(October 8, 2013 at 10:58 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 10:46 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: You're really THAT desperate ?
YOU set the thermometer. It did not set itself. YOU have a brain. It's YOUR goal, not the thermometer's goal.
Try try again.

So you resort to special pleading? Your philosophy has no basis for assigning mentation to one physical process as opposed to another.

BTW, that's not Special Pleading, unless you're actually trying to say that thermometers think.

What it (your thermometer bs), is however, is the Fallacy of the False Analogy.
Try harder.

Whateverist, I can accept that you find my dualist perspective less than compelling when I have presented it in other threads. That does not prevent me from showing that claims about emergent properties are incoherent nonsense. Nor should it bar me from asking my materialist counterparts to explain and support the theories they put forward. Let’s assume that I am wrong. That does not make the materialist position correct.

Nor should materialism be considered the default position. Any strongly counter-intuitive philosophy that undermines the attributes that make us human requires close scrutiny. Especially since the arguments against dualism are not as strong as many here suppose, as presented in the paper title “Giving Dualism its Due” by William Lycan.

NDE’s exemplify mental activity in the absence of a functioning brain. Some of these have been very well documented. It seems the only reason for dismissing them is because they do not fit the current materialist paradigm. There is also the strange case of John Lorber. Lorber had a measured IQ of 126, yet CAT scans revealed that he had only 10% of normal brain volume. Sure he still had a brain, but not much of one.

Of course my thermostat example is absurd. That’s the point. Materialist theories devolve into just these sorts of absurd equivalencies…the kind that makes concepts like intentionality meaningless.

Apo, I thought I already addressed Leibnitz’s idea of pre-existing harmony. In it, the correspondence between mental events and brain states is accidental and not causative. It just so happens that they align, for whatever reason. That was his solution to the interaction problem, but not one that I share. As for what constitutes a mental property as opposed to a physical one, I agree with the position that their “aboutness”, or intentionality, and qualitative aspects differentiate them from purely physical processes.

---

(October 8, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: BTW, that's not Special Pleading, unless you're actually trying to say that thermometers think.

Either thermostats can think in the same way as dogs OR dogs cannot think just as thermostats cannot. That isn't my dilemma, it's yours. You must take a stance.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Whateverist, I can accept that you find my dualist perspective less than compelling when I have presented it in other threads. That does not prevent me from showing that claims about emergent properties are incoherent nonsense. Nor should it bar me from asking my materialist counterparts to explain and support the theories they put forward. Let’s assume that I am wrong. That does not make the materialist position correct.

Nor should materialism be considered the default position. Any strongly counter-intuitive philosophy that undermines the attributes that make us human requires close scrutiny. Especially since the arguments against dualism are not as strong as many here suppose, as presented in the paper title “Giving Dualism its Due” by William Lycan.

NDE’s exemplify mental activity in the absence of a functioning brain. Some of these have been very well documented. It seems the only reason for dismissing them is because they do not fit the current materialist paradigm. There is also the strange case of John Lorber. Lorber had a measured IQ of 126, yet CAT scans revealed that he had only 10% of normal brain volume. Sure he still had a brain, but not much of one.

Of course my thermostat example is absurd. That’s the point. Materialist theories devolve into just these sorts of absurd equivalencies…the kind that makes concepts like intentionality meaningless.

Apo, I thought I already addressed Leibnitz’s idea of pre-existing harmony. In it, the correspondence between mental events and brain states is accidental and not causative. It just so happens that they align, for whatever reason. That was his solution to the interaction problem, but not one that I share. As for what constitutes a mental property as opposed to a physical one, I agree with the position that their “aboutness”, or intentionality, and qualitative aspects differentiate them from purely physical processes.

Quote:NDE’s exemplify mental activity in the absence of a functioning brain. Some of these have been very well documented.

We have "documentation" of Egyptians believing that the sun was a god. That does not mean because they could point to the sun, that they had one fucking clue what it actually was.

If we are separate from our brains then blow your head off with a shotgun(I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT), then see if you can still think and come back.

We don't doubt that people claim this type of crap. We do doubt their perceptions of what they are "experiencing".

The reality of NDE is nothing more than a lack of understanding of what happens when the brain shuts down. Once the structure is beyond repair(not a misdiagnosis, or flying under the radar), but physically dead beyond any medically detected window, you are dead. PERIOD!

NDE is is your brain dumping out all its files mixing with your other cognitive and unconscious senses. People come back from that yes, but all that means is the process did not get beyond repair.

People survive "seeming" death, but no one survives death beyond repair.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Whateverist, I can accept that you find my dualist perspective less than compelling when I have presented it in other threads. That does not prevent me from showing that claims about emergent properties are incoherent nonsense. Nor should it bar me from asking my materialist counterparts to explain and support the theories they put forward. Let’s assume that I am wrong. That does not make the materialist position correct.

Nor should materialism be considered the default position. Any strongly counter-intuitive philosophy that undermines the attributes that make us human requires close scrutiny. Especially since the arguments against dualism are not as strong as many here suppose, as presented in the paper title “Giving Dualism its Due” by William Lycan.

NDE’s exemplify mental activity in the absence of a functioning brain. Some of these have been very well documented. It seems the only reason for dismissing them is because they do not fit the current materialist paradigm. There is also the strange case of John Lorber. Lorber had a measured IQ of 126, yet CAT scans revealed that he had only 10% of normal brain volume. Sure he still had a brain, but not much of one.

Of course my thermostat example is absurd. That’s the point. Materialist theories devolve into just these sorts of absurd equivalencies…the kind that makes concepts like intentionality meaningless.

Apo, I thought I already addressed Leibnitz’s idea of pre-existing harmony. In it, the correspondence between mental events and brain states is accidental and not causative. It just so happens that they align, for whatever reason. That was his solution to the interaction problem, but not one that I share. As for what constitutes a mental property as opposed to a physical one, I agree with the position that their “aboutness”, or intentionality, and qualitative aspects differentiate them from purely physical processes.

---

(October 8, 2013 at 2:18 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: BTW, that's not Special Pleading, unless you're actually trying to say that thermometers think.

Either thermostats can think in the same way as dogs OR dogs cannot think just as thermostats cannot. That isn't my dilemma, it's yours. You must take a stance.

And that is what is called a "non-sequitur".
So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?

(October 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with current debates within the philosophy of mind. You do not seem to understand the dilemma you have created for yourself.

(October 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with current debates within the philosophy of mind. You do not seem to understand the dilemma you have created for yourself.

Waste of time.
There is no function of "mind" which operates without intact brain structures, and you cannot name ONE.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Whateverist, I can accept that you find my dualist perspective less than compelling when I have presented it in other threads. That does not prevent me from showing that claims about emergent properties are incoherent nonsense. Nor should it bar me from asking my materialist counterparts to explain and support the theories they put forward. Let’s assume that I am wrong. That does not make the materialist position correct.
...

Are you claiming there is no such thing as an emergent property?

(October 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with current debates within the philosophy of mind. You do not seem to understand the dilemma you have created for yourself.

Please take some time to realize that reality is not scrutinized by philosophy.

(October 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with current debates within the philosophy of mind. You do not seem to understand the dilemma you have created for yourself.

There is no "mind" PERIOD.

WE are merely our brains in motion. Once our brains are beyond repair, the motion you stupidly call a thing, is like calling the observation of speed of a car a thing, WHICH IT IS NOT,! Once the structure our brains are get beyond repair, there is no "speed" or "mind" to observe.

There is no debate, other than narcissism of myth lovers and new age bullshit artists try to create.

Mind is to brain as windows is to CPU (Central Processing Unit, also known as the micro-processor, or just processor, the thing made by Intel or AMD).
Although, a brain also has memory, so put a part of the motherboard and the memory in there too.