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 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 148
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ok, so what do you mean by this? Are you saying that the meaning of thought "A" isn't reacting with the meaning of thought "B"? What do you mean when you say they interact at the level of syntax? What are the important differences (not the obvious differences) between the two and why do they matter to your point?
    At issue, is the distinction between the mechanical forces at work that create thought (the syntax) and the abstract content of the thought itself (the semantics).
    On naturalism, only the syntax has force so as to be a cause.

    Edit--
    Yes I do mean that the meanings of thought A are not reacting with the meanings of thought B.
    To serve man.

  2. #62
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes I do mean that the meanings of thought A are not reacting with the meanings of thought B.
    How do you know this? On what basis do you claim this? If I employ a word, such as all the words I use in this reply, I do it both knowing how words and phrases are constructed, and understanding the ideas that the particular arrangement of words I use conveys.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    How do you know this? On what basis do you claim this?
    Two ways.
    1) That is the claim of naturalism. In that, as much as it correctly reflects naturalism, then it is valid as a premise.
    2) That is the way that naturalism defines how thoughts come about. Thoughts are the product of Brain states. This makes the thought an effect.

    So did I get how naturalism explains it wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If I employ a word, such as all the words I use in this reply, I do it both knowing how words and phrases are constructed, and understanding the ideas that the particular arrangement of words I use conveys.
    What does that have to do with naturalism, and how it explains the relationship?
    I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with your observation. I just don't see what that observation has to do with naturalism.
    Do you mean that because this is how you experience it, then naturalism must be compatible with it?
    To serve man.

  4. #64
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the claim of naturalism. In that, as much as it correctly reflects naturalism, then it is valid as a premise.
    I have no idea what you mean by this. How does naturalism "claim" that independent thoughts within a single mind have no relationship with one another apart from syntax?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the way that naturalism defines how thoughts come about. Thoughts are the product of Brain states. This makes the thought an effect.
    Ok, so why is this a problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So did I get how naturalism explains it wrong?
    I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you mean that because this is how you experience it, then naturalism must be compatible with it?
    Close. I mean that this is how I experience it, and it isn't at all obvious to me how it isn't compatible with natural explanation.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I have no idea what you mean by this. How does naturalism "claim" that independent thoughts within a single mind have no relationship with one another apart from syntax?
    Because on naturalsim syntax(brain states) is the cause of the thoughts, not the other way around (IE semantics causing brain states).
    It has to be the other way around in order for the thoughts to be related by content (semantics).

    Quote Originally Posted by dio
    Ok, so why is this a problem?
    So, naturalsim says that Brain states are the cause of thoughts.
    The content of thoughts, is thus not the cause of brain states.
    creating a wall required for acutal use/access to logic.
    That is a problem when you and I are engaged in a debate where we assume that we are employing logic and appealing to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Close. I mean that this is how I experience it, and it isn't at all obvious to me how it isn't compatible with natural explanation.
    Well, are we engaging in the realm of ideas, or chemistry?
    I mean, if we are engaging in simply a series of chemical reactions, then we are trapped in the world of sytax.
    If you are considering the idea, and thus the idea has some effect, so as to be a cause itself some way, then we are engaging in the realm of ideas.

    naturalism denies the second, by denying the non-physical force or causal power on the natural world.
    So as long as the content of ideas is non-physical.. this is a problem for naturalism, and for us if we are presuming to be engaging in the realm of content of thought.
    To serve man.

  6. #66
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because on naturalsim syntax(brain states) is the cause of the thoughts, not the other way around (IE semantics causing brain states).
    It has to be the other way around in order for the thoughts to be related by content (semantics).
    What do you mean by "on naturalism'? What do you mean when you say syntax causes brain states? The proper arrangement of words causes brain states? Brain states are limited to the influence of word and sentence structure? Are creatures that do not have language incapable of thought? How do you know this?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, naturalsim says that Brain states are the cause of thoughts.
    The content of thoughts, is thus not the cause of brain states.
    creating a wall required for acutal use/access to logic.
    That is a problem when you and I are engaged in a debate where we assume that we are employing logic and appealing to it.
    I don't see how. How do you know that brain states/thoughts are not one in the same? You keep lining these things up like they're dominoes, but that seems a very imprecise way to describe conscious experience, and I'm not aware of any literature, philosophical, scientific, religious, or otherwise that describes conscious experience in such a myopic way, even remotely.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, are we engaging in the realm of ideas, or chemistry?
    I mean, if we are engaging in simply a series of chemical reactions, then we are trapped in the world of sytax.
    Why do you say this? What does syntax have to do with anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you are considering the idea, and thus the idea has some effect, so as to be a cause itself some way, then we are engaging in the realm of ideas.

