionally and yet you have purpose
so there must be an ultimate intention
that gives meaning and ability to your
intentionality
so there must be an
ultimate mind Oh
furthermore you look at mathematics
which is symbolic logic and which are
mental in nature you cannot have those
instantiate unintentionally of say you
know rocks we know that rocks don't
always say don't make me philosophical
societies 


so my problem what that would
be I mean this the infinite regress what
purpose the mind of God 


say it again

 if
mind requires a purpose so something
must have had two purpose the mind of
God and cause God


well then that would be contingent 


right
well that's the problem with the
infinite regress is and the premise that
you're trying to state I'm not stating
it really well the your premise causes
an infinite regress because everything
every mind would need a purpose so even
the mind of God would need a purpose no



you're making Bertrand Russell's logical
fallacy everything doesn't need a cause
every effect needs a cause that's what
the principle of causality is it's not
everything needs a cause 


well I agree
that not everything needs a cause and so
I think that you don't need an intention
to get the laws of logic
oh you don't need an intention to get
the laws of logic and


 the laws of logic
of mental constructs right the way that
we understand them there it's yeah 


give
me six ounces of logic right right but

there's fundamental rules to the
behavior of how things work so a thing
cannot be what it's not no matter what


god cannot make two plus two equal five
right 


so he is inherently limited by
something that's outside of him


 no

forcing him to change to have his
behavior be it would follow a certain
rules your Ridge on one would be one wasnullthe log us it could also be translated
in the beginning was the logic was the
coherence logic is not something God
conforms to logic is God
is fine with
that until you start assigning
characteristics of like a mind to God



okay


 so again I'm fine saying that like
the Creator is this fundamental logic
but I wouldn't I have no reason to
believe that it has a mind



okay is this not is this creator does it
have a necessary being 


yeah and I would
just call that the laws of logic just
for ease of conversations sake


 okay so
there is such a thing that there are two
different ontology sin this University's
necessary being and there's contingent
being right mm-hmm
okay what's your problem with calling
necessary being God 


nothing it my
problem would be in assigning it
properties of a mind


 okay but you're
saying that properties of a mind
instantiate contingently right 


yeah I
would say minds are contingent 


okay does
the contingent being derive its being
from necessary necessary being 


yeah okay
so how do we get intentionality for
an unintentional creator
 


well this is
one of the things I've seen from your
other debates as it's it's the fallacy
of composition
where you don't need to
have the properties fundamental to get
new properties to emerge out of the
interaction between things 


okay well
you're afraid to tom job then tom jump
doesn't understand interesting
metaphysics and physics how many rocks
does it take to make them start valuing
things is it is it twenty McMillian or
how many 


well it doesn't matter whether
he values it or not because the thing
does what it does regardless of whether
he values a 


okay so you're saying that
rocks can create philosophical Society
said
no because they can't think 


Oh
so everything must work according to its
being is called a Geary sequitur a Geary
sequitur si a thing works through acts
according to its being 


would you agree
with that sure what I'm saying though is
a bunch of rocks don't have the
properties of a wall but you can pile up
rocks and then it has the properties of
a wall right 


so how many what does it
take to start intending things 


it
doesn't never 


right it doesn't it's not
it's not a composition fallacy because
it's a category err rocks do not value
sayings
doesn't matter how many they are
doesn't matter how many walls you build
with them they're not gonna start
valuing things when you get that big fat
pile does nothing it's not a composition
fallacy its foolishness

Tom jump is really quick with the tongue
but he's not that great with thinking
well to say that you need the properties
of a mind in order to get them to emerge
later on is the composition fallacy no
it's not because rocks boards don't
create philosophical sighs
that's what
you're saying if we get enough matter is
somehow it starts valuing things it
doesn't that material does not matter
it's not efficiency and it's not it's
not final it when you talk about
Aristotelian causality it's a category
error you're confusing metaphysics with
physics


if it's self-aware then it can start to
value things so did it start it already
does 


so I'm not sure whether I would
describe an animal as valuing things I
guess depending on their conscious what
consciousness level they do some of them
would probably yeah but something like a
an insect would behave more like a robot
I would say 


no I think I think you even
see purpose everything is moving toward
the sanctity of existence even on a
microscopic level I'm not saying they
have personhood like a human or anything
like that but there is this this
movement its we're all programmed toward
the sanctity of existence and you got to
say how are we determined
indeterminately doesn't make any sense
it's a violation of law of identity
again 


