Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Are thoughts based in the physical, or supernatural?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by thoughts

    1) It is the case that the origin of our thoughts are purely natural in nature.
    Or
    2) It is the case that the origin of our thoughts are supernatural in nature.

    (Please answer the poll)


    *note* By "origin" I mean the inner workings that produce what we recognize as thought. I do not mean the first events like the big bang or some such, but the more direct cause of individual thought. So #1 would be the chemicals in the brain, and #2 would be something outside of both brain and physical nature
    I will argue that we are forced to choose and act in accordance with #2.

    ARGUMENT
    If it is the case of #1 then our thoughts are determined by chemical process, complex indeed but non the less determined. If we are to use logic or to assume that we use logic we must throw this option out. Why? Because if we say that A leads to B as a thought, then we must be referring to the thought itself outside of the chemical make up that it represents. If we refer to the chemical make up, then we have no access to the "truth" of the statements as thoughts. In other words, under #1 you can not know that 1+1=2. (aside from the fact that there is no "you") All you could know is that the chemical make up of the thought of
    "1" when mixed or combined with chemical make up of the thought of "1" leads chemically to "2". It could very well have been "3" or "4"... or banana. Logic therefore can not exist within or be accessed by #1. Therefore the atheistic world view can not account for our access to logic.

    As it is the case that we presume to use logic, we are forced to accept the inherent supernatural nature of thought (due to excluding #1). In order to reject the supernatural, one must first establish the access to actual logic. It is therefore most reasonable to conclude that our thoughts are based in the supernatural and our access to logic has a supernatural cause. Assuming #2, it makes sense that we have access to logic in a theistic World view.

    Counter #1 "Evolution produces access to logic"
    It may be argued that evolution can produce through natural selection the constructs required for our access to logic. However, thoughts themselves are a "black Box" in regards to evolution. In other words, evolution doesn't care what the "thought" of a thing is, only if it has the effect of promoting survival. So then evolution would be expected to treat false Ideas equal to true ones, and as there are many more false ideas we should not expect evolution to hit upon the true ones.
    Example, suppose a rabbit sees a fox, and thinks that the fox wants to mate with him and that the best way to attract the fox is to run and hide. This thought would be selected by evolution. (Moral of the example... the substance and process of the thought doesn't matter to evolution)
    To serve man.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    The mind is a representational system that is realized in the brain. For example, a banana is represented in the brain by patterns of neurons which are connected to different senses. So when you imagine how a banana taste your neurons work in reverse as how they worked when you first tasted a banana. Meaning that when you first tasted a banana your taste buds where activated in a specific way and that activation was stored in memory. When you remember what a banana tastes like your neurons area activating your taste buds. It is far more complicated then that but because of school (got midterms next week) I cannot give a lengthy reply.

    Bottom line, if the supernatural where responsible for thought then we wouldn't need our brains. Since it is obvious that we do need our brains, thought must have its origins in the physical. Don't believe me? Rip out your brain and then see how smart you are.
    abc

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,432
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    #1

    We have a great deal of observational evidence that thoughts are generated by a chemical and electrical process. We can use instruments to measure the electrical activity in the brain during thought and emotional response. We can train ourselves to use these electrical signals to control apparatus. We have numerous studies showing how damage to the brain impacts thought, often in specific ways depending on the part of the brain impacted. We have seen dramatic personality changes due to brain damage and have studied how abnormal brain development affects cognitive ability. We've managed to figure out how to put memories into mice using a computer chip. Really, you want to read this...
    http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...t-touch-button

    We also have no reliable evidence of any thought being generated by a dead person. No brain, no mind.

    Rebuttal for Mind Trap

    ---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If it is the case of #1 then our thoughts are determined by chemical process, complex indeed but non the less determined. If we are to use logic or to assume that we use logic we must throw this option out. Why? Because if we say that A leads to B as a thought, then we must be referring to the thought itself outside of the chemical make up that it represents. If we refer to the chemical make up, then we have no access to the "truth" of the statements as thoughts.
    I program computers for a living. Computers think and use logic. A 1 is true a 0 is false. They are entirely logical, entirely physical. And like us, the value of the output is reliant on the value of the input. Their perfect and flawless logic is only "true" so long as what you feed in is "true" and so long as the system by which you process it is constructed to return the "truth".

    As you are no doubt aware, many human thoughts are in fact false. And those that are true are merely representational of truth. Like computers our thoughts stand in for some representational notion of a real world analog. Like these words, they are symbolic of real experience and representative of real things.The thoughts themselves and the electrons on this screen are real, but their reality is not part of the symbolic representation, merely a medium for it.

    The reason a physical brain can represent some notion of truth, is the truth it determines is the state of the physical universe that brain is a product of. The same truth of how atoms work and the fabric of the universe works is the truth that our brain uses to process information. Our brain has just as much truth as a river, rock, star, or the wind. It however organizes abstractly by using one type of energy and matter to represent or stand in for another.

    It is true that a given person can not objectively audit their own thoughts, many human minds are fool the person into thinking unreal things are real. We have in fact found parts of the brain that govern that process. In those with underdeveloped brains in this respect, their representational thoughts that are invented, are interpreted as real and they become lost in a mix of the real representation and the fictional. Those with stronger brains are better at detecting the difference, at identifying thoughts as fictional and others as real.

    But other human minds can be used to audit ours, and thus we form consensus of social thought that is greater than the product of individual thought as it benefits from the minds of many reaching a more objective consensus despite their individual subjective perspectives. Heck, that's what we are doing right now.

    In other words, under #1 you can not know that 1+1=2. (aside from the fact that there is no "you") All you could know is that the chemical make up of the thought of "1" when mixed or combined with chemical make up of the thought of "1" leads chemically to "2".
    Those are only symbols. 1 and 2 are different things in different languages. We had no symbol for 0 for many years and as a result our mathematical understanding was greatly limited as a species. However, singular and binary realities are all around us and no amount of symbol shifting will change that. Take two singular things and put them together and you have two things, whatever language or symbols you use to represent them. Mere observation and regtistry of that perception is enough to invalidate alternative expressions. We can directly experience error of thoughts that are in error. We don't need supernatural forces to do so.