    naturalism denies the second, by denying the non-physical force or causal power on the natural world.
    So as long as the content of ideas is non-physical.. this is a problem for naturalism, and for us if we are presuming to be engaging in the realm of content of thought.
    How does naturalism "deny" causual power on the world? What do you mean by this? That a thought - i.e. neurons all by themselves - don't have the power to change the physical world apart from the brain that hosts the thought? Isn't that obviously true? Why does this matter?

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What do you mean by "on naturalism'? What do you mean when you say syntax causes brain states? The proper arrangement of words causes brain states? Brain states are limited to the influence of word and sentence structure? Are creatures that do not have language incapable of thought? How do you know this?
    Right,sorry... that is a reference to some of the language used in a referenced video earlier on.
    The point of the language of syntax vs semantics, is to illustrate the difference between the chemical reactions that cause thoughts.
    So the physical laws are to syntax, what content of thought is to semantics.
    I'll try to stick to the language of thought/brains states and content of thought/ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I don't see how. How do you know that brain states/thoughts are not one in the same?
    That is why we are talking about the content of the thought.
    Even if we call brain states "thoughts" and use those interchangeably, there is still a different aspect that we are dealing with, which is the content of those thoughts, or the idea that the brain state represents.
    (representative being a key point in how they relate).

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    You keep lining these things up like they're dominoes, but that seems a very imprecise way to describe conscious experience, and I'm not aware of any literature, philosophical, scientific, religious, or otherwise that describes conscious experience in such a myopic way, even remotely.
    As soon as one refers to the mind as a "brain state" it is exactly like a domino, in that it is purely physical, and is effected by physical forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    How does naturalism "deny" causual power on the world? What do you mean by this? That a thought - i.e. neurons all by themselves - don't have the power to change the physical world apart from the brain that hosts the thought? Isn't that obviously true? Why does this matter?
    No, it is about the content of the thoughts inability to produce or effect any neuron within the brain so as to be the cause of another thought.
    So the distinction is between a thought, and the content of that thought.

    So, your brain state A, can be said to be the thought of a pink pony, but the following thought whatever, is not caused by the immaterial concept of pink ponies.
    Your next thought is governed by chemical processes, not imaginary pink ponies. (on naturalism)
    To serve man.

  8. #68
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, your brain state A, can be said to be the thought of a pink pony, but the following thought whatever, is not caused by the immaterial concept of pink ponies.
    Why not? Why can't thought "A" cause you to think thought "B"? If I see my phone bill and think I need to pay it (thought "A"), then that causes me to look at my bank account to make sure I have the money to pay it (thought "B"), how is it that those two thoughts are completely unrelated? On what basis do you say thought "A" didn't cause me to think thought "B"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your next thought is governed by chemical processes, not imaginary pink ponies. (on naturalism)
    Ok, so why does this matter?

  9. #69
    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

    ADDENDUM: I think this is where a lot of the difficulty is coming from -

    You say something like 'thought "B" is not caused by immaterial thought "A"'.

    The problem is that thoughts aren't "immaterial", nor is the "content" of the thought. For one, the thought and its contents are one and the same (I don't find it controversial to say that a thought without content can't be rightly called a thought). Second, the thought physically exists and is contained in the very physical neural network that consists of neurons and axons and synapses and electrical signals, etc. And, once the idea has been manifest, be it in an invention, a transference to some kind of physical media like a book, a video, an audio recording, etc, the idea now exists in multiple physical forms.

    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.

  10. Likes Sigfried, MindTrap028 liked this post
  11. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ---
    You ended your post with a call for questions..

    Question: How do you think you gain the idea of a "rock" in your mind?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,177
    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), .
    @MT, just to be clear, are you agreeing with this position?