it's determined indeterminately
it's not indeterminate it is following
the laws of physics of logic and
everything so some things 


yeah so all I
mean by what I would mean by the
sanctity of existence would be the based
on the definition of what good is which
is not it's not defined as existing that
would be something that we could
conclude from existence that existence
is good because it can do something 


okay
the circuit argument is something is
good because it exists because it can do
something 


which is exist 

sure but it's
not because it exists because it can do
something which is exist 


yeah so
it doesn't it's I'm not saying it it is
good because it exists existence 


because
it can do something good is this


existence could be doing anything so it
just depends on what we define good ass
well you're saying there's an objective
standard good because that which exists


yeah what do you mean by objective it is
objectively true that's something that
exists can do some things and you're
saying it is wrong for it not to do so
that's the problem you're making a moral
imperative where there's nothing to
define it you're saying is the it's like
rocks saying you know we should make a
philosophical Society w


ell it is wrongnullit's incorrect to not exist because
non-existence is not possible at least
on the universal scale so it's incorrect
it can't happen it's well you will cease
to exist


you didn't exist at one time you're not
necessary 


yeah but so I'm talking about
just the fundamentals how I'm grounding
it and then we can from that we can
produce a a sitar language or system
that we call ethics and that's how we
navigate it 


yes we start with the
fundamental so I would I would say that
the fundamental value and that would be
freedom volition and and then we can
produce like rules from that fundamental
value but we have but I would agree with
you that we have to ground that
fundamental value in something that is
objectively true 


right and how do you
have an objective goal unintentionally


I'd never describe it as a goal 


we just
play games though I mean it is a goal
all men should exist we should all care
for each other so that we can live as
long as we possibly can you should take
care of puppies you shouldn't kill them


well should I think you should is not
necessarily a goal 


that's not 

no if you
mix hydrogen and oxygen in a certain way
they should produce
water it's but it's not a goal it's just
the way that they 


okay properties of
chemical go forward about volitional
purpose that we must fulfill 


well I'm
talking about just a nod from an is so
there's not there's not a goal there it
just ought to be true because it is true


so are you somewhere with Humes
guillotine I think so I you look it up
basically he's basically said he can't
get him off from this and he's right
he's if he's an empiricist


 I mean I
don't agree with that then 


okay well I
mean you're wrong and he's right I mean
you can say whatever you want but he
might want to read it look it up 


well
I've already demonstrated and not from
it is and I think you know you just


 you
just you just proclaimed it you didn't
demonstrate it you just said we need to
value existence for no reason at all
it's just is you just give me a just so
story


well why we should value existence is
because it's logically coherent


 right

that's different from saying whether or
not it has the properties of good or not


no you're you're committing the
presuppositionalist fallacy you're just
assuming something and then imposing it
saying that's the way it is just because
I say so


well that's what I've deliberately been
trying to avoid so I don't thinks I'm
doing that at all the Oppermann is that
I'm talking about is that anything
exists at all it ought to exist because
the the alternative is impossible so if
there's an opera man is and I think you
agreed with that when I said that total
and complete nothingness is impossible


if you're making an objective statement
that existence exists that's not a moral
imperative this says that we are to
value existence 


well any any necessary
thing is an opera man is because it is
necessary it has to see that way it is
necessarily the way it is that's it
isn't


