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.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 148
  1. #81
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Well, I think I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion. Unfortunately, the "wall" you've proposed simply doesn't make any sense as I read it. You say that there's some kind of barrier between the content of someone's thought and all the physical parts that house the thought itself. You say they're not one and the same, as if the accepted definition of a word itself (for example) and my personal understanding of the word's definition is important in some suggestive way.

    Also - and maybe it's simply my poor reading of your words - you seem to be a little all over the place in many of your claims (again, it could certainly be me failing to comprehend you). For example, you've said several times that you're concluding that thoughts exist separately from the brain, and that it's a mistake for me to assume that this is a premise in your argument, but you started with the claim when you said that the content of a thought has no "force of effect" on the physical mechanisms that process it. You also say that I'm making a mistake in assuming that you're appealing to the supernatural when describing access through this "wall", when you literally appeal to a "spirit mind" in the conclusion in your opening post.

    I remember the physicist Richard Feynman telling a story about his son who, when the son was very young, stopped using a certain word because his "word bag" had run out. Of course it's cute that his son pretended words worked that way, but of course there's no such "word bag" to empty. Feynman went on to tell his own father about his son's "word bag" running empty when attempting to explain to his father how electrons emit photons from an apparent vacuum, which is actually a very good analogy to how ideas emerge seemingly out of nothing (btw, this is a genuine gap in understanding in the field of quantum mechanics, but it still doesn't suggest some supernatural component).

    So, I can see why and how you might believe there is some important mystery here, but just as vitalism wasn't really a mystery, neither does this seem to be - again, not understanding precisely how a given process works doesn't not mean, or even suggest, that some supernatural component is necessary.

    Last, I do apologize if I grossly misinterpreted any of your attempts at being precise as being sarcastic, demeaning, or anything else. Often this is a terrible medium of communication. Indeed, if any "wall" exists between the content of an idea and communicating that content from person to person, it's the barrier between words themselves and the people saying them that is the damned internet. So, I hope you can accept my sincere apologies what I now interpret as my wildly out-of-proportion defensiveness to how you chose convey precision in your response, and for any time I've done that over the years. I am often bull-headed and aggressive, and getting older doesn't seem to have dimmed that at all. You're a good dude, and I should have read YOU instead of ME.

    Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. It's been a pleasure.

  2. #82
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But at some point, maybe it is a problem of assumptions.
    so I, or ya'll have a hidden one that is causing the block.
    Well, there is at least three of us trying to grasp your concept and failing, and no one that "gets" it so far...

    ---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because logic, and appealing to it, is not an appeal to chemical reactions, or how chemicals ought to react.
    Hmmm. How are electro/chemical reactions supposed to "act". What specifically is happening that these reactions are unable to account for?

    ---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So that if your first thought is of a horse, and the second thought is of a bunny.
    In no way do horses cause bunnies.
    1. No, the thought of a horse does not cause the thought of a bunny. I don't understand why this is an issue.
    2. You don't seem to have any issue with the cause of the thought of the horse? Why is the thought of the bunny an issue? In what way are the two thoughts different that one should not exist but the other one can?
    3. I would say memory has a definite affect on one's thoughts/ideas. Do you agree?

    ---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Deeper down the rabbit hole, this could be made more complicated by the possibility, that your brain state of a horse, is probably very different than my brain state of a horse.
    Which means that the very idea of horses, isn't inherently connected to any given set of chemicals or brain states.
    This is not a possibility, but a given. Since there is no such thing as a "horse" that is an objective universal truth, it must vary some by person.
    Why is this an issue?

    ---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not really sure how it would effect it. Those are just other brain state effects.
    I mean, there is a really big question mark of what is consciousness that I am really trying to avoid, because it is a real problem for naturalism on it's own. .. I'm really not trying to have that discussion here, and dreaming and subconscious seems to go that direction.
    I totally disagree, but it's your Op so will let it go after saying:

    Dreams are generally out of our minds control, so those ideas/thoughts are coming from somewhere. Even if the conscious mind was separate from the brain, dreams still appear to be coming from the brain. So the brain still seems capable of forming ideas/thoughts without a supernatural component.