  13. #72
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Why not? Why can't thought "A" cause you to think thought "B"? If I see my phone bill and think I need to pay it (thought "A"), then that causes me to look at my bank account to make sure I have the money to pay it (thought "B"), how is it that those two thoughts are completely unrelated? On what basis do you say thought "A" didn't cause me to think thought "B"?
    If when you say "thought" you are referring to the chemicals, then of course thought A causes thought B.
    If however you are talking about the way you experience Chemical/brain state A, then no your experience has no causal powers. Thought B follows chemically.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    The problem is that thoughts aren't "immaterial", nor is the "content" of the thought.
    It seems to me that a "material idea" is an oxymoron. We have to keep in mind that some of these words have meaning loaded with the immaterial.
    My point is that thoughts and their content are different in a certain way, specifically causally.
    I am with you in saying that brain states are not immaterial, and that consciousness is an effect of that, and thus it is material.
    The problem is not that they are not one and the same, it is that CAUSALLY they are different.
    So, it is the chemicals causing the content, not the other way around.

    Which leads to the problem of acting like the content obeys laws other than those that govern their cause.
    Laws and rules such as logic for example.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Question: How do you think you gain the idea of a "rock" in your mind?
    On naturalism. Stimuli, and Brain states.
    I guess my counter question is what do you mean by "mind"?
    Certainly you are referring to my brain and not something immaterial?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    @MT, just to be clear, are you agreeing with this position?
    Yes, for the sake of this thread, my aim is to hold fast to a naturalist description, and show how it specifically disallows access to logic.
    To serve man.

  14. #73
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If when you say "thought" you are referring to the chemicals, then of course thought A causes thought B.
    If however you are talking about the way you experience Chemical/brain state A, then no your experience has no causal powers. Thought B follows chemically.


    It seems to me that a "material idea" is an oxymoron. We have to keep in mind that some of these words have meaning loaded with the immaterial.
    My point is that thoughts and their content are different in a certain way, specifically causally.
    I am with you in saying that brain states are not immaterial, and that consciousness is an effect of that, and thus it is material.
    The problem is not that they are not one and the same, it is that CAUSALLY they are different.
    So, it is the chemicals causing the content, not the other way around.

    Which leads to the problem of acting like the content obeys laws other than those that govern their cause. 0
    Laws and rules such as logic for example.
    I went ahead and lumped this together because it seems like you're saying the same thing throughout.

    Honestly, I just don't see the problem. You're still describing the problem as if as a person's thoughts exist separately from their brain. Your entire argument hinges on that (or at least something like that), so I think it would be more persuasive if you could provide good, valid reasons to think that a person's individual, experiential thoughts form, exist, and flow freely and separately, unaided in any way by their own brain. Otherwise you're talking about a confluence of circumstances that give rise to consciousness; the only way to avoid that confluence is to show that thoughts exist utterly without the brain.

  15. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I guess my counter question is what do you mean by "mind"?
    Certainly, you are referring to my brain and not something immaterial?
    Whatever it is you believe is what I am asking about. If you think it is immaterial, answer that way, if you think your mind is physical, answer that way.

    Question: How do you think you gain the idea of a "rock" in your mind?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #75
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I went ahead and lumped this together because it seems like you're saying the same thing throughout.

    Honestly, I just don't see the problem. You're still describing the problem as if as a person's thoughts exist separately from their brain. Your entire argument hinges on that (or at least something like that), so I think it would be more persuasive if you could provide good, valid reasons to think that a person's individual, experiential thoughts form, exist, and flow freely and separately, unaided in any way by their own brain. Otherwise you're talking about a confluence of circumstances that give rise to consciousness; the only way to avoid that confluence is to show that thoughts exist utterly without the brain.
    First off, for the record, I am not trying to describe thoughts or ideas as being immaterial, or that they exist separate from the brain. I think that is the ultimate conclusion, but that is not where we are in the discussion. My entire argument hinges on the direction of causality. That the brain causes thoughts/ideas, but thoughts and ideas are a physical effect of brain states, that don't themselves have causal powers.
    It really seems pretty obvious to me, maybe your approaching this with some assumptions I am not forwarding or intending?

    I don't see how appealing to a causal break, necessarily means or implies some appeal to the supernatural.
    For example. you have a light switch, and a light bulb(connected in the usual way).
    I'm only saying that the light itself (which is totally physical), is not causally related to the light bulb. In that the light, is not causing anything in the bulb, or the switch.