    It could very well have been "3" or "4"... or banana. Logic therefore can not exist within or be accessed by #1. Therefore the atheistic world view can not account for our access to logic.
    Logic is merely binary representation of claims. I program computers to do logic all the time.

    As it is the case that we presume to use logic, we are forced to accept the inherent supernatural nature of thought (due to excluding #1).
    Not at all. Computers use logic without any supernatural influence, and you have demonstrated none in human thought. Logic is nothing more than a mental model of 1 and 0, impulse or no impulse, connection or no connection. There is nothing magical about that.

    Counter #1 "Evolution produces access to logic"
    It may be argued that evolution can produce through natural selection the constructs required for our access to logic. However, thoughts themselves are a "black Box" in regards to evolution. In other words, evolution doesn't care what the "thought" of a thing is, only if it has the effect of promoting survival. So then evolution would be expected to treat false Ideas equal to true ones, and as there are many more false ideas we should not expect evolution to hit upon the true ones.
    Evolution favors survival. Survival requires predictable successful results of actions. Successful predictive actions require accurate assessments of natural systems. Logic is simply a representation of yes or no, true or false. True thoughts will reasonably lead to succesfull survival as they enable us to predict events and control outcomes. False thoughts generally lead to failure. Natural selection will favor mental constructions that are accurate and punish those that are not. Thus evolution will lead to logical/true thought processes.

    Example, suppose a rabbit sees a fox, and thinks that the fox wants to mate with him and that the best way to attract the fox is to run and hide. This thought would be selected by evolution. (Moral of the example... the substance and process of the thought doesn't matter to evolution)
    This rabbit will fail to mate with other rabbits and will thus not carry forward its genetic traits. While you can work to find false thoughts that lead to successful behaviors, and I do think such thoughts exist in nature and in man, generally speaking they have serious flaws such as the one I just pointed out that will lead to unsuccessful survival and reproduction.

    Unless you can show that all human thought is true, there is ample evidence that truth and fiction both can be selected by nature while still favoring generally accurate thought systems.

    In human beings we can clearly see examples of brains that are wired in an effective manner, and those that are wired up in a way that is counter to survival of the species. Sociopaths, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and other mental states are all clearly detrimental to survival and produced by nature but not favored by it. And there are mental states such as autism that show an even greater propensity for logical truth, but have a hard time with the kind of fictional thinking that is a critical part of our social life. Such alternate types of mental construction may well be beneficial, especially in the context of a social animal where a variety of thought and perspective can be amalgamated to a greater whole.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MYXENO
    The mind is a representational system that is realized in the brain.
    All you have done is repeat #1, you haven't really offered a way for it to account for our access to logic and truth. But also, don't forget to keep "mind" and "brain" separated. Can the brain produce the "mind"? That is the question. Simply stating that it does is begging the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by MYXENO
    Bottom line, if the supernatural where responsible for thought then we wouldn't need our brains
    More specifically thought would not be limited to the brain. Re-my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MYXENO
    Since it is obvious that we do need our brains, thought must have its origins in the physical. Don't believe me? Rip out your brain and then see how smart you are.
    All this does is assume what you are trying to support.. which is that thought is limited to the brain. It could easily be the case that consciousness works through the brain, and is not limited by it.

    In which case, your body would still stop functioning and we would still not see thoughts. So your point just doesn't follow.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I program computers for a living. Computers think and use logic. A 1 is true a 0 is false. They are entirely logical, entirely physical. And like us, the value of the output is reliant on the value of the input. Their perfect and flawless logic is only "true" so long as what you feed in is "true" and so long as the system by which you process it is constructed to return the "truth".

    As you are no doubt aware, many human thoughts are in fact false. And those that are true are merely representational of truth. Like computers our thoughts stand in for some representational notion of a real world analog. Like these words, they are symbolic of real experience and representative of real things.The thoughts themselves and the electrons on this screen are real, but their reality is not part of the symbolic representation, merely a medium for it.

    The reason a physical brain can represent some notion of truth, is the truth it determines is the state of the physical universe that brain is a product of. The same truth of how atoms work and the fabric of the universe works is the truth that our brain uses to process information. Our brain has just as much truth as a river, rock, star, or the wind. It however organizes abstractly by using one type of energy and matter to represent or stand in for another.

    It is true that a given person can not objectively audit their own thoughts, many human minds are fool the person into thinking unreal things are real. We have in fact found parts of the brain that govern that process. In those with underdeveloped brains in this respect, their representational thoughts that are invented, are interpreted as real and they become lost in a mix of the real representation and the fictional. Those with stronger brains are better at detecting the difference, at identifying thoughts as fictional and others as real.

    But other human minds can be used to audit ours, and thus we form consensus of social thought that is greater than the product of individual thought as it benefits from the minds of many reaching a more objective consensus despite their individual subjective perspectives. Heck, that's what we are doing right now.
    I'm afraid I don't see a rebuttal to what you quoted from me. You have basically said exactly what I did but begged the question at hand in the end.