  3. #83
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    @ Dio
    Fair minded as always. I appreciate your honest, and vigirous attempt at "hearing the other side" here. I appologize for my poor application of english, and
    I certainly hold it as no failing of yours if you don't get what I am laying down. I do tend to be all over the place, and it can be hard to untangle the 50 thoughts
    that mash themselves together to "make sense and seem obvious to me". Something you have contributed to ODN and is vastly under served here, is understanding that flawed humans
    are on the other side of these pages, and the concepts are not always easy to grasp or communicate.
    your efforts here, are not unappreciated, and I appologize for failing you.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Well, there is at least three of us trying to grasp your concept and failing, and no one that "gets" it so far...
    As I fail 3x's over.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Hmmm. How are electro/chemical reactions supposed to "act".
    I think that was the opposite of my point.
    I mean, if I say that one ought to conclude X. That would be the equivilant of saying "electro chemical reactions ought to act like this".
    The former sounds like what we are doing when we appeal to logical arguments.. the latter does not.
    However it is the latter that naturalism limits us to.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    What specifically is happening that these reactions are unable to account for?
    I think I answer this above.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    1. No, the thought of a horse does not cause the thought of a bunny. I don't understand why this is an issue.
    And yet Brain state A does lead to brain state B.
    A logical argument is the appeal to something like the thought of a horse leading to the thought of a bunny. .. only.. you know a logical connection.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELATHAZOR
    2. You don't seem to have any issue with the cause of the thought of the horse? Why is the thought of the bunny an issue?
    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    3. I would say memory has a definite affect on one's thoughts/ideas. Do you agree?
    \
    Sure, it is inherent as part of a "brain state".

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    This is not a possibility, but a given. Since there is no such thing as a "horse" that is an objective universal truth, it must vary some by person.
    Why is this an issue?
    Because some ideas don't have the elacticity of others.
    Like the idea of the law of identity. If it is different for everyone, then it isn't a law at all.

    Also, you are throwing out the idea of an objective truth at all. I mean, it is one thing to say that we all have different perceptions of what a horse is.
    but .. if one is standing in front of all of us, it does have an objective being/nature/elemetents, that we are percieving or miss-percieving.
    So .. there most certainly is a such thing as a "horse', in an objective universal truth way.
    To serve man.

  4. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  5. #84
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was under the impression you were asking how a spirit/mind interacts with the brain and world.
    because my first answer, was in total agreement with what you just said.. and I don't see a substantial difference, I don't think your assertion that I don't know how the brain works is accurate.

    stimuli + brain states, I don't see where you have pointed out an error.

    Now in relation to the OP... what is the point you are driving at?
    Because this is what breaks down your wall. The horse causes the thought of a horse. That is why the thought of a horse, the brain state has a causal connection to the reality of the horse. Reality forces thoughts to exist. They are the effect, not the cause. They are not like your cats cradle analogy.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #85
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Because this is what breaks down your wall.
    What you are pointing out is the foundation of the wall.
    A horse causes the idea of a horse, through stimuli, and natural chemical reactions.
    The idea is the END product.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The horse causes the thought of a horse. That is why the thought of a horse, the brain state has a causal connection to the reality of the horse. Reality forces thoughts to exist. They are the effect, not the cause. They are not like your cats cradle analogy.
    Actually, that is exactly what the Cradle is illustrating.

    Your not describing a disproof, your just re-stating the foundation.

    The disconnect, is that logic requires one idea to lead to another, when that is just not possible to happen when the reason is not logic or rules of logic, but rules of chemistry.
    As I mentioned somewhere in the thread. To say one thought follows another logically, is not an attempt at saying that one set of chemical reactions leads to another chronologically.
    Which is all naturalism is capable of saying.
    To serve man.