 it is necessarily true that we
exist if we're gonna have any inquiry 


so
epistemological II we must assume and we
start own exist
first going to be any inquiry that
doesn't mean that we are necessarily we
are ontologically necessary though as
we've already don't over yeah I've never
said that human existence isn't hot
Fuhrman is just that exhibit is this
entire universe that is changing is not
necessary if it were it wouldn't change
but something is necessary that's right
and if you've already conceded that
there's both necessary being and there's
contingent being and I'm saying that
necessary being is dot and you just
don't like the fact that he is
intentional even though we instantiate
intentionality and we cannot do that
from state rocks I'm just doing any
intention from the universe because the
fact that something has to exist is a
not from an is it it ought to be that
way did you intend it that way
yes so I am NOT an infinite in the
universe right sure but not from what
we're talking about and it's only that
instantiation is only among contingent
being but you know that a Geary sequitur
se something cannot impart something
what issues itself does not have so the
necessary being cannot impart to you
intentionality unintentionally but we
already know that things can have
properties that their constituent parts
do not have oh so you don't believe a
new gary sequitur si no I guess not
oh so rocks can create philosophical
societies no I mean if their rocks were
somehow self-aware sure that's right so
but they're not self-aware so they gotta
act like rocks they can't act like
elephants right yeah but I'm not seeing
any self-awareness from the fact that
something needs to exist it doesn't need
to be aware well I'm talking about the
fact is self-awareness how do you
justify your self-awareness
instantiating unintentionally that would
be a question of biochemistry
biochemistry so large things
have such a complex feedback loop that
they're able to basically edit their
goals in real time so in Earth's
inanimate chemicals can value things
again you're confusing physics with
metaphysics I guess you can make certain
chemicals go in you make a new number
two if you have enough if you have a
system that is able to sense the world
around it then it can form goals if it's
if it's complicated enough you could
have you could have us as a brain or a
system that just it senses one thing and
then it is just forced to take the one
action but the more complicated the
system gets the more variable variables
there are and so you can basically get
intent emerging from all of that okay so
I don't see any of that in the the fact
that the universe must exist
well you're back to saying if we get
26,000 with million rocks they will
suddenly start valuing things if their
communicative material if there's some
like electron our proton gradient
between them that creates patterns of
self-awareness then sure magic yeah
hypothetical right is just nonsense it's
like we're Kipling's you know just those
stories you're just making up a story
just watch much of evolution is the
Darwinian synthesis is just well we
can't figure this out let's just put
unknown X here quantity and give up the
properties that we like to make the
argument work and pretend like it's
compelling well we know that rocks can't
do it but we know those are the complex
systems that communicate with each other
to can do it so it doesn't seem like
this content or consciousness is
actually fundamental to matter it seems
like it's emergent but you're assuming
your conclusion you're saying that it
can arise because that's what I say so
even though you can't give justification
philosophically for
well I observe it arising I observe that
it's not in our constituent parts but it
is in how do you observe it if you
yourself already happened in other words
your again you you're assuming the very
conclusion in your in your process it's
just I think therefore I am
right so where does the Kogi go to come
from where do you get how does it
instantiate unintentionally you can't
have it you can't have an entire set I
say it's all time and I've never seen
the answer
you can't even the cyclists mention the
big diagram it's maybe one circle here
it will say it is all of them exist and
at one point in time let's say 30
trillion years ago whatever you want to
say the billion 45 billion years ago say
you got a circle here it's all
intentional and then you say
intentionality emerged from that
intentionality and so what you're having
to introduce you have to say that
unintentionally intended intentionality
but you can't do that so there's a
violation a law of identity an
intentionality cannot intend things no
because things can happen without intent
a rock doesn't have to intend to fall
off a mountain a little bit of rock on
the metal Rock does it follow up about
and turn into a boy that's the point
that would be more of a question of
evolution yeah that's right does it says
it's magic just believe me
how about creationism where God spoke
magic words into some clay and then it
happened that that's not evolution
evolution is just chemistry evolution
has no efficient cause God speaking life
into clay does have an efficient cause
there's a big difference
chemistry is an efficient cause no
chemistry is an instrumental cause it's
not efficient telling stories about a
magical being is not efficient do they
do the chemicals value people again you
don't have to value something to have a
behavior do you believe that anything
can happen unintentionally no because
contingent the contingent being cannot
be created unless it was intended so
unintentional things just don't exist no
I'm saying nothing
nothing exists unintentionally it's not
possible how if it weren't intended it
wouldn't exist so plants have intention
no I'm saying they have 180 check they
have an objective purpose otherwise it
wouldn't exist why does something need
to have a purpose to have a function
because it cannot be it cannot be
created unintentionally necessarily just
an assertion I'm sorry it seems like
that's just an assertion because you
don't need an intent to avoid what is
impossible because the universe cannot
do the impossible that doesn't require
an intent so the universe exists because