    Some corrections are still necessary.
    Computers do not "use" logic, they are governed by logic, but then as you point out so is a rock. Don't confuse being governed by logic with access to it. In order to have access to logic one must be able to consider the thought itself, clearly computers can not, and do not do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Those are only symbols. 1 and 2 are different things in different languages. We had no symbol for 0 for many years and as a result our mathematical understanding was greatly limited as a species.
    What is the relevance here? This can't possibly lead up to supporting your position, because it requires understanding the idea and not simply being governed by the chemical processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Take two singular things and put them together and you have two things, whatever language or symbols you use to represent them. Mere observation and regtistry of that perception is enough to invalidate alternative expressions. We can directly experience error of thoughts that are in error. We don't need supernatural forces to do so.
    That does not equate to understanding. There can be two rocks sitting next to each other, but neither of them will understand the meaning of 1 or 2. They are both as logical as a computer (in that they are governed by logic). It is about access. Why do we have access to logic. Restating that we do does not explain how we do. None of your post has as far as I can tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Not at all. Computers use logic without any supernatural influence, and you have demonstrated none in human thought. Logic is nothing more than a mental model of 1 and 0, impulse or no impulse, connection or no connection. There is nothing magical about that.
    Again.. like a rock with all of it's intricate interactions of chemicals and molecules.. all acting logically. You still need to bridge the gap.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Evolution favors survival. Survival requires predictable successful results of actions. Successful predictive actions require accurate assessments of natural systems. Logic is simply a representation of yes or no, true or false. True thoughts will reasonably lead to succesfull survival as they enable us to predict events and control outcomes. False thoughts generally lead to failure. Natural selection will favor mental constructions that are accurate and punish those that are not. Thus evolution will lead to logical/true thought processes.
    Your starting primes is false, and thus the conclusion is as well. Survival does not require predictable successful results. It only requires the appropriate results.
    Also, predictable successful results does not necessarily mean actually correct reasoning (re-rabit example)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This rabbit will fail to mate with other rabbits and will thus not carry forward its genetic traits. While you can work to find false thoughts that lead to successful behaviors, and I do think such thoughts exist in nature and in man, generally speaking they have serious flaws such as the one I just pointed out that will lead to unsuccessful survival and reproduction.
    False, that is to go beyond the specific example. The example was about survival, and how false processes can advance survival. You assume a "logical" and consistent thought process.. that is an unsupported assumption and really begs the question at had.

    That same rabbit could also think that the other rabbit intended to eat it, and the best way to keep that from happening was to attack it's genitals with it's own. (reproduction through faulty logic)

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Unless you can show that all human thought is true, there is ample evidence that truth and fiction both can be selected by nature while still favoring generally accurate thought systems.
    I disagree look to my rebuttal of the "support" you have offered.
    Also It is not necessary for me to show that all thoughts are true, only that we have access to it... the question is how did we get access and what explains it.

    I must admit this was a quick response, so if I miss something or have not addressed something you feel important, I trust you will point it out
    To serve man.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    MindTrap028: Therefore the atheistic world view can not account for our access to logic.
    Your explanation doesn't really quite gel with how the brain really works - it's not really one chemical producing another chemical. Firstly, there aren't enough chemicals to uniquely represent everything!

    The brain is a complex network of neurons that are triggered when certain inputs reach a certain threshold. In your example, there would be an input which fires a neuron responsible for the concept '1', another a '2' and another an addition operation and then '3' comes out of that result.

    There is enough complexity in these networks that can produce extremely complex patterns and behaviors that we are just beginning to understand. But it doesn't need anything 'supernatural' like a 'soul' to make it work. In fact, we can already simulate how neurons work in computers, thus dumping the physical part of it completely. What we can't yet simulate is the entire complexity of the brain but watch this space! There's no need to invoke the supernatural at all since any equivalent network can produce such intelligence.

    Metaphysical rather than supernatural
    I would have preferred you used the term metaphysical rather than supernatural.

    It is clear that arithmetic is true, and it doesn't matter what substrate is used to realize it (chemically in the brain, mechanically in a machine such as a Babbage's Difference Engine, or electronically in a computer, a series of rivers mimic addition of volumes of water). So whilst it is not possible (yet) to determine this from the neuronal structure, it is equally not possible to determine how a computer program works just by looking at the circuitry of chips. This is because there is a temporal aspect to both systems - you cannot statically examine them, you need to run them and see how the system works and how the different parts affect each other in order to produce arithmetically correct outputs from their corresponding inputs.

    Equally true is that logic, geometry, mathematics in general and algorithms exist outside of our physical existence, waiting to be discovered. But that discovery is not really mysterious either - our understanding of mathematics began with simple arithmetic, boosted by the invention of zero and place notion, developed into calculus, evolved into pure mathematics and so on. These are not 'created' by humans unlike perhaps a novel might be.

    Thus again, there is no requirement to add supernatural explanations for this, though you have neglect to explain what a supernatural explanation might even look like.

    Evolution produces access to logic
    The question isn't whether evolution produced this but what benefits there are to having such a brain and how this allows our species to survive. The benefits are obvious - we are the most pervasive mammal on the planet, and those humans that are more successful tend to use their brain more even in our modern world.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    MindTrap028: Therefore the atheistic world view can not account for our access to logic.
    Your explanation doesn't really quite gel with how the brain really works - it's not really one chemical producing another chemical. Firstly, there aren't enough chemicals to uniquely represent everything!
    So, your saying that the neural network is not chemical based?

    Quote Originally Posted by WIKI
    Neurotransmitters are endogenous chemicals that transmit signals
    Now to correct you a bit, I said it was chemically based(IE product of chemical processes) and very complex, but in the end deterministic by the chemical properties and not the thoughts they represent. I do not see a counter to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    The brain is a complex network of neurons that are triggered when certain inputs reach a certain threshold. In your example, there would be an input which fires a neuron responsible for the concept '1', another a '2' and another an addition operation and then '3' comes out of that result.

    There is enough complexity in these networks that can produce extremely complex patterns and behaviors that we are just beginning to understand. But it doesn't need anything 'supernatural' like a 'soul' to make it work. In fact, we can already simulate how neurons work in computers, thus dumping the physical part of it completely. What we can't yet simulate is the entire complexity of the brain but watch this space! There's no need to invoke the supernatural at all since any equivalent network can produce such intelligence.
    Here you are just repeating what #1 entails. You have not connected the complex chemical reactions, with the concepts.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Thus again, there is no requirement to add supernatural explanations for this, though you have neglect to explain what a supernatural explanation might even look like.
    Well, I understand your point about "metaphysical vs supernatural".