  7. #86
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What you are pointing out is the foundation of the wall.
    A horse causes the idea of a horse, through stimuli, and natural chemical reactions.
    The idea is the END product.
    The "wall" argument is trying to argue that human thoughts can't have truth values in a naturalist worldview. That if naturalism is true, our thoughts must be meaningless.

    In the cat's cradle, the value assigned to the balls doesn't happen by a natural process. We instead arbitrarily assign them. We intentionally toss aside the connection that most thoughts come from. Then we say this model represents all thoughts. It doesn't. Most thoughts are intrinsicly connected to the events that created them. They don't have this "wall" feature that the cats cradel experiment has. The "wall" is an artifical construct we are making only for the sake of this tortured argument.

    The disconnect, is that logic requires one idea to lead to another, when that is just not possible to happen when the reason is not logic or rules of logic, but rules of chemistry.
    I told you before, logic is a thought, it is itself an abstraction of how the world works. Chemistry comes first, logic comes after. Gravity first, logic after. Chemistry dictates logic. If the world were different, logic would be different.

    The idea of a horse gets into your head through chemistry (I'll use that as a stand-in for all natural processes here since you are). Light waves hit a horse, bounce off, hit your eyes, are focused, excite receptors, they relay signals, your brain responds by adding that information in some fashion and it forms connections to other thoughts. This network of ideas in your mind is how one thought impaccts other thoughts in a complicated interactive process. Logic is just one more type of thought created by interaction with the reality we live in.

    Logic does not require thoughts to lead from one to another. Logic is like a measuring stick. It is a tool used to check the predictive accuracy of claims agaisnt the unknown. We created logic by observing the self evident nature of the world we are in, and we use it as an abstract test to ensure that our constructed thoughts will yield accurate outcomes rather than inacurate ones. If logic were simply the natural way we think, then we wouldn't have needed to invent and codify it. Anyone can observe that humans have both logical and illogical thoughts. Logic is not a governing power that mandates how thoughts work. They are run by chemistry, not logic. Logic is just a tool to check that process agaisnt a set of meta-rules we have deleloped based on expereince.