non-existence is impossible I don't see
what intend exists there contingent
existence is not necessary so necessary
ontologically if it were then it
wouldn't be changing yeah but I'm saying
that the fact that something exists is
necessary yes to talk about it but we
have to say that it isn't that but
that's not saying it's not tool actually
necessary just saying it's necessary to
be able to be able to say something if
we are to say anything contingent
existence must necessarily be but that's
not to say it's not to logically
necessary but you can get to existence
without intent how so
because non-existence is just impossible
yes but aren't you intentional I have
intentions I am NOT intentional the fact
that the fact that there's iron in my
blood is not an intention that you are
intentional speaking to the person yeah
so you would you would need to show how
my constituent parts have intention your
constituent parts have intention I'm not
saying matter is mental okay
I'm saying if you have a person you
Taylor are a person hila morphism that
you have ever thought let's say you have
form and matter but that form is your
person within you which is basically the
instruction it's it's the humanity
within you but you've got a you've got a
person and you've got a human being
which is your material form so you got
your formal and your material form your
formal is your metaphysical portion in
your physical portion they are united to
make which you are as rational animal I
think is what he would say so I'm just
not understanding where you think the
intent comes from is it some magical
force that just imbues me with the
ability but not rocks
no well God's not magical he creates
humans personal things
I mean what do you mean by magic you're
the one who's magic I'm saying it's not
magic well how do you know it's not
magic if you don't have because it's
justified I'm justifying it logically
I'm just saying magic is anything
supernatural okay and I'm saying nature
cannot be all there is because nature is
contingent on natural I'm sorry aren't
the laws of logic natural they're not
physical by the definition of physics I
would say they're physical oh really
so how much how long is the number - I'm
sorry - it's - yeah I mean you can do
what I'd it up infinitely but where's
the smella
it doesn't have a property of smell what
because
it's not a actual piece of matter it's a
language in material language is
immaterial in some function of mine yes
there's a personhood yes but it's all
accounted for by materials in our brains
okay that's just a magic talk again no
it's not
you're just saying we have a lot of
neuro chemistry and neurological studies
that show that ideas are instantiated in
physical structures in the brain okay is
we damaged if we damage the brain then
those ideas can be lost
well that's that's true there is a
synergy between the person and his his
body but if they're not the same thing I
asked that Thomas this thing in a thread
I asked them more than what an idea show
me a picture of an idea and a speaker
you put a picture of a firing neuron so
you know that's an idea that's not the
pink elephant I'm making in my mind it's
it's a basic it is quality it's a
metaphysical claw it's not physical it
is when you have the when you have
certain neurons that are reacting to the
idea of an elephant or so the color pink
causes certain neurons to fire and when
you look at an elephant it causes
certain neurons to fire and those same
neurons can fire whether you're looking
at the pink or the elephant and those
same neurons can combine yes that those
are not the idea themselves that's it
they are the firing that occurs in the
mind if they're firing without you
looking at it then that's the idea just
are firing without you looking at it
that's the idea
no that's the that's the chemical
process electrochemical process in the
mind but it's not the idea itself it's
it's causing the same neurons to fire as
if you're seeing it and it's combining
with whatever the rest of your conscious
but it's not the idea itself it's the
it's a physical reaction in your body
that is synergistically correlated to
the idea that you have it's not the
experience I can't I can't see that fire
I can't show you that that that firing
neuron to be you know pink elephant or
whatever what you could by showing what
neurons fire when you look at an
elephant no but it's not the I can't
show you that elephant by showing you
the neuron fire the same thing it's a
it's electrochemical process that is
occurring physically but it's not the
idea that's where the ideas stored and
it when it interacts with the rest of
your conscious mind that is in the idea
okay so where's where's the storehouse
of ideas where we could go and look at
it in your brain okay so if you had this
idea in your brain in a pink elephant
can you look at my brain and show me the
pink elephant library we can do that
with certain concepts like even gods
this green nobody could ask I'm sorry we
know what a brain looks like when it's
thinking about God and it looks a lot
like when you're thinking about yourself
and there are strange cases where
someone has brain damage and they
actually one side of their brain
believes in God and the other side does
not believe in God and so they caused
two different personalities to emerge
from the same brain that previously only
had one so it seems like all of
cognition is tied entirely to the brain
okay well I don't dispute that again if
there's a synergy between the person and
instrument but you can't look at
somebody else's brain and say I see you
know the abstract picture that this
person makes in their mind that is going
on in their mind I mean the same thing
if we looked at the source code for this
video right now you just see a bunch of
ones and zeros you wouldn't be able to
see the actual video but that is where
the video information is stored okay but
both of those are material right yeah
okay well that's not we're talking about
we're talking in material again
2+2 is not a something that you can hold
in your hand in a way it's it's an
abstract reality this is a problem
abstract ideas are not matter they are
creative by matter though you can't
we've never let an example of an idea
that isn't okay so wrong every Rex rocks
