(July 17, 2009 at 1:48 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(July 17, 2009 at 1:43 am)Faith Tester Wrote: erm maybe I am a little lost, but this video was more about whether majic works or not? It had nothing to do with atheism. Or am I missing something?

Just the point. Nothing important really.

Haha well that is a pretty petty thing to miss. I should not be overly concerned then.

(July 17, 2009 at 1:50 am)Faith Tester Wrote: Haha well that is a pretty petty thing to miss. I should not be overly concerned then.

Just step in the discussion where you wish. Things are not overly moderated here so threads might show some straying away from the topic the thread started with, leading to several topic offsprings. Enjoy.

(July 17, 2009 at 1:55 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(July 17, 2009 at 1:50 am)Faith Tester Wrote: Haha well that is a pretty petty thing to miss. I should not be overly concerned then.

Just step in the discussion where you wish. Things are not overly moderated here so threads might show some straying away from the topic the thread started with, leading to several topic offsprings. Enjoy.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

(July 17, 2009 at 1:18 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(July 16, 2009 at 7:09 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 16, 2009 at 1:59 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I'll give a more specific reaction later but as for now I would say this:

If the concept of the number five will prove to coinicide with a certain configuration of (a part of) atoms and electrons in the brain, we still haven't shown that the concept of five IS IDENTICAL TO that configuration. A set of electrons Y may correspond to a mental state X, that does not mean that it IS the mental state X. By stating that all thought is mechanical you neglect to prove this identification. The concept of 'I', though as real as can be, is not identical to a set of electrons in the brain. You're mixing the conceptual level of existence with the physical level.

I am not arguing that free will is impossible. I know that I haven't proved that the concept of the 'I' is just part of what goes on - the electrons etc? - in the physical brain. I'm not trying to prove that. I'm just saying that there's no reason to believe rationally, and logically - because there's no evidence - that there's anything extra to the mechanics. On the matter of concepts - there's no (rational) reason to believe that concepts themelves aren't mechanical, right? There's no evidence (as far as I know anyway?) that everything that exists isn't mechanical...that this isn't a mechanical universe, right?..That just, flows?

I'm just sticking with the least complex hypothesis because I know of no evidence for the non-mechanical. Ultimately anything that we think of as 'not mechanical' is all controlled by mechanics! (as far as I know?). The mechanics of the universe...? The universe just flows mechanically whether it's deterministic or indeterministic, yeah?

Like I said - as far as I know. I'm really curious to see if anyone can (somehow? I dunno what it would look like (or be like)) 'show me otherwise'.
EvF

It seems you haven't read my last posting here. There I give a reason why the physical does not equate to the mental, but still from a monistic physicalistic view.

That you're simply asserting that the mental = the physical without evidence in the face of contrary arguments is exactly why you should evaluate the multiple realizability argument. There is no identity relation. An identity relation (i.e. X=Y) works two ways: given X you get exactly Y, given Y you get exactly X. Delve into it.

Sorry I don't understand because, despite the fact on the one hand "physical" is the opposite to "mental" - my point is that everything we think of as "mental", including it's concept; is made up out of matter in the physical universe...right (as far as we know?)? Because its concept is made out of matter too. Within our brains...everything that really exists, as far as we know - is phyiscal matter in this materialistic universe in which we liv,e right?

So whether we call it physical or not, or say "mental" is the opposite to physical and therefore "Not physical" - that doesn't stop all these "mental" concepts actually being made up of physical matter within our brains, right? So everything "mental" when it comes down to it is ultimately physical matter too, by definition; in the sense that the whole concept(s) exist in our brains...physically (as far as we know, right? Is there any reason to believe there's anything non-physical in our brains? As an exception?).

And if you are not talking about the concept of the "mental"'s actual existence within our brains (which is physical)...then how exactly does anything mental exist? If exists physically in our brains?

I don't see how I'm mixing the conceptual level with the physical levelother than saying that concepts exist physically within our brains, which do you agree, is correct? So even concepts are physical? As far as we know, ultimately, everything is? Unless you know of any exceptions?

Mentality isn't exactly the opposite to the physical when our "mind"s - as far as I we know - exist entirely physically and it's called our "brain"s. If the mind exists at all, there's only evidence that it's the brain and it's physical! So in that sense the two aren't exactly opposites!