    As I mentioned somewhere in the thread. To say one thought follows another logically, is not an attempt at saying that one set of chemical reactions leads to another chronologically.
    Which is all naturalism is capable of saying.
    Chemical reactions leading to other chemical reactions is what life is (again, using chemistry as a stand in for the natural order of reality). And that is more true than any logicians mental macinations. Human thought is a lot less reliable than reality is. It is only a rough aproximation viewed through a limited lense.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #87
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    The "wall" argument is trying to argue that human thoughts can't have truth values in a naturalist worldview. That if naturalism is true, our thoughts must be meaningless.
    Not quite "must be", just that it doesn't have any explanatory power, because is doesn't HAVE to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    In the cat's cradle, the value assigned to the balls doesn't happen by a natural process. We instead arbitrarily assign them. We intentionally toss aside the connection that most thoughts come from. Then we say this model represents all thoughts. It doesn't. Most thoughts are intrinsicly connected to the events that created them. They don't have this "wall" feature that the cats cradel experiment has. The "wall" is an artifical construct we are making only for the sake of this tortured argument.
    You miss-identify the separation the cradle is pointing out. The point is to illustrate that no connection is necessary, because the causal forces are not relevant to it.
    It could very well be anything, and the effects would still be the same, because the cause is chemical in nature and it's other causal power effect is more chemicals.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    I told you before, logic is a thought, it is itself an abstraction of how the world works.
    I don't think you can use the word "abstract" in a naturalistic meaning.
    Abstract means that it doesn't have a physical or concrete existence. Which is specifically denied by naturalism.
    IE all that there is, is the concrete. Your defense appeals to dualism of some flavor.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Chemistry comes first, logic comes after. Gravity first, logic after. Chemistry dictates logic. If the world were different, logic would be different.
    Logic can be an effect of chemistry, but it isn't a cause of any kind. ... Which means one isn't appealing to logic itself in any logical argument. One is limited to only chemistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The idea of a horse gets into your head through chemistry (I'll use that as a stand-in for all natural processes here since you are). Light waves hit a horse, bounce off, hit your eyes, are focused, excite receptors, they relay signals, your brain responds by adding that information in some fashion and it forms connections to other thoughts. This network of ideas in your mind is how one thought impaccts other thoughts in a complicated interactive process. Logic is just one more type of thought created by interaction with the reality we live in.
    I'm actually appealing to this, up to the point where you start talking about ideas interacting.
    It is absolutely certain and a given on naturalism that the CHEMICALS are interacting. The "abstract" ideas themselves have no force.
    Ideas are the "semantics" to the chemicals "syntax".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Logic does not require thoughts to lead from one to another.
    Actually, it does. That is what one is saying when they say X logically follows from Y.
    X therefore Y, is specifically saying, that idea/thought X, follows from idea/thought Y.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Logic is like a measuring stick. It is a tool used to check the predictive accuracy of claims agaisnt the unknown. We created logic by observing the self evident nature of the world we are in, and we use it as an abstract test to ensure that our constructed thoughts will yield accurate outcomes rather than inacurate ones. If logic were simply the natural way we think, then we wouldn't have needed to invent and codify it. Anyone can observe that humans have both logical and illogical thoughts. Logic is not a governing power that mandates how thoughts work. They are run by chemistry, not logic. Logic is just a tool to check that process against a set of meta-rules we have developed based on expereince.
    A tool without force, is not a tool at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Chemical reactions leading to other chemical reactions is what life is (again, using chemistry as a stand in for the natural order of reality). And that is more true than any logicians mental macinations. Human thought is a lot less reliable than reality is. It is only a rough aproximation viewed through a limited lense.
    Considering that all thought are chemical, and some thought is actually illogical and wrong I don't see what justifies this claim. On naturalism all mental machinations are.. just chemistry, not some separate category to be compared. It's a categorical error to say one is better than the other.



    ----
    @ Sig, thanks for the exchange so far. I don't think I have anything else to add, and I appreciate your time you have given to this.
    I also don't want this to devolve into a "na-huh" contest, or just repetition of what has already been said. As we are entering a new year (happy new year BTW) and ODN's end is drawing nigh I don't want this exchange to end mid exchange. So barring some direct question, you are welcome to the last word. .. unless you feel I haven't addressed something....
    To serve man.

  9. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  10. #88
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not quite "must be", just that it doesn't have any explanatory power, because is doesn't HAVE to be.
    I wonder that a brain with none of the "senses" we all know and love would have any thoughts at all.

    (Which, is the opposite of your "wall" if I am finally understanding where you are coming from?)

  11. #89
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by belthazor
    I wonder that a brain with none of the "senses" we all know and love would have any thoughts at all.
    (Which, is the opposite of your "wall" if I am finally understanding where you are coming from?)
    The brain without the body is handicapped, no telling how it would act. If it fired in such a way to imagine color, then you would see color without eyes.
    The wall is not between brain and body, but brain and ideas.
    To serve man.

  12. #90
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ Sig, thanks for the exchange so far. I don't think I have anything else to add, and I appreciate your time you have given to this.
    I also don't want this to devolve into a "na-huh" contest, or just repetition of what has already been said. As we are entering a new year (happy new year BTW) and ODN's end is drawing nigh I don't want this exchange to end mid exchange. So barring some direct question, you are welcome to the last word. .. unless you feel I haven't addressed something....
    Sure. i feel like this is a discussion that would make more sense in person than in words. Definitions are tricky things in metaphysics.