    In this discussion "natural" refers to all the physical forces at work. Basically #1.
    Supernatural refers to a force outside of that frame work, so that there is at least some effect from outside of the physical system at work, and that force has the effect of giving us access to logic and truth. (AKA #2)
    So, while I see why you would think it nice, there is nothing wrong with "supernatural" I don't think.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    The question isn't whether evolution produced this but what benefits there are to having such a brain and how this allows our species to survive.
    Absolutely wrong. The question is very much can evolution produce this, because it is by evolution that we are said to be made through natural processes. If evolution can not select it then it can not produce correct thinking. I have shown why it isn't the thought that is selected, but the effect therefore evolution can not produce correct thought only correct action.

    To all
    The brain is very complex, pointing to it's complexity is not an explanation for access to logic.
    For all the brains complexity, it is still governed by the physical laws. Neuron "A" reacts with neuron "B", independent and irrespective of what the thought or concept it entails or contains. What that means is that it is ultimately because of the chemical reaction that you reach a conclusion, and not because concept B follows logically from concept A.
    To serve man.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, your saying that the neural network is not chemical based?

    Now to correct you a bit, I said it was chemically based(IE product of chemical processes) and very complex, but in the end deterministic by the chemical properties and not the thoughts they represent. I do not see a counter to that.

    Here you are just repeating what #1 entails. You have not connected the complex chemical reactions, with the concepts.
    It is based on chemicals and atoms but neither 'levels' are really explain what is going on. The real power is in the inter connections between the neurons, the network itself is what provides the basis of intelligence and thought. Physically, each neuron is relatively uncomplicated relative to the network: a neuron is 'simply' a device that sends out a signal after some threshold is reached; after a certain amount of time, the signal stops and cannot be re-triggered for another short amount of time. It's like a biological transistor.

    The reason why chemistry doesn't provide the full explanation is because there is another layer of complexity brought about by the interactions between different neurons and how they link to our input and output systems. It is like understanding how social networking works by understanding how computers work - it's a completely different set of theories. Other similar systems that transcend or are otherwise unexplained by knowledge of its component parts is fluid dynamics, chaos theory - the butterfly effect, sociology of populations and so on.

    Hope that explains things - I wasn't contradicting that the brain is based on chemicals just that the complexity isn't chemical based but network based.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I understand your point about "metaphysical vs supernatural".

    In this discussion "natural" refers to all the physical forces at work. Basically #1.
    Supernatural refers to a force outside of that frame work, so that there is at least some effect from outside of the physical system at work, and that force has the effect of giving us access to logic and truth. (AKA #2)
    So, while I see why you would think it nice, there is nothing wrong with "supernatural" I don't think.
    Well, what do you have in mind as a supernatural explanation then?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Absolutely wrong. The question is very much can evolution produce this, because it is by evolution that we are said to be made through natural processes. If evolution can not select it then it can not produce correct thinking. I have shown why it isn't the thought that is selected, but the effect therefore evolution can not produce correct thought only correct action.
    Not clear whether this is entirely true, neurons have been found in practically every animal on the planet. They are also not just a brain cells, they are everywhere - it's the brain's equivalent of a single computer on a network. Some are connected to muscles and others within the brain and so on. Just having two neurons gives an animal an added benefit over those that only have one (they would have a longer range within which they can detect food). So there is definitely an evolutionary explanation for having them.

    How neurons lead to thoughts is similar to how networks of individual twitter users form waves of reactions around the world. Certain inputs, or individuals, react to something in the external world and communicate it to more individuals and so it cascades.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    To all
    The brain is very complex, pointing to it's complexity is not an explanation for access to logic.
    For all the brains complexity, it is still governed by the physical laws. Neuron "A" reacts with neuron "B", independent and irrespective of what the thought or concept it entails or contains. What that means is that it is ultimately because of the chemical reaction that you reach a conclusion, and not because concept B follows logically from concept A.
    (Interesting point - can't answer this now!)

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Are you basically arguing that syntax is no sufficient for semantics and thus the supernatural is required to bridge the gap?
    abc

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Hope that explains things - I wasn't contradicting that the brain is based on chemicals just that the complexity isn't chemical based but network based.
    Good deal I appreciate the "networking" level of complexity that you are pointing out. I'll try and address that some.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Well, what do you have in mind as a supernatural explanation then?
    Well, that is a good question. I don't think it is necessary to answer it in order to make the conclusion confidently. Because we only have two choices "natural or supernatural", ruling out a natural origin makes the supernatural necessary even if we don't have an answer ready.

    It could very well be that there is no supernatural cause, but in taking that approach I make the case that we also throw out the presumption of access to logic. So then as long as we presume to use logic, and it is not possible to come from a natural system.. then we are presuming the supernatural as well.

    Still, something like a soul would answer the question. Free will, may be another depending on how you define things. Both could explain our access to logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Not clear whether this is entirely true, neurons have been found in practically every animal on the planet. They are also not just a brain cells, they are everywhere - it's the brain's equivalent of a single computer on a network. Some are connected to muscles and others within the brain and so on. Just having two neurons gives an animal an added benefit over those that only have one (they would have a longer range within which they can detect food). So there is definitely an evolutionary explanation for having them.
    Yes. I am not commenting on the origin of neurons. For the sake of argument I'm willing to accept evolution as it's explanation. However, that doesn't and can not address the thoughts they contain.

    There is no reason to think that the thoughts being fired by the neural network have anything to do with the action that is produced. Neural networks could fire away, causing the body to stick a hand in a fire.. while containing the thought "I don't want to burn myself". There is no necessary connection between thought and action in a naturalistic system.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    How neurons lead to thoughts is similar to how networks of individual twitter users form waves of reactions around the world. Certain inputs, or individuals, react to something in the external world and communicate it to more individuals and so it cascades.
    The compute and network analogy is helpful to an extent. But at some point there are certain assumptions that are built into the example, which are precisely what we are trying to examine.

    For example, the universe as a whole is a "network", there are endless complicated interactions each of which cascade and cause other interactions, and the whole system works on laws. Now suppose a "thought" in the brain is composed of the equivalent to a solar system worth of interactions. So that two solar systems colliding and combining would be the equivalent to thought 1 + 1 = 2. The out come "2" has nothing to do with the "thought" and everything to do with the intricate and complex interactions that govern the collision. If the collision had occurred differently the outcome could have been the thought "banana".

