[split] t-shirt to soul topic

[fr0d0]

---

What you're talking about is ideas not thoughts (memes?), thoughts are entirely physical (completely reliant on thought-supporting infrastructure) ideas are abstract and can be carried on a variety of media (verbal, visual, books, TV etc.) but again they STILL cannot survive without infrastructure.

Yeah, but because thoughts rely on the infrastructure does not mean that thoughts are the infrastructure. Interpretation [CPU] and memory [HDD, RAM] doesn't produce thought. Thought is independent of both of those.

There's a problem and it's why your passenger bus analogy is inapplicable.

These ideas, memes if you like, are not actually ideas they are source code or recipes of a sort, they have no existence outside of a brain intelligent enough to compile them. I'll try to explain ... I have an idea which I think is worth recording or transmitting somewhere (written, spoken or otherwise done ... it doesn't matter) so I take that idea and I record it. To record it I effectively break that idea down into logical stages or components and store them in some fashion (in effect I decompile the idea). Someone else sees that decompiled idea and reads, hears or watches it effectively uploading that idea into their brain (their personal onboard computer) and in doing so they recompile that source code into an idea but here's the rub ... the idea in their head IS NOT and can probably NEVER BE the same as the idea in mine. This highlights 2 things ... first that ideas ARE NOT truly transferable except in a general sense and that whilst they are in transit or stored they have ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTENCE OF THEIR OWN because all they are is a set of instructions to create the basics of a given idea in someone else.

It also means that your analogy of thoughts as passe3ngers on a bus is inapplicable because it rapidly becomes evident that such ideas (when recompiled) change the person within whom they now exist and passenger son a bus are simply passengers ... they DO NOT change the bus.

Thought is entirely the product of the brain, it CANNOT exist elsewhere and CANNOT be transferred except in the decompiled state I mention above so thought cannot exist independent of the recognised neural infrastructure.

Kyu

---

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not going to mention evidence or faith, I'll just say: fr0d0, when you find anything positively non-physical and that includes 'thought'...positively non-physical...you let me know.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thoughts are broken down into a form compatible with storage ..our analogy is computer language. Re/ Decompilation is superfluous.. it's a mechanical process void of sentience.

If thoughts are decompiled during storage/transmission and recompiled during receipt then they have no real existence of their own. That the thought has to be transmitted via the decompilation/recompilation process and that that thought is (I hope) self-evidently more complicated than the thought both at the transmitter and at the receiver means that there MUST be information loss in the transcription process, information that must be filled in by the recipient and therefore the thought itself is not actually transmitted, an alternate version of the thought is developed that is original compared to the transmitter's thought.

This particular passenger can shape shift, sure. You're right to add that I think. The interpreter interprets given many variables, but not precisely so as possible with actual computers.

Mind/brain is not bus, a bus does not get altered by it's passengers whereas thoughts DO alter the brain/mind infrastructure i.e. the recipient brain/mind is altered by the received (recompiled) thought.

That thought cannot be transferred in anything but the decompiled state doesn't prove that thoughts are physical. Just that they are stored as a physical representation (as in a computer) and are compiled/ decompiled either end to place them into to cognitive processor: the brain.

Didn't say it did but it does further force you to justify your assertion that thoughts are in some way no-physical ... the available evidence strongly links them absolutely to brain/nerve infrastructure and you CANNOT simply claim that is not so without providing exceptionally good reason (extraordinary evidence) to show the lack of linkage given that Í and others have given very good reason why thought/mind IS inextricably linked to the mass of tissue we call the brain.

The bus, being the storage medium, the mode of transport, is simply storage. I paint a picture - thought of a kind is stored ready to transport to anyone looking at it.

The passenger & bus idea is a poor analogy for thoughts/ideas & mind/brain.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

If thoughts are decompiled during storage/transmission and recompiled during receipt then they have no real existence of their own. That the thought has to be transmitted via the decompilation/recompilation process and that that thought is (I hope) self-evidently more complicated than the thought both at the transmitter and at the receiver means that there MUST be information loss in the transcription process, information that must be filled in by the recipient and therefore the thought itself is not actually transmitted, an alternate version of the thought is developed that is original compared to the transmitter's thought.

Yep I agree with that.

Mind/brain is not bus, a bus does not get altered by it's passengers whereas thoughts DO alter the brain/mind infrastructure i.e. the recipient brain/mind is altered by the received (recompiled) thought.

Mind does not = brain. A brain is a physical organ. the mind isn't.

The brain's purpose is to store and cogitate electro chemically. The brain apparently works by modifying synaptic pathways. This is just the brain doing what it was designed to do.

the available evidence strongly links them absolutely to brain/nerve infrastructure and you CANNOT simply claim that is not so without providing exceptionally good reason (extraordinary evidence) to show the lack of linkage given that Í and others have given very good reason why thought/mind IS inextricably linked to the mass of tissue we call the brain.

And I have always agreed that the brain and thoughts are inextricably linked. How can I say otherwise? The point in hand is whether thoughts exist physically beyond the mechanical processes we've outlined. I don't see that you've established that at all.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If thoughts are decompiled during storage/transmission and recompiled during receipt then they have no real existence of their own. That the thought has to be transmitted via the decompilation/recompilation process and that that thought is (I hope) self-evidently more complicated than the thought both at the transmitter and at the receiver means that there MUST be information loss in the transcription process, information that must be filled in by the recipient and therefore the thought itself is not actually transmitted, an alternate version of the thought is developed that is original compared to the transmitter's thought.

Yep I agree with that.

Fair enough.

Mind/brain is not bus, a bus does not get altered by it's passengers whereas thoughts DO alter the brain/mind infrastructure i.e. the recipient brain/mind is altered by the received (recompiled) thought.