    Remember that naturalism is an observation of what is, not a justification for it. Everything we see seems to indicate that your physical brain is absolutely necessary for you to think. And our advancing computer technology shows us that a machine can be made to think very much like a person does, yet it has no soul or mind other than a collection of circuits. Computers do logic every day, that is all the do. And they don't require any supernatural mind to do it. The simple nature of the material world is what allows it. it is the cycle of physical cause and effect that allows it to flawlessly execute logical opperations.

    I don't need to explain why this is, I only need to point out that this is what we observe around us and that by using these principles, we can achieve incredible results. Advocates for a supernatural mind keep telling materialists what isn't possible, and materialists keep demonstrating that actually, it is possible.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  14. #91
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Now, I heartily agree when you imply that immaterial things don't have any causative powers (because immaterial "things" can't clearly be said to even exist), but to say that an idea in a person's brain is "immaterial" - in the strict, philosophical sense that you seem to employ it - is misleading and simply incorrect.
    I have shared this thread with a friend wanted to share his thought:

    "MT is incorrect on that one. I think he is thinking of an objection to Platonism and abstract objects. Abstract objects don't have causitive power (the number 2 for example is an abstract object, but it doesn't have the ability to cause something). I don't see why something immaterial would lack causitive powers. Why is matter required? And, more importantly, what does that say about our physical models which rely on probability to be causative for a lot of what happens in this universe?"

    ---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The brain without the body is handicapped, no telling how it would act.
    I did not say this. I said "I wonder that a brain with none of the "senses" we all know and love would have any thoughts at all."
    IOW, if thoughts don't originate in the brain, one would think there would still be thoughts if the brain was deprived of the senses.

    ---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And yet Brain state A does lead to brain state B.
    A logical argument is the appeal to something like the thought of a horse leading to the thought of a bunny. .. only.. you know a logical connection.
    I don't think this is so.
    I could be thinking about your horse and all of a sudden remember I had an appointment. One did not cause nor lead to the other. I could have been thinking about anything when I remembered the appointment.

    ---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;562888]
    Sure, it is inherent as part of a "brain state".
    /QUOTE]

    Memory is contained in the brain. So you are agreeing that the brain at the every least affects thoughts even if they originate in the "mind".

    ---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, you are throwing out the idea of an objective truth at all. I mean, it is one thing to say that we all have different perceptions of what a horse is.
    but .. if one is standing in front of all of us, it does have an objective being/nature/elemetents, that we are percieving or miss-percieving.
    So .. there most certainly is a such thing as a "horse', in an objective universal truth way.
    I just meant if you asked 100 people to show a picture of a horse, they would show you 100 pictures of different horses. There is no single thought of what a horse is.
    That 100 people could look at the same picture and say "that is a horse" is not the same thing.

    Tell me, is there objectively such a thing as a weed?

    ---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    [CENTER]
    2) There is no physical mechanism to select proper logical thoughts from illogical thoughts.
    In the interest of time (as ODN goes away shortly), perhaps we could agree on your first wall and move on to your second. I am curious what you have to say and we won't get there if we don't move on soon.
    Care to give it a go?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 5th, 2019 at 10:48 PM.

  15. #92
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't need to explain why this is, I only need to point out that this is what we observe around us and that by using these principles, we can achieve incredible results. Advocates for a supernatural mind keep telling materialists what isn't possible, and materialists keep demonstrating that actually, it is possible.
    Sig, your input here has been very nice to have. I certainly appreciate your deeper understanding of computers, and considering how they are constantly brought up here that is important input to have.
    I think your distinction makes perfect sense from your POV. That there is a bit of ...
    "what do you mean computers don't logic.. look (shows computer calculating mar's orbit) Tada!. Logic-ing.
    What is the problem?"

