Regariding the evidence for materialism

[theVOID]

Cool. That's no small agreement, so let's celebrate with a virtual beer here. <clink>

I'm not sure how significant it really is, but I like beer, virtual or otherwise! <clink>

Btw, I've been reading about stuff on these topics for a long time but I've never seen this gnostic bit anywhere else but here. What's that about? Has "hard" and "strong" been replaced or is this an idiosyncracy only practiced here?

Not really, they're much more common (and more useful) terms in my experience. I've never liked the hard/strong distinction, I'd prefer to use more descriptive terms.

The second link is an archive of papers, hundreds of them, so I wasn't suggesting you read them all. My point was that this isn't at all as settled a question as the Certainists amongst us insist it is. As for the Pinocchio paper, the short version works like this: Materialism is inherently flawed up and down the line.

For what reasons?

There's no question that the brain directly effects mental experience, but there is no way that it is a given that it's a one-way street and that the mind cannot effect the brain.

That would only be a useful way of looking at it presupposing that mind is not brain whereas materialists would say that Mind == (some of the) Brain, certain parts of the brain and mind are simply indistinguishable, one and the same, this can and has been demonstrated via a myriad of experiments, stimulating or deactivating certain parts of the brain can completely change a persons sense of self or even remove it. A good friend of mine had a brain tumour and post-surgery he was pretty much a completely different person; His attitudes, taste in food, music, art, his temperament, mannerisms and general personality all changed - This is exactly what we would expect to happen given Mind == Brain and (correct me if I'm wrong) precisely not what we would expect if Mind is non-brain, an immaterial mind/self would not be dramatically altered by changes to the brain.

There are scads of studies about this, so go poke around.

I have done an enormous amount of research into neuroscience and the philosophy of mind, it's one of the subjects with which I am the most fascinated. If you have any specific studies you would like me to read please recommend them, but I don't appreciate being sent off on a wild-hunt.

But right off the top, as often as it is used to dismiss this or that, the Placebo Effect also demonstrates how the mind can effect matter.

If that is what you think the placebo effect is I'd suggest you are the one who needs to do more research. The placebo effect is entirely about the psychology of mind, how perception and expectation can lead to a patient experiencing less of the symptoms of their ailment - There are very few ailments that are actually physically relieved from the placebo effect, all of these that have been studied in any level of detail have been found to have had rather clear mechanisms linking brain and body - Ailments like hernias, anxiety, depression, ulcers, etc all have fairly well understood neuro/chemical causes and changes in the psychology of a person has a causal relationship to the brain's production of various chemicals as well as signals to the body which result in the ailments in question thus we would expect (and can predict) which physical ailments could really be helped by a placebo and will still result in benefits once the person has been told they received an ineffective treatment, as well as which ones (the vast majority) are entirely due to perception/exception and for which the positive effects of the placebo disappear once the person has been told the treatment ineffective.

If you're interested in learning more about the mechanisms of the placebo effect;

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/Sta...nandez.pdf
http://neuro.cjb.net/content/25/45/10390.full
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...3678927629

No, sir. That's not the problem. The problem is that materialists have been shown over and over again to excel at the classic "heads I win/tails you lose" gambit when it comes to evidence that threatens their faith.

It's called the burden of proof - The burden of proof for the claim that the mind and brain are one in the same has been extremely well substantiated - The claim you are making, that aspects of the mind are non-brain is the one that hasn't been demonstrated in any way, shape or form. There are still many aspects of mind and the mechanisms that give rise to it that are not well established and thus we cannot rule out an immaterial aspect of mind (thus the agnosticism) but it is you as the person making the claim that such things exist who has the responsibility to substantiate your claims.

This isn't in any way a case of "heads I win/tails you lose", nor is there any faith involved, it's simple intellectual rigour.

These aspects have been demonstrated over and again, but nothing is ever enough and everything is instantly dismissed.

Examples?

Poke around and you won't have any trouble finding things to challenge the position from different angles. Here's a place to start: http://bit.ly/6HU9qj.

A paranormal podcast? Oh come on! That isn't evidence, there is nothing scientific about it.

Mind, you, I'm not making any claims for any of that stuff, as it's not my interest, but the point is that the notion that there's no contrary evidence to the material pov is pure dogma perpetuated by the choir. It's right up there with "evolution is just a theory" as far as eye-rollers go.

So you're going to come here and claim that materialism is flawed because we "dismiss" evidence for a non-brain aspect of mind, but instead of providing any examples or specific studies to the contrary you're going to link to a podcast and an essay, and then when pressed further claim that "I'm not making any claims for any of that stuff, as it's not my interest"

I'm disappointed... I was expecting a real discussion and challenge, instead it's the typical "you're wrong but i'm not going to say why" shit we get all the time.