Regariding the evidence for materialism

[Fred]

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>

<sniff> You're my first one here. Yeah, <sniff> it's important. Really, though, it's a fundamental point, so I'm damn glad to hear it.

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.

Heh. I just wish you guys would nail it down once and for all, so we could put the bald is a hair color phase behind us. Yeah, I dream.

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?

See long version. C'mon man. I'm not going to do all the lifting around here. You guys ask for stuff, I give it, then you blow it off or ask me to bullet point it for you. Wtf is with that, as this is the third time today this has come up.

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.

Can we settle this for once and put this one point to bed? Mind not being fully reducible to brain does not mean that mind is independent of brain. Of course changes in the brain effect all the things you say. For the sake of discussion, let's posit everything neuroscience says as far as brain function as true. Just the facts though, not the conclusions you guys then slap on top. I'm Joe Friday this way. Just the facts.

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.

Heh. No problem. You want them summarized before or after I send them? That archive I sent is crawling with articles, go poke around. It's all laid out clearly. You being familiar with the field, you should be able to see if there's anything there of worth.

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

Wow. That was awesome, Dr. Really. It's like Rhythm with his ants dance. Regardless of it's applicability to the main point, as tangents go, it's the learning channel, and I really like that stuff. I really do mean this. But all that being so, I kind of got stuck on the "very few" at the beginning, and the "vast majority" at the end.

One white crow, and it's a done deal, such is the box you guys built for yourselves. I'm not concerned with the minutia of the placebo effect beyond the simple fact that it is part of a body of larger evidence that shows that mind can effect matter. And the endless repetitions that none of the evidence is valid is not going to change that.

This evidence game is a serious problem, and I have every intention of going straight at it because I may be new here, but I am not new to the dynamic and I know this fucking drill back and forth. I don't mean your post specifically, but the way this whole show is playing out since I popped up.

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 -

No. the brain correlates have been extremely well mapped, though there's still a long way to go, but you guys haven't at all nailed anything else down.

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.

Uh, no. That isn't so. There's a lot of flab instead of rigor, and that's what I want to focus on, not the the minutia of the ants dance or the placebo effect or whatever pet projects anyone has. In short, I am not qualified to yammer about this and that tree, but I know when the woods are burning, and that's what I'm interested in focusing on.

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

Examples?

See what I mean? It's a game, Void. A dodge and a weave. It never ends. If I had time enough and love, we could do this for years, and at the end, you'd still be asking for more. It's part of the dance. Look, the best example of this dynamic in full over-blown cartoon fury happened right here in one of my threads.

I posted the bit about the guy with essentially no brain having the IQ of 126 and getting some math degree, and someone slid right by that and said they would be interested in what else the guy could do since a math degree didn't necessarily imply other cognitive areas.

Chew on that a minute, Void.

The point isn't to examine anything. It's to dismiss everything, no matter what, and then go right back to saying there's no evidence yadda.

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.

That's the dispassionate spirit we've all come to love with you guys. I know what's in there, so I don't even have to look. Now, give me more, so I don't have to look at that either. And if you can bullet point it, all the better.

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"

Look, void. It's just me responding to all of you, and there's a bit else going on, so excuse my sloppy rendering. Let me clear this up. I'm not here to argue the minutia level stuff about NDEs or paranormal stuff per so. It's not my thing. I don't do the skeptic shuffle and follow the arguments. That's what I mean by not qualified, don't care. Meaning, I don't want to get lost while you guys pull out your favorite area of expertise and go into sidebars that shoot right past my thesis.

I can't keep up with all of this, which sucks, because this place is just what I wanted, but didn't know about. I have several fires going with these threads, but they all converge upon my main thesis, so I am going to have to go triage and hit them all in one shot.

I'm not here to say that the materialist argument is wrong. I'm saying it's broken, as it cannot stand up to its own truth claim. It's all going to funnel into the evidence question, which is good because this is seemingly the only arrow you guys have in your quiver. Busted and without a sharp point, whatever, shoot what ya got, I suppose.

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.

Whatever else, I'm not the same old shit you get all the time, Void. I'll see ya in the other thread if you show up.