    That is the point at which evolution would start to work, choosing which collisions are "beneficial". Enter my point regarding evolution and it's limitations.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    (Interesting point - can't answer this now!)
    I apologize for repeating myself a bit above, but I wanted to at least partially address the "network" level.

    ---------- Post added at 09:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MYXENO
    Are you basically arguing that syntax is no sufficient for semantics and thus the supernatural is required to bridge the gap?
    I don't understand what you are trying to say. I have offered my argument, what specific element are you confused on?
    To serve man.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good deal I appreciate the "networking" level of complexity that you are pointing out. I'll try and address that some.
    Cool - in the famous paraphrased words of Scott McNealy, "it's all in the network"

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that is a good question. I don't think it is necessary to answer it in order to make the conclusion confidently. Because we only have two choices "natural or supernatural", ruling out a natural origin makes the supernatural necessary even if we don't have an answer ready.

    It could very well be that there is no supernatural cause, but in taking that approach I make the case that we also throw out the presumption of access to logic. So then as long as we presume to use logic, and it is not possible to come from a natural system.. then we are presuming the supernatural as well.

    Still, something like a soul would answer the question. Free will, may be another depending on how you define things. Both could explain our access to logic.
    You're raising the question of whether 1+1=2 is a natural. Other than that they're called the 'Natural Numbers', I would contend that they are indeed natural and part of our universe and possibly even hard-wired into our brains. I'd go further and say that arithmetic exists in all universes and that it is impossible for it not to.

    Basically, I don't think you have sufficiently ruled out that it is natural.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no reason to think that the thoughts being fired by the neural network have anything to do with the action that is produced. Neural networks could fire away, causing the body to stick a hand in a fire.. while containing the thought "I don't want to burn myself". There is no necessary connection between thought and action in a naturalistic system.
    Studies in brain damage show that there is a direct correlation between actions and thought - check out the Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The compute and network analogy is helpful to an extent. But at some point there are certain assumptions that are built into the example, which are precisely what we are trying to examine.

    For example, the universe as a whole is a "network", there are endless complicated interactions each of which cascade and cause other interactions, and the whole system works on laws. Now suppose a "thought" in the brain is composed of the equivalent to a solar system worth of interactions. So that two solar systems colliding and combining would be the equivalent to thought 1 + 1 = 2. The out come "2" has nothing to do with the "thought" and everything to do with the intricate and complex interactions that govern the collision. If the collision had occurred differently the outcome could have been the thought "banana".

    That is the point at which evolution would start to work, choosing which collisions are "beneficial". Enter my point regarding evolution and it's limitations.
    I think I covered this earlier but it's worth having a look around for evolution of neurons - there's a lot out there and I have to get back to work!

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Thoughts are the manifestation of the mind, a physical object. They only exist while a being is alive and has function of a large bio-computer, theoretically at it's soul's disposal. Later on, when a soul departs the material realm, this computer does not continue on with it, nor the thoughts which are the byproduct of said computer. The soul to the degree which it is self aware, may direct the computer during life, but often instead misidentifies the thoughts themselves to be it's very being instead - in which case the computer directs the near totality of the soul's material adventure. The thoughts themselves can be easily shown to not be from the soul (the being itself), by trying to silence the bio-computer for a short time - say 20 consecutive minutes. Since the thoughts arise unbidden by the soul/being/user of the biocomputer, they are definitely not from the soul/being/user in themselves - merely from the computer.
    He who has an ear, let them hear.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Are you basically arguing that syntax is no sufficient for semantics and thus the supernatural is required to bridge the gap?
    Well, syntax is definitely insufficient for semantics, one still needs an interpreter. I'm arguing that the interpreter (the network of neurons) is sufficiently complex enough and that no supernatural explanation is necessary.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,432
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All you have done is repeat #1, you haven't really offered a way for it to account for our access to logic and truth. But also, don't forget to keep "mind" and "brain" separated. Can the brain produce the "mind"? That is the question. Simply stating that it does is begging the question.
    Hmmm, not sure we are on the same ground here and its likely due to our definitions or understanding of terms.

    You may need to explain what you think logic is for me to make my thinking clear to you.

    Mind and brain are kind of interchangeable but I think I get the difference. I reject the notion that mind is something supernatural, I can accept that it is symbolic vs actualized but not that it is supernatural vs natural. Even symbols have substance of their own. A computer program is a logical construct, but it is also a set of actual electrical impulses on its own. These letters are symbolic but they are also photons hitting the back of your eye. And they things they symbolize are also real and physical.

    Logic is just symbolism of mutually exclusive possibilities. The logic must always have a kind of representation that is concrete just as the thing it describes must in some way be demonstrable. I can construct perfectly logical false statements because the assumptions the logic is based on are false. Indeed the only way to evaluate logic is to evaluate a basic difference between true and false and we can only do that by observation.

    Logic is just an algorithm, something I create doing computer work all the time.

    That does not equate to understanding. There can be two rocks sitting next to each other, but neither of them will understand the meaning of 1 or 2. They are both as logical as a computer (in that they are governed by logic). It is about access. Why do we have access to logic. Restating that we do does not explain how we do. None of your post has as far as I can tell.
    Understanding / Awareness is just more programming. You "understand" that there are rocks there because there are neural connections in your mind that represent those rocks. And there are more neural connections that instruct you how to do addition that were learned from school or your parents or whomever taught them to you. You are also governed by logic. We have access to logic because we are made of logic. We are simply organized in a dynamic fashion as where rocks are not very dynamic. Life has objective, rocks do not.

    Most of what goes on in your brain is far below your awareness, and that is likely because you have no need of being aware of it. It does the kind of math on the fly that would leave many calculators a smoking wreck. It sends out chemical and electrical signals all over your body without you being aware. It creates an illusion of vision out of millions of photons hitting individual cells. You are "aware" of none of that stuff.