    I wanted to address that in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    "MT is incorrect on that one. I think he is thinking of an objection to Platonism and abstract objects. Abstract objects don't have causitive power (the number 2 for example is an abstract object, but it doesn't have the ability to cause something). I don't see why something immaterial would lack causitive powers. Why is matter required? And, more importantly, what does that say about our physical models which rely on probability to be causative for a lot of what happens in this universe?"
    First, I appreciate the input. Your friend by accepting abstract objects as "real", is denying naturalism. Because naturalism says that the physical is all that really is.
    Also
    Probability, is not a causative mechanism. It is just a kind of measurement.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I did not say this. I said "I wonder that a brain with none of the "senses" we all know and love would have any thoughts at all."
    IOW, if thoughts don't originate in the brain, one would think there would still be thoughts if the brain was deprived of the senses.
    Right, but if we take the soul as separate from the body, yet trapped in a body with no senses.. then we are just talking about a handicapped soul.
    The theme of life after death is that it is MORE real, that one thinks MORE clearly, sees better. etc. Without the physical body.
    We get this Biblically from the sense of (1corn 13:12), and from science as Near Death Experience- commonly point to better memory, better understanding, sight even though they were blind..etc.
    This is not to say those things are true, but if we take that approach then we are considering a handy-capped being.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Memory is contained in the brain. So you are agreeing that the brain at the every least affects thoughts even if they originate in the "mind".
    Yes. There is clearly some relationship that can't be denied.
    The cell phone is an example for how that relationship would work. But not as you using it, as you being the person on the other end of the line.
    Break the speaker and they can't hear you, break the camera and they can't see you, break the inner workings, and they could be "locked in" so to speak, with no access to you at all.
    As long as they are limited to using that phone to experience the world...(IE alive in a body) then they would be limited by the phone itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    In the interest of time (as ODN goes away shortly), perhaps we could agree on your first wall and move on to your second. I am curious what you have to say and we won't get there if we don't move on soon.
    Care to give it a go?
    Certainly, you are correct it hasn't been gotten too yet.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------Moving on to second point of the OP----------------
    So the first point draws a distinction between what a brain state does, and the thought it contains. With the temptation to call it an "abstract" thought for lack of a better word.
    It is the distinction between the chemicals and stimuli that are the causative powers at work, and the way we experience them which has no causative powers, yet is equally as physical.

    The claim is that there is no mechanism to select correct thoughts from incorrect thoughts, especially in the course of evolutionary history that lead up to our current brains.
    So we are talking about like the first beings to see a horse, but in this case we want to use some example that has some evolutionary pressure.

    Like a rabbit seeing a wolf. A correct logical connection would be that the wolf is a danger, and thus should be run away from.
    But an incorrect connection would be that the wolf is an object of desire, and thus should be run away from.
    The third, is an example of the first wall. ..That is, the rabbit sees the wolf, and concludes gibberish.. and thus runs away because that is what the chemical state in the brain does with that stimuli.

    The point is that evolution only has power to "select" from correct action. (IE running away from life threatening danger). It doesn't have a mechanism to select correct logical thoughts, illogical thoughts, and gibberish.


    The point of this second wall, is to address our ability as intelligent creatures to create things like computers that like sig point out, through natural processes appear to use logic all the time. The point being that, it is one thing for intelligent life to attempt it with the tools of logic and reason pre-installed, but that is VASTLY different then how we came to have access to them. Upon consideration it is clear that the tools afforded evolution are completely incapable of producing the effect we see.
    To serve man.

  16. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  17. #93
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your friend by accepting abstract objects as "real", is denying naturalism. Because naturalism says that the physical is all that really is.
    Yes, definitely he is denying naturalism. He and I are having a conversation that has touched on the same idea as your "first wall. In general, he agrees with you, just not with regards to immaterial things having/not having causative powers.

    ---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also
    Probability, is not a causative mechanism. It is just a kind of measurement.
    I will mention this and let you know if he has a worthwhile response.

    ---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, but if we take the soul as separate from the body, yet trapped in a body with no senses.. then we are just talking about a handicapped soul.
    Hmmm, this is a rather new take for me.
    So, the soul has clearer senses than the human body, but while trapped/contained/attached to a human body those senses are rendered inoperable/not available?