The concept of mentality is only the opposite if the mind exists separate to be brain and is shown not to be physical (however that
would be done???).

Because, until then...as far as I know even the concept, the idea - completely lacking evidence - of mentality being non-physical...is actually physical. Such an idea, such as concept - is stored within our brains.

EvF

It's a pitty you don't wanna give a response to the argument handed to you (multiple realizabilty). 'Made up of' isn't the same as 'identical to'. A pitty because it's central in the philosphical debate on the mind-body problem. That discussion could have brought some new insights for me. Now it's evading the argument. Well, I guess this isn't the place to delve that deep into it.

I never said it was the same. I'm saying there's no reason to believe that there's anything extra (to mechanics) - if there's no evidence for it. As I said.

I know of no evidence for anything other than the mechanical, so I - at least currently - believe that to believe otherwise is superfluous.

EvF

I think you're wrong Evie. Just because a thought can be registered as electrical impulses goes nowhere near making that thought 'physical'.

However, you know I agree on your idea of thought being quite mechanical. ie we cannot break out of the influence of our previous thought or outside influences on our conclusions. We make our choices.. that's free will. Could we have made any other choices.. no.

1. Everything that we have evidence of is made of matter as far as we know, right? Is materialistic and physical, etc. And what evidence is there for any of this being controlled and it not being down to mechanics? There is missing evidence for control, there's evidence of mechanical control...where's the evidence for non mechanical control? I know of none. So I therefore think it's rational to hold the position that currently at least - there's just no valid reason to believe in any non-mechanical control when there's only evidence for mechanical control (as far as I know anyway, enlighten me).

2. How are thoughts not physical when I assume they are controlled by the physical laws, mechanics of the universe; and I assume this rationally in my mind - it's the least complex hypothesis - because, as far as I know, everything that we have evidence of is mechanical and physical, right?

As I have said - and several times now - I am not saying that it has to be mechanical, or that it definitely is physical. I'm saying: Why treat it as an exception?? If we are to do that - where's the evidence for such an exception, that it isn't physical, unlike everything else we know of which, as far as we know is physical; in this materialistic universe that as far as we know - is purely mechanical. Well - I mean that I believe it's fully mechanical...untill I know of any evidence to the contrary! Any evidence for anything that is somehow not controlled by mechanics and isn't a physical thing and yet still somehow actually exists.

EvF

(July 17, 2009 at 5:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: LOTS OF STUFF

Very well put Ev ... I've been trying to get this idea across to Frodo now for months with no success. He just believes that his god and all it represents is somehow (without rational justification) an exception.

Kyu

Well I thrashed this out with Evie last night for a few hours on IM and I conclude that thought is indeed not a physical 'thing'. Evie seemed to me, without any good reason he could come up with, to hold onto his position despite the overwhelming logic to the contrary.

Evie asked me to prove that thought isn't a physical thing.

1. Thought passes all tests for something that doesn't physically exist: you can't hear it, see it, touch it, smell it.

Thought uses physical medium as transport but thought isn't the transport. Thought uses air, electricity, paint, ink etc. Thought is the rider on that transport. It's never the transport. It is always separate. Thought is created by a physical process in the brain, which is physical. Thought is communicated through physical medium but remains non physical. Thought can be enacted upon to produce physical effect but then ceases to be thought.

2. Thought fails all tests for something that exists.

Evie asserts that there is such a thing as a physical thought. I call bogus as there's no such allowance in the term 'physical'. Again thought may be born out of physical process involving electrical impulses in the brain but thought is more than those impulses. The impulses are dumb facilitators of thought.

3. I assert that thought doesn't exist physically. It isn't possible then to physically prove a negative.

Evie holds that theoretically, thought is a physical substance yet unknown. On that presumption Evie feels justified in classifying thought as a physical entity because everything else in this physical universe is physical so thought must be too. My far from perfect analogy was that because a playground consisted of 99 girls and 1 boy, by his logic Evie would conclude that the playground contains 100 girls. He dismisses the boy because the boy has no other comparable examples so then can't be evidence of something which exists.