    Your logic is just a kind of meta programming that gives the brain its learning ability and for that awareness is needed to evaluate the effect of such programming on survival objectives. And we have indeed turned this powerful and adaptive engine at the task of understanding how the rest of the brain, the parts we are not aware of, actually work at a physical level. Like an oroborus the tool has turned inwards on itself in a quest for yet more power.

    Just because we haven't figured out how it all works yet, does not require it to be magical or beyond the realm of the physical. We are only yet coming to understand how the realm of the physical actually works, its far too quick to rule it out based on some gut feeling that we are fundamentally different than the rest of the universe.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, syntax is definitely insufficient for semantics, one still needs an interpreter. I'm arguing that the interpreter (the network of neurons) is sufficiently complex enough and that no supernatural explanation is necessary.
    But what else do we have? All information our brains have to work with is gathered by our senses and our senses can only detect syntactical information. Therefore, if we have enough syntactical information that is enough for semantic information. Here is an example. What is a goodeleck? No idea right? Right now you only have the syntactical knowledge of the curves and lines of the letters. What if I gave you a goodeleck and allowed you to play with it, taste it and so on. You would gather more syntactical knowledge of a goodeleck threw your senses. There is a point after enough study of a goodeleck that you would have semantic knowledge of it even though the only information you have gathered is syntactical. The combination of all your syntactical knowledge results in semantic knowledge.
    abc

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    But what else do we have? All information our brains have to work with is gathered by our senses and our senses can only detect syntactical information. Therefore, if we have enough syntactical information that is enough for semantic information. Here is an example. What is a goodeleck? No idea right? Right now you only have the syntactical knowledge of the curves and lines of the letters. What if I gave you a goodeleck and allowed you to play with it, taste it and so on. You would gather more syntactical knowledge of a goodeleck threw your senses. There is a point after enough study of a goodeleck that you would have semantic knowledge of it even though the only information you have gathered is syntactical. The combination of all your syntactical knowledge results in semantic knowledge.
    Sure, but all those memories generated through successive interactions with goodeleck is linked to our existing semantic net in our brains. So if it was liquid, the general properties of liquids would be instantly invoked. Without a conscious being to perform the links to existing knowledge, those experiences would be nothing more than a complex video recording.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure, but all those memories generated through successive interactions with goodeleck is linked to our existing semantic net in our brains. So if it was liquid, the general properties of liquids would be instantly invoked. Without a conscious being to perform the links to existing knowledge, those experiences would be nothing more than a complex video recording.
    Yes but at birth there is no semantic information and one could argue also no consciousness. I believe that even consciousness is created threw syntactic information. But your right, if goodeleck was a liquid all your memories of liquids would be linked to it. Also any other memories you so choose can be linked to it... that's what gives humans our genius, creativity.
    abc

  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    You're raising the question of whether 1+1=2 is a natural. Other than that they're called the 'Natural Numbers', I would contend that they are indeed natural and part of our universe and possibly even hard-wired into our brains. I'd go further and say that arithmetic exists in all universes and that it is impossible for it not to.

    Basically, I don't think you have sufficiently ruled out that it is natural.
    What I'm ruling out is access to it, not its natural existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Studies in brain damage show that there is a direct correlation between actions and thought - check out the Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks.
    That may be the case but it is coincidental. the thought the chemicals contain is irrelevant to the ultimate actions. (read response below for more detail)


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Mind and brain are kind of interchangeable but I think I get the difference. I reject the notion that mind is something supernatural, I can accept that it is symbolic vs actualized but not that it is supernatural vs natural.
    This is the topic I'm trying to discuss here.

    The Mind is made up of thoughts. The Brain is made up of chemical reactions. From #1 or the naturalistic view the "mind" is created by the brain. So that the causes are all one way, and the "mind" has no causal effect on the brain. The reason that the cause is all one way, is because chemical reactions are governed by physical laws so that B follows A, not because of the ideas it contains but because of the chemical reactions that cause it. Without this link of one thought to another based on the content of the thought itself, then logic can not be applied to those thoughts.


    From #2, or supernatural view the mind has causal power over the brain. So then premise B can follow logically from premise A, because of valid inference (etc) and independent of the chemicals that make up the thoughts

    Non of your responses really addresses these points. You point to complex chemical reactions in the brain, and repeat that it is the case that these chemical reactions take place. But you are not addressing that those chemical reactions occur because that is what chemicals do and that the concepts they contain are irrelevant.




    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You may need to explain what you think logic is for me to make my thinking clear to you.
    An example of logic would be inference:A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Computers do not do this on any level. Computers in the end do what they are told and that is why they break down as an example. Your using logic to create computers, and then using computers to explain the natural existence of logic. It's circular as far as I can tell.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Even symbols have substance of their own. A computer program is a logical construct, but it is also a set of actual electrical impulses on its own. These letters are symbolic but they are also photons hitting the back of your eye. And they things they symbolize are also real and physical.
    What substance does the act of inference have?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Logic is just symbolism of mutually exclusive possibilities. The logic must always have a kind of representation that is concrete just as the thing it describes must in some way be demonstrable. I can construct perfectly logical false statements because the assumptions the logic is based on are false. Indeed the only way to evaluate logic is to evaluate a basic difference between true and false and we can only do that by observation.
    I disagree that we must observe something in order to determine it's true or falseness. We can use logic to determine the truth or falseness of things unobservable.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Understanding / Awareness is just more programming. You "understand" that there are rocks there because there are neural connections in your mind that represent those rocks. And there are more neural connections that instruct you how to do addition that were learned from school or your parents or whomever taught them to you. You are also governed by logic. We have access to logic because we are made of logic. We are simply organized in a dynamic fashion as where rocks are not very dynamic
    You do realize you are just begging the question. Being governed by logic doesn't give us access to logic. While it is the case that we do much of what you are saying, there is no naturalistic explanation for this.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Just because we haven't figured out how it all works yet, does not require it to be magical or beyond the realm of the physical. We are only yet coming to understand how the realm of the physical actually works, its far too quick to rule it out based on some gut feeling that we are fundamentally different than the rest of the universe.
    I am not appealing to our lack of understanding, I am appealing to the known and that what is known makes it impossible for the machine to produce access to logic.