    How am I doing so far?

    ---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes. There is clearly some relationship that can't be denied.
    Then on this point we agree
    The question then, is how far/deep the relationship/connection is.

  18. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  19. #94
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Hmmm, this is a rather new take for me.
    So, the soul has clearer senses than the human body, but while trapped/contained/attached to a human body those senses are rendered inoperable/not available?

    How am I doing so far?
    Pretty good.
    I mean, I am trying really hard, because I am not a naturalist, yet that is the starting point of the OP. So there is a bit of devils advocate for me. As a christian, I fall more into duelist territory. (but again, that isn't where the thread starts at). so.. I agree with your friends disagreement. I personally do hold that immaterial things do or at least can have an effect.
    though I profess ignorance as to how in the world the word of God can create exnihalo all of the physical world. (a clear example of the immaterial causing physical)
    To serve man.

  20. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Pretty good.
    I mean, I am trying really hard, because I am not a naturalist, yet that is the starting point of the OP. So there is a bit of devils advocate for me. As a christian, I fall more into duelist territory. (but again, that isn't where the thread starts at). so.. I agree with your friends disagreement. I personally do hold that immaterial things do or at least can have an effect.
    though I profess ignorance as to how in the world the word of God can create exnihalo all of the physical world. (a clear example of the immaterial causing physical)
    Yes, the Christian God has always been explained to me as being immaterial, so I was a bit surprised at his take. I can't wait for him to reconcile these thoughts.

    Also, I didn't think it was common for naturalists to believe in a human soul?

  21. #96
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "what do you mean computers don't logic.. look (shows computer calculating mar's orbit) Tada!. Logic-ing.
    What is the problem?"

    I wanted to address that in this thread.
    It is more than that though. Every single operation a computer does is binary logic, also known as boolean algebra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #97
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Yes, the Christian God has always been explained to me as being immaterial, so I was a bit surprised at his take. I can't wait for him to reconcile these thoughts.

    Also, I didn't think it was common for naturalists to believe in a human soul?
    It is harder to deny a soul than it is to deny that brain causes consciousness. This is because it is the one thing we experience most, because it is who we are.
    It is the nature of the soul that everyone is grappling with. Naturalists may consistently affirm a souls existence, but will assert that it is purely physical, as it must be because the physical is all there is. That is a base assumption. The actual nature of the soul becomes very troubling for a naturalist because things like consciousness and the soul are hard to define themselves.
    While religion may have a robust explanation of what a soul is, the same problems are faced, only with different names or as applied to different areas. Again, it starts as an assumption as well.

    Basically, the technical side of it is very fuzzy, and there are all sorts of evidences that are hard to fit into any specific world view. It just means that some of the words carry different meanings.
    So while "soul" has many intrinsically supernatural implications, the naturalist is not prevented from meaning it in a different way. They are just trying to redefine what it means.
    To serve man.

  23. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  24. #98
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is harder to deny a soul than it is to deny that brain causes consciousness. This is because it is the one thing we experience most, because it is who we are.
    It is the nature of the soul that everyone is grappling with. Naturalists may consistently affirm a souls existence, but will assert that it is purely physical, as it must be because the physical is all there is. That is a base assumption. The actual nature of the soul becomes very troubling for a naturalist because things like consciousness and the soul are hard to define themselves.
    While religion may have a robust explanation of what a soul is, the same problems are faced, only with different names or as applied to different areas. Again, it starts as an assumption as well.

    Basically, the technical side of it is very fuzzy, and there are all sorts of evidences that are hard to fit into any specific world view. It just means that some of the words carry different meanings.
    So while "soul" has many intrinsically supernatural implications, the naturalist is not prevented from meaning it in a different way. They are just trying to redefine what it means.
    Yes, we all live in the same reality here. So we are experiencing it and trying to make sense of how it works.