can have philosophical society if we
found some example of an idea that wasnullfloating free of a brain and maybe you'd
have a point I don't think they do well
let me say this I think that uh that you
can have ideas they're not necessarily
linked to human but there is a synergy
between the human mind and the ideas
that ago currently and when something
happens to that physical instrument it
can't have an effect on the person
within if you will so you're saying that
the mere existence of ideas means that
there's some higher intention or some
higher mind if if ideas are intentions
do degree that ideas I cannot oh because
I use this term intentionality and my
atheist friends who know little
philosophy based able to be
intentionality is to basically make an
idea about something that you've see in
your mind that's an intentionality is
that's what the term means your your
purposing something in your mind like
either I see a elephant and I make that
fiction in my mind or I don't see an
elephant and I still make it up in my
mind that's intentionality it has
purpose it's necessarily teleological
and so we cannot have intentionality
unintentionally it's not possible what
about invasive thoughts
such as what do you mean lots of people
report just having unwanted thoughts
where they'll just have images of
violence pop into their mind or even if
you're just sitting in the shower and
something pops in your mind the exposure
you aren't thinking about okay and what
about that how is that intentional well
you're the one having me a mind it it's
not to say that that there's nothing
involved otherwise in other words every
every every thought that we have is
related to the world in which we live
and so it's affected some way by the
environment which were in would agree
with that
say again let's see I I would say that
intent requires a purpose and but that
function does not require a purpose so
if something is coming up without a
purpose it's just the result of function
then I would say that it's unintentional
oh yeah we're talking about being
affected by things and then having maybe
unwanted or um yeah purpose thoughts and
so I say oh I was saying that every
every every thought is in some sense is
affected by the environment in which we
are in so there is a contingency to even
thoughts that we don't purposely desire
but the very fact that we're thinking
about it and we're saying
I don't want to think about that we're
still thinking about it would you agree
with that yes okay yes was that
intentionality is just thinking at all
yeah we're abstraction in the mind we
kind of thought come into your mind
you're like I don't want think about
what you're thinking about it you cannot
think about it but what is the purpose
of that how is that purposeful it would
not happen it were you not participating
with it volitionally but if it's an
invasive thought you aren't
participating in it relationally we are
because you're the thought is in your
mind but some people have these thoughts
and they don't want them there they
actively would say that their purpose is
to get rid of them and yet they happen
anyway I mean even as far we could even
talk about hallucinations people suffer
from suffering from hallucinations are
don't want them and but yet they're
unintentionally happening they would
adopt them if they could and you're
thinking about them right yeah because
they don't have a choice
they're just experiencing it their
purpose would be to stop doing that but
they can't stop it's unintentional right
but there's a there's a part of them
that is like for example the earth giver
do something that you wish you had not
done yeah okay in what you're doing has
many differences sometimes those things
are unintentional sometimes it's just
the result of like what was I thinking
like like I have had regret of things
that I've done on purpose and regrets of
things that I've done not on purpose
right but it was like I don't know love
your volition no that happened not
necessarily I mean it's it's hard to
talk it who made the choice
like what if you forget something is
that an intention well that's a lack of
intention okay so it's unintentional we
didn't intend it because it you forgot
it it's it's a it's the opposite of
intending so if I forget my car keys in
my trunk and I lock myself out
is that intentional what was it you to
put yourself in that position I did put
down my keys without thinking right and
but then I forgot about it
so you said you just said that that's
unintentional it's without intent say
okay so if I I put my keys down maybe
that might be unintentional but then I
forgot it and you said you said that
forgetting things was a lack of
intention so it's unintentional yes
because the idea was not there to
remember so I would I think ethics
itself is intentional but that it's
grounded in something that is not
intentional which is the value of
existence I would say yeah I mean you
could say that I actually like sanctity
better Hanna okay well anyway I need to
get going Taylor I like to keep these
things around an hour usually okay I got
some stuff I need to do but I've enjoyed
talking with you and thank you for
inviting me would you keep so would you
mind telling me briefly what what's your
spiritual background I'd be been an
atheist all the time or were you a
Christian at one time or something um I
mean it's hard to categorize I grew up
kind of my only exposure to religious
ideas was through media or through other
kids okay and there was a there was a
time where I thought that there was a
God because I was aware of the concept
and basically I I thought that there wasnulla God helping me find things because I
would lose things a lot and I would find
it and I'd be like oh there must be a
god
and I grew up a little bit and realized
you know maybe it's just because you
knew where it was so but I didn't think
much about it and then I went to a
Catholic High School almost on
coincidence they had a pretty good
science background and everything and I
interested in that and I guess I wasnullI was definitely drawn into it by the
religious aspects and so I thought if
I'm going to be able to find any
evidence of God then this is probably
the place and so I would say that I
became an atheist by because I read the