    @sig.. I would like your input on my universe example because it directly relates to the complexity you keep pointing to.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    For example, the universe as a whole is a "network", there are endless complicated interactions each of which cascade and cause other interactions, and the whole system works on laws. Now suppose a "thought" in the brain is composed of the equivalent to a solar system worth of interactions. So that two solar systems colliding and combining would be the equivalent to thought 1 + 1 = 2. The out come "2" has nothing to do with the "thought" and everything to do with the intricate and complex interactions that govern the collision. If the collision had occurred differently the outcome could have been the thought "banana".

    That is the point at which evolution would start to work, choosing which collisions are "beneficial". Enter my point regarding evolution and it's limitations.
    For some further reference to my point a short segment of this video stating my case .. all be it in better wording

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...9dh5fY#t=1076s
    to about 19:14
    To serve man.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,432
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    An example of logic would be inference:A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Computers do not do this on any level. Computers in the end do what they are told and that is why they break down as an example. Your using logic to create computers, and then using computers to explain the natural existence of logic. It's circular as far as I can tell.
    Yes they do. Computers make decisions based on evidence constantly. Nearly all weather predictions are done by computers, they take measurements, analyze those measurements and come to conclusions based on the evidence collected. The only difference between the way they make decisions and the way we do, is we don't yet fully know exactly how we do it and we know pretty well how they do.

    Humans also do what they are told to do by their brains. Your brain is making your heart beat right now, go ahead and stop it... won't work. I want you to not think about the color red... I just made you think about the color red. I did it again. You make choices, no doubt. but I can program a computer to make choices, in fact I can do it in a way that I could never predict what choice it makes because I can source its input from an unpredictable set of data, say network traffic packets on the internet. They are determinate, but utterly impossible for anyone to predict or control, just like our complicated physical world is determinate, but utterly unpredictable by our limited minds.

    I don't use computers to explain logic, I use them to demonstrate a use of logic that is known to be entirely mechanical yet can perform the same kinds of logic, thought, decision making etc... that humans can. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. And humans can break just as well as computers can. Dead humans don't think as I mentioned before, they are broken. People with brain injuries suffer loss of cognitive ability due to the damage. People taught false information come to false conclusions. All the same can be said of computers and people.

    What substance does the act of inference have?
    Synaptic connections between similar categorized memories in the brain.

    I disagree that we must observe something in order to determine it's true or falseness. We can use logic to determine the truth or falseness of things unobservable.
    Logic is only as good as the factual assumptions it rests on.

    All apples are the size of the earth.
    The earth is 10 yards wide.
    All apples are 10 yards wide.

    Perfect logic, all utterly wrong at every step.

    You do realize you are just begging the question. Being governed by logic doesn't give us access to logic. While it is the case that we do much of what you are saying, there is no naturalistic explanation for this.
    We are discovering the naturalistic explanations in observing the workings of our brains. We are seeing that our thoughts are utterly dependent on our brains. Or memories and perceptions can all be utterly destroyed when parts of our brain are destroyed. Our ability to perform logical thought can be broken. We have seen it happen. There are plenty of natural explanations both in the mechanism and reasons, you just don't seem to be paying attention to them.

    My argument that the logic of the world creates the logic of our minds is not deductive, its true, but it is inductive. For a human brain to be useful, it must pattern after the world its in. It must give us accurate information we can make accurate predictions on to consistently survive. If our universe is governed by logic, our minds must understand it and use it to be useful.

    I am not appealing to our lack of understanding, I am appealing to the known and that what is known makes it impossible for the machine to produce access to logic.

    But your "what is known" seems to amount to nothing more than, "I don't see a natural explanation for logic." You claim there are things impossible for computers, but they aren't. Computers only lack in power and flexibility, not basic logical function. Nature has had a few trillion years to develop our brains, we've had bout 70 to work on computers.


    @sig.. I would like your input on my universe example because it directly relates to the complexity you keep pointing to.

    For example, the universe as a whole is a "network", there are endless complicated interactions each of which cascade and cause other interactions, and the whole system works on laws. Now suppose a "thought" in the brain is composed of the equivalent to a solar system worth of interactions. So that two solar systems colliding and combining would be the equivalent to thought 1 + 1 = 2. The out come "2" has nothing to do with the "thought" and everything to do with the intricate and complex interactions that govern the collision. If the collision had occurred differently the outcome could have been the thought "banana".
    Hope this is the one you mean.

    You again try to separate thought from the physical act of thought while at the same time trying to contrast it. Gets hard to follow.

    If colliding solar systems result in a data point of some kind, then they will always result in that data point, they cannot come up with Bannana instead of 1+1=2. It is determinate. You posit what if the outcome were different... well then it would be a different thought based on a different interaction. This seems self evident to me but you are sort of obscuring it with this complicated example.

    I think the reason you do this is to introduce the insticntive notion of uncertainty. Even though we are in a determinisitic world, we have great uncertainty as humans. Rolling dice is called "random" but its not random. Rolling dice is a physical act and each moment of it is described by physical interactions of gravity, friction, elasticity, electromagnatism, etc... Its just that we don't have the perception, awareness, or brain power to accurately figure it all out or to control it. So we call it random, but it is more accurately, unpredictable.

    Your example is likewise unpredictable, in the extreme due to the scale and drama of the interaction described. So you want to say "anything can happen, how can we rely on this outcome?" But in truth anything can't happen, only one thing can happen.

    Our thoughts are not entirely predictable for us. They may never be to a great degree. The cognitive portions of our mind are not fast or accurate enough to fully describe or understand the system that underlies them as it operates. We may get the principle, but we will never predict the full life of any person by modeling. There are too many inputs and factors to consider.