Mind does not = brain. A brain is a physical organ. the mind isn't.

The brain's purpose is to store and cogitate electro chemically. The brain apparently works by modifying synaptic pathways. This is just the brain doing what it was designed to do.

I agree with that (including mind not equalling brain) ...

the available evidence strongly links them absolutely to brain/nerve infrastructure and you CANNOT simply claim that is not so without providing exceptionally good reason (extraordinary evidence) to show the lack of linkage given that Í and others have given very good reason why thought/mind IS inextricably linked to the mass of tissue we call the brain.

And I have always agreed that the brain and thoughts are inextricably linked. How can I say otherwise? The point in hand is whether thoughts exist physically beyond the mechanical processes we've outlined. I don't see that you've established that at all.

... and yes they are inextricably linked and there are thousands of journals devoted to mind/brain all of which tend to treated thought as a physical concept, in addition to which I have given very good reason why there is a strong linkage, but to claim thoughts exist beyond the physical is a claim supported by absolutely no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) evidence ... it is just a fanciful claim, the same kind of claim for your god, and nothing else.

You don't see that we have reasonably established the physical nature of thought for one reason and one reason alone ...

YOU DON'T WANT TO!!!!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

... and yes they are inextricably linked and there are thousands of journals devoted to mind/brain all of which tend to treated thought as a physical concept

Care to link me one then?

but to claim thoughts exist beyond the physical is a claim supported by absolutely no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) evidence ... it is just a fanciful claim, the same kind of claim for your god, and nothing else.

You don't see that we have reasonably established the physical nature of thought for one reason and one reason alone ...

YOU DON'T WANT TO!!!!

I don't see it no, because you have not provided it.

Unlike you, I am willing to accept that I am wrong. I am willing to accept that I may reason there not to be a God, and become an atheist myself.

You claim that thought is physical, a positive claim, yet refuse to see how the burden of proof rests upon yourself.

[Kyuuketsuki]

... and yes they are inextricably linked and there are thousands of journals devoted to mind/brain all of which tend to treated thought as a physical concept

Care to link me one then?

This is just the psychology journals and it's debatable whether Wiki has the full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psy...y_journals

but to claim thoughts exist beyond the physical is a claim supported by absolutely no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) evidence ... it is just a fanciful claim, the same kind of claim for your god, and nothing else.

You don't see that we have reasonably established the physical nature of thought for one reason and one reason alone ...

Which is? Don't tell me ... there's a bit no one has detected yet because ... guess what ... it's not detectable!!!!! IF that's it (or anything like) what a pile of fucking shit!

YOU DON'T WANT TO!!!!

I don't see it no, because you have not provided it.

Unlike you, I am willing to accept that I am wrong. I am willing to accept that I may reason there not to be a God, and become an atheist myself.

You claim that thought is physical, a positive claim, yet refuse to see how the burden of proof rests upon yourself.

Nope, you just don't want to see it, you want to believe in your invisible god, invisible mind, invisible thought and all that bollocks and all of these with precisely DICK supporting evidence.

No, you're NOT willing to accept you are wrong because you have no way of evaluating it. OTOH people like me have precisely that method ... all we want is the evidence. As Asimov says, I'll believe anything you want if it is supported by evidence.

That is the difference between me and you ... I go where the evidence leads, you go where your fancy leads!

YOU are the one claiming thought is non-physical not I, YOU are the one making the base claim AGAINST the available evidence. YOU must provide the supporting evidence for YOUR claim not me!

Kyu

[Violet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocardiography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_imaging

Any more questions, Fr0do? There is no soul, at least not the way Christians here see it (as being responsible for emotion and/or thought and/or personality.

The 'mind' is an allusion to one's brain... in particular: the 'mind' is a romantic way to express the thinking aspect of the brain.

[fr0d0]

... and yes they are inextricably linked and there are thousands of journals devoted to mind/brain all of which tend to treated thought as a physical concept

Care to link me one then?

This is just the psychology journals and it's debatable whether Wiki has the full list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psy...y_journals

Again...



Thanks for the laughs

Is that the best you can do? A list of psychology journals? Could you be any more vague?

but to claim thoughts exist beyond the physical is a claim supported by absolutely no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) evidence ... it is just a fanciful claim, the same kind of claim for your god, and nothing else.

You don't see that we have reasonably established the physical nature of thought for one reason and one reason alone ...

Which is? Don't tell me ... there's a bit no one has detected yet because ... guess what ... it's not detectable!!!!! IF that's it (or anything like) what a pile of fucking shit!

Erm... you're arguing against your own point here. I didn't write that

YOU are the one claiming thought is non-physical not I, YOU are the one making the base claim AGAINST the available evidence. YOU must provide the supporting evidence for YOUR claim not me!

Have you listened to yourself Kyu?

I'm the one claiming that something doesn't exist physically = I am the one making the negative claim
I'm the one claiming that something does exist without evidence = I am the one making the positive claim

"in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists"

[Rhizomorph13]

Fr0d0,

Actually, belief in a soul or mind posits a "something", ergo a positive claim. You must have evidence to support either claim if you are going to defend them properly.

My belief in a soul is weak so I feel no reason to defend it. It was more a talking point illustrating that atheists can hold kooky beliefs too. I believe that belief is absolutly not a choice so the fact that I believe in a soul and reincarnation is simply an interesting observation regarding my mind.

I also think there is a "mind" seperate from the body OR soul and have no evidence for it. Yay raw assertions. Admittedly it is probably an artifact of the battle between the two worldviews I have in my head, atheism is winning right now but I have changed my mind before and am certainly open to new ideas.

Rhizo