    The thing is, naturalism, as a general discipline, has been staggeringly successful at exploring and making sense of how the world operates. Spiritualism has a pretty messy track record and no unified methodology. It does one thing naturalism can't do, make us feel better about the world we live in.

    With the mind, as we learn more, it's looking more and more natural. We are finding more and more physical ways of manipulating our mental state, and more ways to see what happens in our physical brians when we have mental and emontional experiences. The more evidence we accumulate, the less room there is for a supernatural force to be at work. We haven't chased the sould entirely out of human expereince, but every day we seem to get closer to that moment.

    A challenge I often make to dualists is to define for me exactly what powers a soul without a body has and how we can know it has those properties. Hardly anyone ever bothers to respond to the challenge. It tend to suspect that is because they have no real notion of how the soul works, they just very much want it to not be a natural phenomenon.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  25. #99
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    @ sig
    Certainly the descriptive powers of naturalism are pretty good. That is why here I wanted to highlight and draw attention to things that are specifically outside of it's descriptive powers. Which I will not repeat.

    Rather I would like to respond to your challenge a bit, while noting it is squarely outside the scope of the op so I am not looking to debate it here.

    Some things that belong to the soul without a body would be first conciousness, second reason and third relationship.
    As to how we can know that, I think I have attempted here an approach of eliminating the impossible. Specifically that it is not possible for naturalism allone to access logic, and that it isn't possible for naturalism process to produce that access. That would be one aspect of the three aspects of the soul. So not not a complete support, but at least here my attempt at it.
    I would point out that it is not a strength of naturalism to simply assume that all those things belong to naturalism, and then mistake that as proof of the assumption. Such as what you may note when you survay how naturalism approach conciousness. Which some will profess they have both idea, and simply say it is a kind of brute fact.
    That is of course o.k. but it must be recognized as an assumption and not presented as an evidence showing naturalists descriptive success. And of course much of this can be turned on deulism as well.

    If I may turn the challenge around though, is I would challenge naturalist to find some observation that avlctually disqualifies dualism. I think that is what I have some here to naturalism is pointed (attempted) to a disqualifier that disallows naturalism as the explanation.
    I m ignorant of any such attempt of naturalist. So maybe you can point me in a direction if you are aware of such an argunent/point.
    ....ps..
    Sorry, on phone and editing is killing me.
    To serve man.

  26. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is harder to deny a soul than it is to deny that brain causes consciousness. This is because it is the one thing we experience most, because it is who we are.
    It is the nature of the soul that everyone is grappling with.
    We "experience a soul the most" and the soul "is who we are"? This definition of a soul is completely foreign to me?

    My understanding of the most commonly used definition of a "soul" makes it hardly a given and it doesn't even seem likely.

    Indeed the brain may cause consciousness because that is all we have evidence for. IOW, we have no evidence the soul somehow is in contact with the brain for consciousness to happen.

    ---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Naturalists may consistently affirm a souls existence, but will assert that it is purely physical, as it must be because the physical is all there is. That is a base assumption. The actual nature of the soul becomes very troubling for a naturalist because things like consciousness and the soul are hard to define themselves.
    Could you point me to where naturalists are saying anything about a soul, because I am not seeing it?

    Do theists find it easier to define consciousness?

    ---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So while "soul" has many intrinsically supernatural implications, the naturalist is not prevented from meaning it in a different way. They are just trying to redefine what it means.
    Then the naturalist should use a different word because theists will always have a supernatural connotation to that term and it will lead to misunderstandings just because of language.
    Redefining common words can be tiresome (especially if done for PC reasons) as it leads to two definitions of the same word.
    Like gender historically has meant how you were born not how you "feel". It leads to a lot of confusion as people talk past each other because language is no longer clear.
    It's difficult to have a useful exchange unless all agree on what a given term means.

 

 
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trap's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: November 26th, 2011, 04:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 06:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 11:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 05:08 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
  •