Bible basically that's the that's the
story okay well I appreciate it I wasnulllike to know the background it's
interesting to hear people have come
from so you pretty much had a pretty
secular upbringing but then you had some
educational experience in the Roman
Catholic tradition yeah my mom grew up
Catholic my dad I think his parents were
religious too but they just they didn't
tell me not to believe they didn't tell
me to believe and actually when I
started you know complaining about
religion they were like Oh leave them
alone like stuff like that so I wasn't
raised to be an atheist well you never
really went to church so much growing up
they took me a couple of times to
churches a couple of them were just like
events held in churches but like my mom
likes to go to church on Christmas Eve
just for the tradition of it yeah stuff
like that yeah okay yeah so yeah maybe
we can have another discussion kind of
expanding a little bit sure you have to
be fun set it up all right
well I'll let you go then thanks for
coming all right we'll see you later
Taylor nice to meet you bye
all right there we go let's address the
chat real quick before we shut it down
let's see
by what mr. Chester tone Ian says by
what standard does one judge right and
I would say that I think we've
been over this a few times but right and
is to me is correct and incorrect
and along though the moral spectrum
would be right and wrong would be
basically good and good and evil and so
what what is good well evil would be the
violation of the moral code bad I think
you could pair that with good and bad in
terms of how we ground that so good is
just what is existence good for
existence is good for you know whatever
it does and non-existence is not good
for anything so it's bad for everything
and so that's how I ground my standard
of judging right and wrong is how how
consistent and how correct can your
logic on on states of existence be so
you would basically you would have
states of freedom as good because it can
do more things and evil would be
violating whatever system you've set up
to basically acknowledge that freedom is
the value complicated stuff yeah mr.
Chester Toni and also asked is heroic
self-sacrifice morally good by what
standards can we evaluate this again I
would just say freedom is the the kind
of the shortcut that we can go through
to do that because obviously you have to
explain why freedom is the standard but
that's if that's the standard then
heroic self-sacrifice can be
morally good if it actually increases
the amount of freedom or if there's
reason to believe that it would if you
sacrifice yourself and you don't end up
saving anyone or you know in in a in a
time of war
perhaps you sacrifice yourself and your
whole company dies anyway intent is part
of morality
so you intended to increase the amount
of freedom by saving the lives of others
maybe you failed certainly if you're
successful it would be morally good but
I would also say that forcing someone to
sacrifice themselves is not morally good
because that that creates a standard of
ethics which where you can force people
to do things and that decreases the
overall amount of freedom so it's only
good if it's done voluntarily then
consent and voluntary ISM is very
important in being in building a
consistent standard of behavior
emotionally-stunted emoticon he's saying
What did he say brain minds are a
product of brains and brains are a
product of evolution I think we can
agree there Trey obviously seems to be a
creationist yes he also asks mr.
Chesterton Ian by what standard do we
judge what age is acceptable to have sex
and that's a tough one because it's it's
it should be based on the level of
maturity of the individual but societies
can't really just go around testing
every individual for are you ready to
have sex or not so I think that it is
logical to have kind of a a cutoff where
you err on the side of caution
where we know eighteen-year-olds are
capable of actually making this decision
or most of them are and we know that
much younger than that they aren't
capable so you've got to have a cut-off
somewhere in there and it's better to
and it can get more complicated like
there are there restrictions based on
age gaps versus just your absolute age
so basically you would decide that based
on whether you can consent children
cannot consent too much so oh hey I can
do this standing for truth says hello
ladies and gentlemen tray doesn't know
what intentionality means from jasonlew
sir
yeah I would say it doesn't seem like he
has a firm grasp on intentionality and I
don't think he could show that the laws
of logic that found all of existence are
intentional he's just kind of saying
that you need a mind to explain the
intentions of Mayans which leads to an
infinite regress and I'm not I'm still
not seeing any intentionality in
something that is just behaving the way
of the Hague's
something gonna have a property without
having intentional Jason also says this
is great you just trapped ray and he's
grasping at straws to get out yeah I
think that he hasn't necessarily thought
about how he's grounding his morality or
his definitions I actually start with
the assumption that all of my grounds
and definitions are false and I see how
I can try and prove myself wrongnullI mean definitions can't really be false
there it's more of a language thing it
just depends on what definition you're
using so I'd say whether your definition
works whether it can be consistently
applied and that's what morality is is
it's universally applicable behavior or
standards of behavior so we have to have
consistent terminology so if if you can
do things that are unintentional if
things can have properties and functions
that are unintentional then I don't see
why the laws of logic themselves need to
be intentional and yeah that's basically
my my main beef with any religious claim
to God because God is unnecessary in
that whole equation you don't need God
you don't need intentionality force
something to be impossible and thus the
the alternative to be possible no
intentions need to exist there and of
course the classic tray chuckle and it
seems like that is the end of our
broadcast so thanks to everyone who came
on and witnessed this debate today and
we will have more in the future

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

9Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain  Empty Re: Dualism: The Mind is Not The Brain on Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:48 am

Admin


Admin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

Dave I've always been fascinated by the
concept of existence and when I think
about existence what that means I'm
always back to consciousness but then I
see some philosophers telling me that
consciousness is an illusion doesn't
really exist you think otherwise

I think consciousness is the thing we
know about more directly than we know
about anything in the world you know the
great philosopher Descartes said we can
doubt the existence of anything in the
world I could doubt that you exist maybe
this is just a dream I could doubt that
any of the tables and chairs around us
exist I could maybe even doubt the
existence of my own body but the one
thing I can't doubt is that I'm
conscious right now I think I am

conscious therefore I am my
consciousness is presented to be more
directly than anything else in the world
if this is an illusion then the illusion
is consciousness

 some say ok that's take
are they ridicule him they say now that
we know about the brain we know how the
neurons work the speights of activity
the synapses the chemical positions the
complexity that out of that complexity
of 100 billion neurons and trillions of
connections consciousness can emerge
still an illusion

maybe consciousness emerges from
something else
I mean this is a further question
downstream but the number one datum of
the science of consciousness and the
philosophy of consciousness is there is
consciousness now is it a primitive is
it the first element of reality or is
there something derivative is it sort of
a second element of reality that somehow
emerges from the brain well that's an
open question at least at the beginning
of the discussion you can't question the
consciousness exists well you can
question that that

 I think consciousness
exists and that I seem to have a focal
point but you can show that both
activity at the brainstem so-called
reticular activating system makes you
focus on visual things or auditory
things so you know you think you're this
unified conscious but really you have
these streams of data that you're
focusing on and that's all it is

 I tell
you what I can question your
consciousness I can't be a hundred
percent certain that you are
right now maybe you're just like acting
conscious and walk it you're walking the
walk you're talking the talk maybe
nothing's going on in there maybe you're
a zombie
I can't question my consciousness I'm
experiencing I'm experiencing it
directly it's more real to me than
anything else

tell me about zombies you've really had
a major impact in the philosophy of mind
by talking about zombies it's a funny
word but there's some significance there


well there's a lot of kind of zombies
you know there's a zombies in the the
Hollywood movies I guess they're I guess
they're dead they come back to life and
then there's your Haitian zombies I
guess they've had some kind of Voodoo
poison they lacked some kind of free
will but the zombies the Philosopher's
are concerned with they're just like you
and me but they lack consciousness they
walk around acting like a conscious
being talking like a conscious being but
they're not conscious 

you stick with the
pin they say Oh exactly
and you ask him are you conscious they
say yes and no one thinks some B's
actually exist right I'm not a zombie I
don't think you're a zombie but we can
at least make sense of the idea this
they seem to at least be imaginable you
know you say could God have created a
world with zombies to use a metaphor
here for a second seems like God could
have done that our world is not a world
of zombies we're not robots
we're not automata we're conscious that
itself is something that needs
explanation

 it does so the fact that it
that you can conceive of a zombie means
that there is a possibility of something
else
being needed to differentiate us from a
zombie

 I would say that when God created
the world that he could have created a
purely physical world just atoms and the
void no consciousness at all that would
have made sense
that's a logically consistent world our
world isn't like that our world contains
consciousness that suggests that when
God created the world he had to do some
more work he had to put consciousness in
now subtract God from the metaphor now
and just use this as a way of thinking
about what exists in the world you need
the matter then you need the
consciousness

 okay now evolutionary
theory would say particularly
evolutionary psychology that during an
evolutionary process consciousness
how came in it was selected for because
if we have an awareness in our
environment we can avoid the Tigers a
little better maybe plant the crops
better who knows what but consciousness
was a selected factor maybe it emerged
at random and then developed

it sounds
plausible on the face of it the
consciousness plays some role in
evolution the fact is any story anyone's
ever told about the evolutionary story
role of consciousness has been quite
obscure and that doesn't really quite
make sense the trouble is anything you
want evolution to explain how we react
what we see and so on I can find some
explanation for how that happens that
goes wholly in terms of mechanisms
algorithms in the brain and so on one
size for once I spell out that story we
say why do you need consciousness for
that 

so the evolutionary story it could
have worked with just reflexes maybe
higher level reflexes but same reflexes
but no leaner experience a really
complicated inner computer really
complicated inner mechanisms computers
are getting better and better and maybe
one of these days are going to be able
to do all the things that we can do but
then the question is why do you need
consciousness

 ok now this brings up the
word that Glossop is use qualia what's
quality 

qualia is the raw sensation of
experience so I look around me I see
colors reds and greens and blues and
they feel a certain way to me I hear the
sound of music afar off clarinet in the
distance the smell of mothballs
all of these feel a certain way to me
they have a quality of experience and
you got to experience them to know what
they're like I mean I could you could
give me the whole map of my brain what's
going on when I see colors when I smell
mothballs and some but if I haven't seen
a color for myself that's not going to
tell me about the quality of seeing red
of seeing green smelling the mothballs
you actually have to experience it for
yourself

 we've talked about a advanced
scientist who's colorblind but knows
every wavelength of every color what
happens when she finally sees color yeah
so Mary the famous colorblind
neuroscientist spends her entire life in
a black and white room
she's never seen a color but she learns
everything there is to know about the
neuroscience of color the wavelength of
the light the neurons of fire in
response the behavior gives rise to she
can tell you all about red and green and
blue it's just one incredibly important
thing about color she just doesn't know
she doesn't know what it's like to see
red to see green she doesn't know about
the conscious experience of red and
green all the bread the brain science in
the world isn't going to tell her that
imagine one day she has an operation she
leaves her room she's ah that's it
that's what it's like to see red
she said 

she's learned something new
about consciousness

 what follows from
that 

that to me suggests that there's
more to consciousness than a physical
process in the brain because you could
know all there is to know about the
physical processes in the brain and you
wouldn't know other is to know about
consciousness 

you've become quite well
known for defining the easy problem and
the hard problem go for it

 there's a lot
of things we want to explain when we
explain consciousness people use the
word in lots of different ways you might
want to explain things like how it is
that my brain perceives something in the
environment and a stimulus is my retina
my brain integrates information I react
I point I say something maybe you could
give an explanation of those things in
terms of circuits in my brain algorithms
in my brain but those are just the easy
problems of consciousness 

now we say
easy they're really hard but but
relatively easy 

I'd say you know a good
century or two more and more ingenious
brain science is going to get us there
we're going to isolate the neural
circuits the computational mechanisms
that make us behave the way we behave do
the things we do the hard problem of
consciousness is why is all that
processing accompanied by conscious
experience why does it feel like
something from the inside why do we have
this amazing inner movie going on in our
minds all the time and it looks like oh
the whole story you tell about neural
circuits and computational mechanisms it
just leaves that question out

 take a
thousand years into the future at the
same rapid growth of science a hundred
thousand years a million years do you
see in principle
and the hard problem as you've defined
it be subject to neuroscience analysis

 I
don't think the hard problem of
consciousness can be solved purely in
terms of neuroscience I think
neuroscience has a huge contribution to
make to its solution but if we just stay
with the level of neurons and processing
alone there's only so much that's going
to explain because neurons and
neuroscience is all about objective
mechanisms objective mechanisms that
perform functions that ultimately issue
in behavior so if you want to say
explain language explain perception
explain memory the things we do the
functions of the brain that's just fine
but it just explains those functions
those behaviors and this always leaves
this further question why is that
behavior those functions accompanied by
consciousness for that we need an extra
ingredient in the picture I think we
need to bring in consciousness itself on
my view is fundamental

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum