The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[StatCrux]

So now you are saying thoughts are not physical? I'm happy with that, that's what I said from the outset. Thought cannot be reduced to a physical object that exists in the brain as it is not physical, by your own admission.

Your thoughts and programs/information stored on your computer have the same physical properties.The only difference is complexity, the brain has billions more connections than a computer. Stop bringing mystical nonsense in a straightforward mechanism.

The information/programs on a computer are physical, are you saying that our thoughts are physical in the same way? Please clarify, as others on here (brian37, chuck) say thoughts are NOT physical.

[Brian37]

The truth is, we don't understand how the electronic/chemical impulses in our brains translate to thought. Science will figure it out eventually, but for the time being, we cannot say one way or the other.

At least you're honest, until we do know I think all options should be considered, to close your mind to one particular option because it wouldn't agree with your current take on reality is close minded.

STOP IT, now you are trying to pull a Bill O'Reilly.

"Fair and Balanced"

No, reality is NOT up for a vote.

Not knowing everything about how the brain works does not equal a "spirit" or a "soul" or a "mind" outlasting our physical selves.

What science KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS

Is that when the brain dies, we die, there is no us anymore.

What you want to do is to get us to admit "you don't know everything"

And then try to pull an Evil Knievel by asserting the gap is filled with a fictitious beyond.

Why don't you apply for a job at Fox News, propaganda seems to be right up your ally.

---

Your thoughts and programs/information stored on your computer have the same physical properties.The only difference is complexity, the brain has billions more connections than a computer. Stop bringing mystical nonsense in a straightforward mechanism.

The information/programs on a computer are physical, are you saying that our thoughts are physical in the same way? Please clarify, as others on here (brian37, chuck) say thoughts are NOT physical.

ONCE YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD.

Now you want to make a computer analogy. FINE. BLOW your computer up and then try to use it moron.

[StatCrux]

At least you're honest, until we do know I think all options should be considered, to close your mind to one particular option because it wouldn't agree with your current take on reality is close minded.

STOP IT, now you are trying to pull a Bill O'Reilly.

"Fair and Balanced"

No, reality is NOT up for a vote.

Not knowing everything about how the brain works does not equal a "spirit" or a "soul" or a "mind" outlasting our physical selves.

What science KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS

Is that when the brain dies, we die, there is no us anymore.

What you want to do is to get us to admit "you don't know everything"

And then try to pull an Evil Knievel by asserting the gap is filled with a fictitious beyond.

Why don't you apply for a job at Fox News, propaganda seems to be right up your ally.

I haven't mentioned spirit, soul or mind. Your presumption is incorrect. You seem to be following the insult person followed by straw man and presumption of others views methodology..not one single part of your post addressed anything I had said, merely your presumptions followed with cheap insults, seems to get kudos on this site though, so carry on if thats what floats your boat..

---

Now you want to make a computer analogy. FINE. BLOW your computer up and then try to use it moron.

No, I didn't make the computer analogy, Bravo made the analogy, I questioned it, learn to read. In fact if you had read the posts you would see that I don't agree with the computer analogy. Its obvious to anyone, have you been drinking?

[Angrboda]

It's over when he refuses to justify his initial assertion, effectively making his argument vacuous, and continues to blather on with what is an obvious example of the fallacy of division

Learn to read more carefully. I carefully avoided this fallacy by introducing scale. The fallacy presented in the Wikipedia article prevents a very ill-defined concept of thinking that fails to distinguish between high order mental phenomena, like memory, and lower levels like sensation.

I'd be more than happy to consider your justification for believing you have avoided the fallacy of division if you would care to point it out.

However you still haven't responded to my original complaint. You have provided no evidence to demonstrate that mental phenomenon have neither mass nor volume. Until you do, this is nothing more than a bare assertion. And it's eerily similar to your conclusion. Assumed: mental events are non-physical; therefore, mental events are non-physical. Wow. And you wonder why I'm not impressed whilst you attempt to evade a fallacy of division which it appears clear you committed.

Against my better judgement, I went back over every post of yours to try to understand what you meant by claiming your introduction of "scale" evaded the charge of the fallacy of division. I can only assume you meant the following, which doesn't actually help you.

Two theories are being presented to justify the material basis for mind. In the first case, various configurations and states of matter are said to produce mental phenomena that did not previously exist. The second position claims that brain-states are mental phenomena. Both theories try to get something for nothing and reveals how hollow materialist claims are, as I will explain.

As pointed out chickens produce eggs.Chickens and eggs both fall into the same category of being. Both are physical objects. The car/speed analogy is more complex but follows the same logic. Speed is the description of a material state, a relationship of physical objects in time and space. The parts share the same physical properties as the car, including speed. Each part also moves through physical space in time. At smaller scales you have Brownian motion and at still smaller scales atomic vibrations. Motion can be described by even more fundamental physical properties, like mass. Yet in this case you also see that atomic particles have mass, the car parts have mass, and the whole car has mass. The parts share the properties of the whole. They can interact because complex material states are aggregates of similar simple material states. Likewise, you can describe complex mental properties, like a memory, in terms of simpler mental properties like sensation.

The difficulties arise when you start to attribute one category of being, mental phenomena, to another categories of being, like physical objects. If you attribute complex mental properties like emotions to a complex physical object like the brain, then you must attribute simpler mental properties to parts of the physical brain, like the visual cortex. Just as the whole brain and its parts have mass, the whole brain and its parts share an experiential component. Followed to its logical extreme, you conclude that conscious experience is a fundamental property of reality on par with mass.

The problem for materialism is this. Materialism only accepts four fundamental forces associated with material properties. There are no mental ‘forces’ or basic properties of mind from which to build complex mental properties like conscious self awareness. The materialist perspective has no place to insert mind.

It’s attempts to explain consciousness are on par with magic.

—

First off, as I've noted and you failed to acknowledge, unless you have some evidence of the non-material nature of mental phenomenon (mass and volume), your entire attempt at bringing up the question of division is moot. Mental phenomenon are physical phenomenon. QED. Until you overcome this basic hurdle, all your garbage about "scale" is just that. In the post referenced, despite your blinkered attempt to salvage it by reference to "scale", all you've done is shown that you don't understand the fallacy. The fallacy of division is that if the whole has some property, then the parts of necessity have that property. It is perfectly acceptable for the parts to contingently share properties of the whole (in this case, mental phenomenon and neurons both share the property of being material.) Scale is irrelevant. Again, I go back to your assertion that mental phenomenon are non-physical, an assertion you have yet to justify. Until then, all your ignorant talk about "scale" is irrelevant. Until then, your entire argument is nothing more than one long-winded example of begging the question. But then, I'm getting used to picking fallacies out of your thinking like picking fruit from a rather fecund tree. I find you a nice enough chap to deal with, but I'm becoming persuaded of the opinion that you're dumber than a sackful of hammers.

[Brian37]

STOP IT, now you are trying to pull a Bill O'Reilly.

"Fair and Balanced"

No, reality is NOT up for a vote.

Not knowing everything about how the brain works does not equal a "spirit" or a "soul" or a "mind" outlasting our physical selves.

What science KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS KNOWS

Is that when the brain dies, we die, there is no us anymore.

What you want to do is to get us to admit "you don't know everything"

And then try to pull an Evil Knievel by asserting the gap is filled with a fictitious beyond.

Why don't you apply for a job at Fox News, propaganda seems to be right up your ally.

I haven't mentioned spirit, soul or mind. Your presumption is incorrect. You seem to be following the insult person followed by straw man and presumption of others views methodology..not one single part of your post addressed anything I had said, merely your presumptions followed with cheap insults, seems to get kudos on this site though, so carry on if thats what floats your boat..

---

Now you want to make a computer analogy. FINE. BLOW your computer up and then try to use it moron.

No, I didn't make the computer analogy, learn to read. In fact if you had read the posts you would see that I don't agree with the computer analogy. Its obvious to anyone, have you been drinking?

Ok, auto pilot kicked in. My bad.

But you still want to separate "I" or "me" or "what we are" as individuals from our physical selves. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to make an orgy of an issue out of thoughts not having weight or mass.

You have an end goal and the end goal and I am not distracted from that. WOO is your end goal and that there is a "beyond".

There is no beyond. PERIOD! There is nature and evolution and biology. But there is no spirit, or mind or soul. When you die you die, thats it.

---

LETS CUT TO THE CHASE

You, "Thoughts have no weight or mass"

Me, "so the fuck what"

Just like speed has no weight or mass, but is a product of an object with weight and mass.

You are trying to prove that there is some "great beyond" and all you have is bullshit mental masturbation.

That is where we are at, and all I see is an end goal on your part peddling woo like Twinkies to an obese person.

[StatCrux]

Ok, auto pilot kicked in. My bad.

But you still want to separate "I" or "me" or "what we are" as individuals from our physical selves. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to make an orgy of an issue out of thoughts not having weight or mass.

You have an end goal and the end goal and I am not distracted from that. WOO is your end goal and that there is a "beyond".

There is no beyond. PERIOD! There is nature and evolution and biology. But there is no spirit, or mind or soul. When you die you die, thats it.

You're still doing it! telling me what I think or am trying to say. You have said that thought is not physical, that is a separation from our physical selves. Otherwise show how non-physical thought is connected to a physical process (the brain), remember you said thought is not physical..How do non-physical and physical interact?

[Brian37]

You must think this is the first debate I have had.

No.

You have an end goal, I already know what that end goal is.

You want "something" to exist beyond us. You want YOU to live beyond your own body.

You drink Woo like Jim Jones drinks Kool Aid.

Let me spell it out for you, not that I have not already done that.

ONCE YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD!

Now, unless Chinese hackers are fucking with both of us, that is not asking you to read War And Peace in 10 seconds.

I cannot help you if you cant face your finite existence, but that is reality.

[StatCrux]

You must think this is the first debate I have had.

No.

You have an end goal, I already know what that end goal is.

You want "something" to exist beyond us. You want YOU to live beyond your own body.

You drink Woo like Jim Jones drinks Kool Aid.

Let me spell it out for you, not that I have not already done that.

ONCE YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD!

Now, unless Chinese hackers are fucking with both of us, that is not asking you to read War And Peace in 10 seconds.

I cannot help you if you cant face your finite existence, but that is reality.

Just more presumptions, assertions and insults..are you going to engage with the issue of non-physical interaction with the physical or just continue with presumptions, assertions and insults?

[Brian37]

THERE IS NO MYSTERY

When the brain dies you die.

Your convoluted garbage sits well with the intellectually lazy. I might hire such an imaginative person to make a movie about Superman or Harry potter. In that context Hollywood is NOT lazy. But I damned sure would not hire these same people who work endless hours creating myth and selling it to do surgery on my own mother.

WHEN THE BRAIN DIES YOU DIE!

[StatCrux]

THERE IS NO MYSTERY

When the brain dies you die.

Your convoluted garbage sits well with the intellectually lazy. I might hire such an imaginative person to make a movie about Superman or Harry potter. In that context Hollywood is NOT lazy. But I damned sure would not hire these same people who work endless hours creating myth and selling it to do surgery on my own mother.

WHEN THE BRAIN DIES YOU DIE!

And so says Brian37...