    I still wonder if I'm really responding to your argument... its hard for me to see exactly what you are trying to get at in crystal clear terms.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    I agree with #1, although it's a bit lacking compared to our current understanding of how the brain works to create thoughts and the mind using chemical and electrical synapses inside the brain and throughout the CNS.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    our thoughts are determined by chemical process, complex indeed but non the less determined
    I disagree with this, and it's the main flaw in your argument, that being an incorrect claim of what we recognize as thought. I'm not sure how others may define 'thoughts', but they have not been proven to be determined by chemical process. as complex as they are, it's fairly clear that our thoughts are the chemical and electrical processes in our brains.
    we must be referring to the thought itself outside of the chemical make up that it represents
    it has not been demonstrated that thoughts are merely representations of, and are outside, their chemical makeup.
    our access to logic has a supernatural cause
    An example of logic would be inference:A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
    when talking about logic, it is important to be clear about what it means. saying that our access to logic is magical, and then giving an example of logic as a conclusion reached with evidence and reasoning is misleading unless you can explain how using evidence and reasoning to reach a conclusion is somehow magical.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by thoughts

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I use them to demonstrate a use of logic that is known to be entirely mechanical yet can perform the same kinds of logic, thought, decision making etc... that humans can.
    I simply disagree that computers are 'aware', 'consider' and have access to logic.
    They "compute', calculate', 'process' and are governed by logic.

    The computer processes X's and O's and spits out more x's and o's in whatever order the mathematical formula they are given dictates. When the mathematical formula used produces a range, it produces a range of output.
    But the computer never 'considered' the evidence, it simply reacts. Different outputs are a result of different variables, not "consideration".

    I simply do not accept it as a valid example of what your using it for. if anything it supports my point because computers do all that stuff without access to logic, but through being governed by logic. Computers exhibit the exact wall I'm talking about.. but you seem to be missing it, or I'm not explaining it well.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Synaptic connections between similar categorized memories in the brain.
    Then it isn't inference.
    On #1 it is the synaptic connections that cause the 'inference'.. But "inference" requires the ideas to be the cause otherwise it isn't inference at all.
    So there is no such thing as "inference" according to what you are saying. Which means there is no access to logic.

    That is the shortest version I can offer.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Logic is only as good as the factual assumptions it rests on.

    All apples are the size of the earth.
    The earth is 10 yards wide.
    All apples are 10 yards wide.

    Perfect logic, all utterly wrong at every step.
    Not necessarily.

    "I am a married bachelor."
    Can be known to be false through logic. Because it violates logic it is impossible to be true.

    It only takes one example to prove your point wrong. (Remember you said observation is required)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    But your "what is known" seems to amount to nothing more than, "I don't see a natural explanation for logic." You claim there are things impossible for computers, but they aren't. Computers only lack in power and flexibility, not basic logical function. Nature has had a few trillion years to develop our brains, we've had bout 70 to work on computers.
    There exists a wall between the forces at work and access to logic. I'm supporting through what we know that this wall exists.
    See my response on synaptic connections and inference.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If colliding solar systems result in a data point of some kind, then they will always result in that data point, they cannot come up with Bannana instead of 1+1=2. It is determinate. You posit what if the outcome were different... well then it would be a different thought based on a different interaction. This seems self evident to me but you are sort of obscuring it with this complicated example.
    No, you misunderstand. The outcome of the specific arrangement is determined, but the "thought" meaning of it is not.. it could be anything and is irrelevant to the reaction. Again 2 doesn't come out because it is "right" but because it just so happen to come out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think the reason you do this is to introduce the insticntive notion of uncertainty. Even though we are in a determinisitic world, we have great uncertainty as humans. Rolling dice is called "random" but its not random. Rolling dice is a physical act and each moment of it is described by physical interactions of gravity, friction, elasticity, electromagnatism, etc... Its just that we don't have the perception, awareness, or brain power to accurately figure it all out or to control it. So we call it random, but it is more accurately, unpredictable.
    You are missing it again. I'm pointing to the certainty, the deterministic nature of the physical forces, and showing how they act in the way they do irrespective of the thought that it carries.

    A ball, falling to the ground will do so no matter what thought it represents be it true or false. Those solar system collision size intricate synaptic connections, will react the way they do irrespective of the thought it produces.

    1+1=2 isn't produced by such a system because it follows logically from premises, but because of the natural forces at work. That simply is not
    using logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I still wonder if I'm really responding to your argument... its hard for me to see exactly what you are trying to get at in crystal clear terms.
    Yea, I'm apparently struggling to communicate my point well.

    In the end it has to do with your reasons for attributing a computer with "using" logic, vs being "governed" by logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTUREBOY
    I disagree with this, and it's the main flaw in your argument, that being an incorrect claim of what we recognize as thought. I'm not sure how others may define 'thoughts', but they have not been proven to be determined by chemical process. as complex as they are, it's fairly clear that our thoughts are the chemical and electrical processes in our brains.
    A distinction without a difference. Far from being a Flaw, it is the point of my argument against a natural explanation for access to logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTUREBOY
    when talking about logic, it is important to be clear about what it means. saying that our access to logic is magical, and then giving an example of logic as a conclusion reached with evidence and reasoning is misleading unless you can explain how using evidence and reasoning to reach a conclusion is somehow magical.
    I show that the "natural" can not produce it, it exists therefore the only alternative "supernatural" must be the cause.

    Question to opponent.
    Do you consider my position and based on reason and logic conclude that it is false?
    Or
    Did synaptic cascade A lead to synaptic cascade B based on the physical laws and the "thought" it represents just so happen to be "it is false"?

    in the first, you are appealing to logic to say that my argument is wrong.
    in the second, there is no logic you are simply reacting. The truthfulness is not a consideration. This is true in any naturalistic system.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by Baby names
    By MindTrap028 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 12th, 2011, 08:28 AM
  2. Mind Trapped By Enders Xenocide
    By MindTrap028 in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 6th, 2011, 07:25 PM
  3. Mind Trapped by Poll's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 25th, 2010, 01:31 PM
  4. Mind Trapped in a dream #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •