The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Cato]

Emergence

Cool, another adult in the room. I’ve been arguing against emergence with respect to qualia. Right now I am rolling genkaus’s and apo’s ideas around to make sure I fully understand their points and see if our respective philosophies are really that far apart. The idea of emergence has a couple of different conotations and I may be confusing them or we may be talking past each other. I hope to jump back in to the conversation after thinking it through more.

"Arguing against emergence with respect to qualia" is fine tuning your OP. This is certainly acceptable as the conversation evolves; however, I hope you understand that even a strong emergence perspective is still monist. Strong emergence advocates must still invoke a vibrating energy or some other woo cause to support their ideas (idea, not philosophy, in a short lived deference to Brian), but they have all stopped short of the god cliff...the sad ending is that science will still push them over.

We may not currently have the ability to map the brain in such a way as to explain the mind ; however, we should all could contemplate that the mind is impossible without the brain without evidence to the contrary.

Take a blind physicist. This person would realize that what most people see as blue is simply the human's ability to perceive a gamma ray at a wave length between X and Z. The blind physicist can accurately describe X and Z quantitatively as certain wavelengths, but will also 'always' have to ask "what wavelength of light is the object I'm touching reflecting?". He/she cannot perceive what we call blue. Qualia in a blind person relative to color doesn't exist. I think it was Hume that first described this in simpler terms that those of us that can perceive colors can describe a Y (hue of blue) having seen X and Z, but a blind person could never do this. The blind person could of course predict Y as a wavelength with a value between X and Z, but could never really imagine the color of Y. Those of us that have perceived X and Y can imagine the blue color Y without ever 'seeing' it and can do so without reference to a specific wavelength.

(Keep in 'mind' here that we are relatively blind relative to the electromagnetic spectrum: credit Neil deGrasse Tyson).

This is where any dualist argument (typically ontological) fails. A blind person possesses mind; I trust you will not argue this. A blind person's mind has no concept of blue as those with sight can conceive it. Neurology has proven the causal link between the eye and the brain regarding perception of color. If the eye doesne't work then the brain cannot properly inerpret color (wavelength of light). If the mind, in the circumstance of a blind person, cannot perceive color it is because the brain cannot conceive color. This is enough for me to conclude that the mind is contingent on brain activity.

If the brain and mind are not the same physical 'stuff', the dualist then has to explain the method of communication between the brain and the mind. This adds another layer of complexity that violates the idea of parsimony, which goes beyond this thread.

[Whateverist]

When he speaks of "semantics" he is referring to your disingenuous semantic prestidigitation. Intellectually dishonest shell games do not make folks understand each other better Nice try, Mr. Snake Oil Salesman.

This will mark the first time I've ever sought relief by means of the ignore function from an ignorant, belligerent asshole on this site who wasn't a theist. Just goes to show how little atheism tells you about who we are or have in common.

Bye now.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Cool, another adult in the room.

The adults in the room have been trying, in vain, to drag the child kicking and screaming to its senses. So far with no success.

[genkaus]

Creating a mental construct is a function; visualizing that construct is an experience. In addition, imagining something only takes you so far. As an artist, I can and do imagine mixing colors and distinguish between various pigment qualities in my head, but, as you say, only conceptually. I can make pictures in my head, yet none of these can substitute for a picture in front of me. Actual reality is more visceral and qualitatively different from imagining it, just as dreams pale in comparision to waking reality.

And how does this address my point that physical description and knowledge can actually lead to an experience? All you have said is that it would be a weaker experience compared to waking reality, but it would be an experience nonetheless.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

This will mark the first time I've ever sought relief by means of the ignore function from an ignorant, belligerent asshole on this site who wasn't a theist. Just goes to show how little atheism tells you about who we are or have in common.

Bye now.

I love how every whiny pussy who makes a big show of setting another account to ignore invariably spends the rest of their time reading every post from that account and usually responds to them as well, demonstrating for all the sort of immature crybabies they are.

"Ignore" is for Poseurs.

[Angrboda]

You know, Brian, for someone who claims that eschewing the word philosophy leads to less dogmatic thinking, your views on philosophy and the use of the word are incredibly dogmatic. I can only conclude from this that either you are wrong (by reductio ad absurdum), or you don't practice what you preach.

No I am hardly dogmatic.

Everyone has claims, even me. An if shit were shinola I would be an investor.

But when it comes to evidence the bad approach is to assume it is true. The better approach is to test. I dream as much as the next person. But I don't call my claims anything but ideas until they have had their ass kicked and confirmed.

Okay, then describe to me the test that was used to confirm the idea that falsifiability is a good quality for a scientific theorem to have. What test, experiment or observation would lead us to conclude that falsifiability is not a good or useful characteristic for a theory? How has "falsifiability" been "confirmed" -- and note that you are retreating from the standard of falsifiability to the weaker, more problematic standard of verification in this case; why?

I'll cut to the chase if you like. Your "ideas" have already been tried, examined, and found wanting well over a half century ago. On that basis, are you willing to give up "the idea" that ideas have to be scientifically and empirically confirmed in order for them to be valid? Or is this an idea you are not willing to give up if challenged?

[Brian37]

"the idea" that ideas have to be scientifically and empirically confirmed in order for them to be valid? Or is this an idea you are not willing to give up if challenged?

There is a difference between things we accept without evidence in daily life, for example, I have a reasonable expectation that my house will still be in tact when I get home. I have a reasonable expectation that my cat will still be alive when I get home, he is young enough and strictly an indoor cat. And then there are outrageous claims like Big Foot, Area 51 UFO crap, perpetual motion machines, phone psychics and god/s deities/super natural.

I don't assume that my house wont suffer damage ever, I do live in hurricane territory, I don't assume my cat will live forever, but my house exists and my cat exists. Those other claims are not provable and are merely the conspiracy pet whims of those who support them.

If my house got damaged by a fallen tree or hit by lightening, I wouldn't keep my prior expectation that it is ok, when new data comes in, I change. When my cat gets older my expectations will change because when any pet or human gets old their health becomes an issue.

The other claims I mentioned don't start in anything provable, other than humans have vivid imaginations.

[KichigaiNeko]

I love how every whiny pussy who makes a big show of setting another account to ignore invariably spends the rest of their time reading every post from that account and usually responds to them as well, demonstrating for all the sort of immature crybabies they are.

"Ignore" is for Poseurs.

NO, not really Taqiy. The ignore button is useful for those of us who have had just about enough of the incoherrent ramblings of others and can no longer see said posts without lauching into a diatribe of abuse. It is a safety valve and nothing more.... when those of us who use said feature can calm down enough to post something intelligent and rational sans the abuse then we will...until then # 66

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Like I said...

[Brian37]

I love how every whiny pussy who makes a big show of setting another account to ignore invariably spends the rest of their time reading every post from that account and usually responds to them as well, demonstrating for all the sort of immature crybabies they are.

"Ignore" is for Poseurs.

NO, not really Taqiy. The ignore button is useful for those of us who have had just about enough of the incoherrent ramblings of others and can no longer see said posts without lauching into a diatribe of abuse. It is a safety valve and nothing more.... when those of us who use said feature can calm down enough to post something intelligent and rational sans the abuse then we will...until then # 66

I am not a fan of the ignore function myself, just like I hate guns. BUT, it boils down to comfort level for either side. If there were one right way to handle life, utopias would exist, but since they don't you can only do with your life what you do with it.

No different to me with advising gays or atheists as to how deal with others. Some are confrontational and some are "cant we all just get along".

The truth is not either or, but individual and most of the time a combo of both.