(July 18, 2009 at 6:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. Thought passes all tests for something that doesn't physically exist: you can't hear it, see it, touch it, smell it.

You can measure it and new work by Japanese researchers demonstrate the early stages of being able to read it.

Kyu

Show me. How can you measure a thought? Are you talking measuring the electrical activity? Translating the electrical activity into something else? This still isn't the thought itself, just the transport, facilitator or receiver. Without substantiation your point is outside reality and only in theory. It doesn't count.

(July 18, 2009 at 6:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Evie asked me to prove that thought isn't a physical thing.

Because far as I know this is a physical universe that (at least seems to!) follow physical laws. So I needed to know a reason to believe that thought is an exception. It is 'mental' which is often thought as opposed to physical....but since I'm a materialist and I believe the mind is the brain and the brain is an entirely physical thing...I would think any 'thought' that goes on in my head are physical particles and not something that is an exception to the rest of the known universe. If by non-physical you mean it's mental and (at least so far!) undetectable by science, fine. But I mean it's physical in the sense that - it's part of the physical universe and isn't separate to the laws of physics - as far as I know! - I assume until any evidence is provided for me to believe it's somehow an exception, somehow not part of the physical universe, and somehow able to have an effect on the physical without being physical, without following physical laws!

To reiterate: The brain is physical, I'm a materialist, what goes on in the brain is physical (just like I believe everything else in the universe is)...so I believe thought is physical and if the 'mind' exists, it's the brain or what goes on in there, physically, following physics. You can say that 'mental' doesn't equal 'physical', but I believe the mind is an entirely physical, material thing called the brain, due to me being a materialist.

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

.

We can't. How does this prove it isn't physical?

And how do you know some alien race out there can't detect thoughts in such a way?

And whether it can or can't...I see no reason to believe thought is in anyway separate to the rest of the physical universe, or indeed - the physical brain.

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.

Quote:2. Thought fails all tests for something that exists.

Whatever we 'think of' as our thoughts ("I think therefore I am") is our thoughts, right? When we think "X" then that=us thinking and our thought... - I see no reason to make these thoughts that go on in my head (and others' heads) an exception the physical universe. I assume they physically go on in my physical brain whether detected by tests by us or not.

My point is that there's no reason to believe they aren't part of the physical universe, don't follow the physical universe, that they are in that sense "special" in anyway - or that they aren't made up of physical matter! Whether touchable/visable/smellable, etc, etc - or not! This doesn't mean they're "different" or "special" in the sense of not part of the physical universe, not following the laws of physics or not made up of physical matter - just that they aren't physically detectable at least yet at least by us, the human race.

Quote: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'.

I just assume thoughts physically exist in the brain whether we can touch them or not! The mind is material, it's the brain! Are materialists not allowed so say the brain is physical because it's opposed to mental?

Well I need a word or two different to "mind" and "thought" that can be material versions then(!).

How would thoughts not follow physical laws and not be part of the universe? People will say something is "mental" and "not physical", but I just mean that "mental" is physical; in the sense that it's made up of physical matter, part of the physical universe, following physical laws - and I know of no reason to make it an exception to the physical universe!!

Quote:3. I assert that thought doesn't exist physically.

So it's not part of the physical universe then? We may say mental isn't phyiscal...but in the sense that thoughts I assume follows the physics of this universe that we live in, and are made up of matter, are material in this materialistic universe - how are they not physical? I don't mean you can touch them!

Quote: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.

It's a false analogy because about half of the people on this planet are boys! So if I know of 99 girls I'm not going to assume the 100th is girl if there's still a 50/50 chance (about) that the remaining child is just as likely to be a boy! Unless it's a playground entirely for girls or something!

What I'm saying is that as far as I know everything in the universe is physical, this is a physical universe that follows physical laws. And just because thought isn't something you can touch, etc, physically - doesn't mean it's not physical in the sense of separate to the physical universe, not made of matter and not entirely materialistic!

A correct analogy would be perhaps more like ( and I will try to attempt this analogy lol):....In a hypothetical existence, if every particle in the universe had a gender...and as far as we know 100% of the particles that we ever had any evidence for were made up of something you could call "girl particles"....and no one had ever seen any strange thing called a "boy particle"....and yet just because 1 particle is undetectable it's assumed to be a "boy particle" simply because it's not proven to be a girl one!

I would be saying "Why assume it's some strange thing called a "boy particle" that you speak of (whatever that is), why make an exception? Considering that everything we have evidence of so far appears to be a girl particle...isn't it much more likely that it's just not detectable by us and yet it's still a girl particle? Why would it be an exception just because our science (at least yet) can't reach it? I mean, I [b]still/b] believe it's a girl particle because I have no reason to believe it's not part of this girly universe and that it doesn't follow its girly laws! Where is this "boy" particle that you speak of? If you mean "boy" to mean "doesn't pass the tests for girl" fine, but I mean it's actually "girl" in the sense why believe it doesn't follow girly laws and isn't part of this girly particle universe! That it isn't physically... a girl particle that is simply undetectable!"



""Hidden girl", or "Girl at least thus far undetectable by science" I think would make more sense. I see no reason to believe it's an exception to the girly universe or is actually this "boy" that you speak of. If by "boy" you just mean assumed to be the same as girl but undetectable, fine. But then it's still actually girly and follows the girly laws like everything else I assume! It's just a "hidden girl", just not detected by our science (at least as of yet). Why make an exception and say it isn't part of the girly universe and isn't a girly particle made up out of girly matter! Just because we can't detect it with our science yet!".

Lol, well I've attempted the analogy anyway

But anyway the point is that your analogy fails because a boy or girl is a 50/50 chance, it's not as though "there's no evidence for the existence of any boys so why believe that the unknown child is a boy!" - We don't live in that reality! It could very easily be a boy amongst girls in this reality obviously because it's pretty much a 50/50 thing here! Unless it's an all girl playground or something!

EvF

(July 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 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

If you really want to stay close to evidence it is more correct to state that the 'I' exists not that 'I' IS mechanical. In the end there is no hard evidence of the material nature of our world because everything (also in the materialistic view) is experienced indirectly. Experience of 'I' comes first to everything. So if you assert that 'I' is a product of of the mechanical and that all follows from there, then in fact you are reversing claim and evidence. The mechanical does not follow from the experience of 'I'. The purest thing to say is that there'no reason to believe that there's anything extra to 'I'. So what hard reasons do you have that the mechanical exists at all. You have none.

And indeed if you claim the mechanical world you are therefore implicitly claiming that 'I' somehow is a product of the mechanical. So the burden of proof is already on your shoulders, because mechanics is not the same as the experience of 'I' and the mechanics therefore is the superfluous part.

---

(July 18, 2009 at 7:08 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(July 18, 2009 at 6:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 1. Thought passes all tests for something that doesn't physically exist: you can't hear it, see it, touch it, smell it.

You can measure it and new work by Japanese researchers demonstrate the early stages of being able to read it.

Kyu

I agree with Fro, you cannot measure the direct experience of 'I'. You cannot measure first person experience but your own.

(July 18, 2009 at 8:11 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(July 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 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

If you really want to stay close to evidence it is more correct to state that the 'I' exists not that 'I' IS mechanical. In the end there is no hard evidence of the material nature of our world because everything (also in the materialistic view) is experienced indirectly. Experience of 'I' comes first to everything. So if you assert that 'I' is a product of of the mechanical and that all follows from there, then in fact you are reversing claim and evidence. The mechanical does not follow from the experience of 'I'. The purest thing to say is that there'no reason to believe that there's anything extra to 'I'. So what hard reasons do you have that the mechanical exists at all. You have none.

It's mechanical by the process of elimination. There's no evidence for the opposite, for anything not mechanical.

What I experience as myself I no longer believe to be the starting point once the rest of existence hits me in the face with its overwhelming logic and evidence!

IOW: I'm not a solipsist.

Whatever we mean when we say "mechanical" I believe there is plenty of evidence of! Regardless of if anyhting other than 'I' exists. The evidence of the physics, the mechanics of the universe, whatever we mean when we say that by that definiton, there is evidence of.

Because: There is evidence for the workings of things, the mechanics of it. And not anything extra to that, right?

So what do you mean that we have no evidence for the mechanical?

On the contrary...that's all[ we have evidence of! Where's the evidence for the non-mechanical? If there's evidence for me, there's mechanical evidence for me...but where's the evidence for non mechanical evidence of me? There's evidence for my mechanics "I'm thinking" what else??? Where's the evidence that I, or anything else, is separate to that ultimately...and non mechanical?

If it's ever fair to say there's evidence of anything - any of this evidence that we have - there is evidence for the workings of, the mechanics of; so there's the evidence. Evidence for anything further? No. Right?

Quote:And indeed if you claim the mechanical world you are therefore implicitly claiming that 'I' somehow is a product of the mechanical.

There's no evidence that I am not mechanical. There is evidence for the mechanics of the universe. Why would 'I' be some sort of bizarre exception to this?

Quote:So the burden of proof is already on your shoulders, because mechanics is not the same as the experience of 'I' and the mechanics therefore is the superfluous part.

I'm not saying it has to be the same (as I have said at least twice now) - I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there's no reason to believe that it isn't the same way. IOW: No reason to make an exception!

Finally...even if we go to solipsism and we said that "I" am all that exists (be it me or you or whoever)...if external reality is me, whether it's me or not - that doesn't stop the fact that there's only evidence for the mechanics of it/me! Be it that case then: As far as I know, if I'm all that exists...there's evidence for my own mechanics then....and nothing more!

EvF

(July 18, 2009 at 9:32 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If it's ever fair to say there's evidence of anything - any of this evidence that we have - there is evidence for the workings of, the mechanics of; so there's the evidence. Evidence for anything further? No. Right?

If it's ever fair to say there's evidence of anything there's evidence for first person experience which at this moment is unexplained by the mechanical world view. Since the mechanical worldview is incapable of adequately explaning the most primary fact of existence the claim that everything is mechanical is not substantiated and the burden of proof to that claim is on the shoulders of its proposers.

If it's ever fair to say there's evidence of anything it's fair to say there's evidence for the mechanical workings of personal experience, in that case then. Why mechanical? Well: You say it's unexplained by the mechanical worldview. But it's got no non mechanical explanation and nor has anything else...and I don't see why it should be an exception!

If there's evidence for the workings, the experience of the self...how is it rational to believe there is anything more to that and that the self has any non mechanical aspects? What on earth would they be? What would it even look like?

If I'm all that exists it's more simple to believe I'm mechanical than I'm not. I have self-evidence to myself for my mind merely "thinking stuff" - for the mechanics of it - even if it's just the experience...but not anything more than that. Because of course: Belief that 'I' am "more than mechanical", is not any evidence that I am! So it's more logical to first assume I'm mechanical until otherwise demonstrated! Right?

Because it's the alternative to non-mechanical and if I merely believe that what I'm "thinking" isn't mechanical - that doesn't demonstrate anything further than the fact that I'm simply thinking it...in other words: It demonstrates nothing further than the mechanics of it! I'm only thinking that I'm more than mechanical, in that case. Merely thinking it. That's mechanics. Where's the evidence that it would be anything further?

EvF

(July 18, 2009 at 7:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Show me. How can you measure a thought? Are you talking measuring the electrical activity? Translating the electrical activity into something else? This still isn't the thought itself, just the transport, facilitator or receiver. Without substantiation your point is outside reality and only in theory. It doesn't count.

One could say that all thought is is electrical impulses that are interpreted by the brain. Thought is just the concept we give to this interpretation.

Here is a mind-controlled wheelchair:
[youtube]NbSUa7nCSpo[/youtube]
The user thinks a specific direction, and the computer measures the electrical impulse and interprets it (as far as I am aware that is how it works).

Hehe. I forgot about all that shit

My point is fr0d0 that there's no reason to believe thought is anything further....whether we think it is or not!

It's simply postulating extra unnecessary complexity and improbability that is not required, when you say thought=extra to that. Where's the evidence that it needs to be anything further?

EvF

That's still electrical impulses resulting from thought - it doesn't demonstrate the existence of thought itself. We have very many ways to prove thought having effect.

I'm not suggesting that thought isn't created, transported or received physically. I'm suggesting thought doesn't physically exist on it's own.