    So here your brain would be the light bulb and stitch etc, and the thoughts/consciousness would be the light. No question the brain causes the thought.
    But to pretend that the lights(consciousness/physical manifestations of ideas) are interacting is just not described by naturalism.
    Because, we know.. as stated that brain states are the cause of thoughts.
    As long as that point is agreed upon, my entire op is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Whatever it is you believe is what I am asking about. If you think it is immaterial, answer that way, if you think your mind is physical, answer that way.

    Question: How do you think you gain the idea of a "rock" in your mind?
    O me personally, apart from this thread or the topic.
    I have no idea.
    To serve man.

  17. #76
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,177
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It really seems pretty obvious to me, maybe your approaching this with some assumptions I am not forwarding or intending?
    Perhaps, because your argument has thus far been less than obvious, at least to some of us...

    ---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That the brain causes thoughts/ideas,...
    I think we are good to here

    ---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    but thoughts and ideas are a physical effect of brain states,
    This sounds pretty close to the last comment, so still ok here

    ---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ideas are a physical effect of brain states, that don't themselves have causal powers.
    Why is it a problem if thoughts/ideas don't have "causal powers" ?
    If the brain caused a first thought, it fallows that it could cause the next thought, and the thoughts could be related or not.

    ---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It really seems pretty obvious to me, maybe your approaching this with some assumptions I am not forwarding or intending?
    I'm curious how dreaming and the subconscious mind fit into your argument?

  18. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  19. #77
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Perhaps, because your argument has thus far been less than obvious, at least to some of us...
    I know.. and Dio is doing well to try and draw it out.. I am just expressing how I don't see the disconnect here.
    So I'm struggling a bit, not trying to be insensitive.. I know I can be less than clear. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Why is it a problem if thoughts/ideas don't have "causal powers" ?
    Because logic, and appealing to it, is not an appeal to chemical reactions, or how chemicals ought to react.
    so it is only a problem in as much as we appeal to logic, and as that is a pretty heavy dose of what we attempt to do here, if a particular approach is inherently inconsistent with that, then it should be thrown out.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If the brain caused a first thought, it fallows that it could cause the next thought, and the thoughts could be related or not.
    Certainly it causes the next thought, as to the thoughts being related.. the question is HOW.
    We know they are chemically related, or related in brain states. That is what naturalism describes and adheres to when it says "Brain states cause thought".
    That does however specifically exclude the CONTENT or the SUBJECT of the thought.

    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.
    The brain state A causes brain state B, but horses don't cause bunnies.
    And it would do the same exact thing, no matter what the random connecting idea would be. (Random, according to the initial conditions of the universe sort of way).

    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.
    --edit--
    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I'm curious how dreaming and the subconscious mind fit into your argument?
    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.
    To serve man.

  20. #78
    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

    MT,

    Going back to your opening post, you say this:

    “Just as in Newtons Cradled above, the ball on the right can be assigned any “meaning” or “thought”, and it has no effect or force on how the physical balls act.”

    You seem to use the analogy of Newtown’s Cradle thusly:

    • ‘Thought’ is analogous to “meaning”
    • ‘Chemicals’ are analogous to “balls”
    • ‘Brain’ is analogous to “cradle”

    With your analogy, you say “…any “meaning” […] has no effect or force on how the physical balls act”, which is simply another way of saying ‘thought’ has no causative relationship with the ‘chemicals’ in the ‘brain’.

    You keep mentioning causality, and by your analogy you’re claiming that ‘chemicals’ in the ‘brain’ do not cause i.e. they have absolutely no effect – and thus no causative relationship – with ‘thought’. So, as far as I can tell, by your analogy you’re creating some weird separation between the brain and thoughts where there doesn’t at all appear to be one. Or, if not that, then I have no idea where you’re saying the separation exists. But you’re clearly separating the two, and your whole argument hinges on this.

    Last, you’ve said that your conclusion is that thoughts are independent from the brain, but in first statement of the opening post you said …“any “meaning” or “thought”, […] has no effect or force on how the physical balls act”, which is simply another way of saying ‘the content of a thought has no relationship with the biochemical/neural processes that contain it’. So you’re not concluding that thought is independent from the brain; you’re outright saying it as a premise.

    I feel like I’ve understood your analogy correctly, but if I haven’t, could you clarify?

  21. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  22. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O me personally, apart from this thread or the topic.
    I have no idea.
    Well, that pretty much kills that discussion. :(

    ---------- Post added at 01:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------

    I don't see how appealing to a causal break, necessarily means or implies some appeal to the supernatural.
    For example. you have a light switch, and a light bulb(connected in the usual way).
    I'm only saying that the light itself (which is totally physical), is not causally related to the light bulb. In that the light, is not causing anything in the bulb, or the switch.
    Um... you do know causality is directional right? That the light is caused by the lightbulb, not the other way around. No one expets the light to cause the light bulb, the light bulb is the cause of the light, that's why we call it a light bulb.

    It feels condescending to explain this.

    "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."
    Indeed, and those of us who are naturalists have always asserted this is true. There is no singular correct idea of a horse. Ideas are just imperfect representations of actual entities. They are like a drawing in a book. No two drawings of a horse are exactly the same. None of them are horses or exact replicas of horses. They are impressions of horses, all resulting from contact with actual horses in some way. People see and otherwise expereince a horse, and those impressions are recorded in our minds in a physical way. The horse caused the idea of the horse to form, and the idea gets its substance from the expereince of the horse itself. The idea of a horse is caused by an actual horse, by a brain state. The brain state is a medium in whch to record the thought. It is like the paper and ink the picture is created with.

    You don't have an idea of how the mind works. I do. I've described it to you multiple times now, but it doesn't seem to stick.
    Last edited by Sigfried; December 26th, 2018 at 11:56 PM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  23. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Dionysus liked this post
  24. #80
    Super Moderator

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    With your analogy, you say “…any “meaning” […] has no effect or force on how the physical balls act”, which is simply another way of saying ‘thought’ has no causative relationship with the ‘chemicals’ in the ‘brain’.
    Yes, this point is obscured when one assumes that thought as it is used here is the same thing as a brain state.
    When there are two senses in which "thought" can be used. So here "meaning" is what has been called "Content of that thought".

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    You keep mentioning causality, and by your analogy you’re claiming that ‘chemicals’ in the ‘brain’ do not cause i.e. they have absolutely no effect – and thus no causative relationship – with ‘thought’. So, as far as I can tell, by your analogy you’re creating some weird separation between the brain and thoughts where there doesn’t at all appear to be one
    It is only as weird as syntax and semantics are different. I really don't see how there is a blockage or problem in saying that what a thought is, and what it is about are two different things especially in as it relates to a causal relationship to the next thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Or, if not that, then I have no idea where you’re saying the separation exists. But you’re clearly separating the two, and your whole argument hinges on this.
    I think you seem to be really close.. I am just not getting the disconnect.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Last, you’ve said that your conclusion is that thoughts are independent from the brain, but in first statement of the opening post you said …“any “meaning” or “thought”, […] has no effect or force on how the physical balls act”, which is simply another way of saying ‘the content of a thought has no relationship with the biochemical/neural processes that contain it’. So you’re not concluding that thought is independent from the brain; you’re outright saying it as a premise.
    No, that is not another way of saying it isn't physical. I don't see how pointing out a casual direction is the same as saying it is supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I feel like I’ve understood your analogy correctly, but if I haven’t, could you clarify?
    The important part of the analogy, is to distinguish between the causal nature of chemicals, vs the lack of one for the meaning which they carry.
    That is the first wall.

    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Well, that pretty much kills that discussion. :(
    Well, I do my best.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Um... you do know causality is directional right? That the light is caused by the lightbulb, not the other way around. No one expets the light to cause the light bulb, the light bulb is the cause of the light, that's why we call it a light bulb.

    It feels condescending to explain this.
    Certainly not intended that way, but there does seem to be a major sticking point on communicating directional causality, and it's basic relationship to thoughts and their content.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Indeed, and those of us who are naturalists have always asserted this is true. There is no singular correct idea of a horse. Ideas are just imperfect representations of actual entities. They are like a drawing in a book. No two drawings of a horse are exactly the same. None of them are horses or exact replicas of horses. They are impressions of horses, all resulting from contact with actual horses in some way. People see and otherwise expereince a horse, and those impressions are recorded in our minds in a physical way. The horse caused the idea of the horse to form, and the idea gets its substance from the expereince of the horse itself. The idea of a horse is caused by an actual horse, by a brain state. The brain state is a medium in whch to record the thought. It is like the paper and ink the picture is created with.
    Yes, no objection here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You don't have an idea of how the mind works. I do. I've described it to you multiple times now, but it doesn't seem to stick.
    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?
    To serve man.

  25. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
 

 
Page 4 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, 03:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 10:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 04:08 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
  •