Most of the atheists on this forum make a habit of dodging their burden of proof when it comes to defending the material basis for subjective experiences.

The typical atheist claim is that material processes, at the level of classical physics, i.e. elecro-chemical reations, produce non-physical subjective experiences. That is a very extraordinary, though common, claim. The theory that subjective experience = brain state is so woefully inadequate as to be on the same level as creationism. And here is why.

Mental phenomena have no mass or volume, so whatever is happening, must be happening outside of classical physics. Explaining consciousness as an emergent property of matter at the scale of classical physics defies logic. The most common example of emergence is the relationship between a car and its parts. Drivability for example is a property of the car but not any of the parts. This analogy is flawed. First, it only describes a functional relationship. Functional relationships describe what thoughts do, not what a thoughts are, how they feel, or why they occur at all. Second, a car shares basic physical properties with its parts. Parts respond to heat and collisions in the same way that the car as a whole does. Not so with brain matter and thought. Although they are functionally related, what we call mind and the brain have no shared physical properties. Physical trauma to the brain may alter the contents of consciousness, but it doesn’t make any sense to describe a thought as being physically damaged. For example, you could dye the brain green and it wouldn't make the thoughts green.

In previous threads I have defended a panpsychic philosophy. However, this time I want to see you, materialist atheist, defend the claim that mental experiences reduce to physical processes.

"Thoughts" don't do anything, the word "thought" is a place card word to an abstraction. You are accusing the "speed" of the car as being the car itself.

"thoughts" are merely the outcome of our material processes, much like 55mph is the observation of "speed" of the car. Speed is not a thing, but a description of the material process of the car moving faster.

We do have reactions to thoughts when we have them or express them in physical communication. Just like if we were crossing the street and we would react to the "speed" of the physical car if it were headed at us.

We have neurons that can be measured and we have brain activity that can be measured. Doctors can hook electrodes to your head, or put you in a CT tube, and measure your brain activity when you think about certain things. Just like we cant trap speed without a car, but we can use a speed gun to determine how fast the car is going.

This is the misconception even atheists can have about science is strictly about the material. No, science is about anything that can be observed. Just like we don't know what is in the center of a black whole, but we can see what it does to light when it gets to the event horizon.

To understand the mistake you are making. I would suggest reading both Victor Stenger's "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism".

Wow Brian, wow.
Well I think thats this thread done.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "Thoughts" don't do anything, the word "thought" is a place card word to an abstraction. You are accusing the "speed" of the car as being the car itself.

Your analogy misses the point. Thought has an experiential component without a causal link to any physical process. Descriptions of how we think and feel do not correspond to anything measurable or observable. What is the observable difference between neural activity that produces pain versus neural activity that produces the memory of your grandmother? Location? Intensity? Please explain why should those matter and cause differences in felt experience? Moreover, why do some neural activities produce no conscious experiences at all when the brain is still alive and functioning? Do you think toasters have subjective experiences?

(May 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "Thoughts" don't do anything, the word "thought" is a place card word to an abstraction. You are accusing the "speed" of the car as being the car itself.

Your analogy misses the point. Thought has an experiential component without a causal link to any physical process. Descriptions of how we think and feel do not correspond to anything measurable or observable. What is the observable difference between neural activity that produces pain versus neural activity that produces the memory of your grandmother? Location? Intensity? Please explain why should those matter and determine differences in felt experience? Moreover, why do some neural activities produce no conscious experiences at all when the brain is still alive and functioning? Do you think toasters have subjective experiences?

Er... no... no it didn't. Pretty sure it hit it dead on. You've just retreated back to gaps in the human understanding of the brain.
I mean I get it, I wouldn't want to admit it either but your arguement got ripped apart like the last sanitary towel in a particularly rough womans prison.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Er... no... no it didn't. Pretty sure it hit it dead on. You've just retreated back to gaps in the human understanding of the brain.
I mean I get it, I wouldn't want to admit it either but your arguement got ripped apart like the last sanitary towel in a particularly rough womans prison.

What I'm asking is for you to defend your extraordinary claims. If you cannot answer the questions about the gaps in your theory then the brain=mind is unsupported and as stupid as asking for physical evidence for God.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Er... no... no it didn't. Pretty sure it hit it dead on. You've just retreated back to gaps in the human understanding of the brain.
I mean I get it, I wouldn't want to admit it either but your arguement got ripped apart like the last sanitary towel in a particularly rough womans prison.

What I'm asking is for you to defend your extraordinary claims. If you cannot answer the questions then the brain=mind is unsupported.

Yeah, just read through to make sure.
No-one here claimed the 'brain=mind".
If the brain was a computer then the mind would be a operating system.

(May 31, 2012 at 4:52 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: No-one here claimed the 'brain=mind"...If our brain was a computer then the mind would be the operating system.

Retreating into semantics are you. So are you now saying that Linux causes subjective experience?

(May 31, 2012 at 4:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 31, 2012 at 4:52 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: No-one here claimed the 'brain=mind"...If our brain was a computer then the mind would be the operating system.

Retreating into semantics are you. So are you now saying that Linux causes subjective experience?

After what you just tried to pull I really wouldn't be accusing anyone of retreating.
I'm saying that Linux is a program made up by alot of information and stored on a computer, our minds are comparable in that they are the sum total of the information that makes us who we are stored in our brains.