The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[genkaus]

Most of the atheists on this forum make a habit of dodging their burden of proof when it comes to defending the material basis for subjective experiences.

This again? Haven't I shown you before why your arguments are untenable?

The typical atheist claim is that material processes, at the level of classical physics, i.e. elecro-chemical reations, produce non-physical subjective experiences. That is a very extraordinary, though common, claim. The theory that subjective experience = brain state is so woefully inadequate as to be on the same level as creationism. And here is why.

Why do you assume those experiences are non-physical?

Mental phenomena have no mass or volume, so whatever is happening, must be happening outside of classical physics.

Wrong. Other phenomena, such as electromagnetism, also have no mass or volume and still lie within classical physics.

Explaining consciousness as an emergent property of matter at the scale of classical physics defies logic. The most common example of emergence is the relationship between a car and its parts. Drivability for example is a property of the car but not any of the parts. This analogy is flawed.

You do realize that giving an analogy and then showing the analogy to be false actually says nothing about the actual position?

First, it only describes a functional relationship. Functional relationships describe what thoughts do, not what a thoughts are, how they feel, or why they occur at all. Second, a car shares basic physical properties with its parts. Parts respond to heat and collisions in the same way that the car as a whole does.

All you have done here is show that why the analogy is not applicable. You have not given a reason as to why that position is incorrect in itself.

Try out this analogy. When an electric current flows through a circular wire, it creates a magnet. Magnetism in this case is an emergent property which describes both how it works and what it is. It also does not share basic physical properties with electricity.

Not so with brain matter and thought. Although they are functionally related, what we call mind and the brain have no shared physical properties. Physical trauma to the brain may alter the contents of consciousness, but it doesn’t make any sense to describe a thought as being physically damaged. For example, you could dye the brain green and it wouldn't make the thoughts green.

What you are ignoring is the distinction between physical and conceptual. "Thought" is a word denoting and describing a particular process - a mechanism. The same way, evolution describes a biological process, but there isn't one single entity or object that can be pointed to and said to represent "evolution". Even if one physical process giving rise to the mechanism is damaged, mechanism itself is still not damaged - it simply ceases to exist.

In previous threads I have defended a panpsychic philosophy. However, this time I want to see you, materialist atheist, defend the claim that mental experiences reduce to physical processes.

Your error here is thinking that just because it reduces to physical processes, it can be described by the sum of its parts.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why do you assume those experiences are non-physical?

This is a burden of proof challenge. The materialist must justify the reduction.

… electromagnetism, also have no mass or volume and still lie within classical physics… [&]…Magnetism in this case is an emergent property.

Electro-magnetism is a fundamental force, like gravity, and the weak and strong interactions. It was already present, just manifest in a stronger, more measurable form. The materialist claim is that something not previously present, qualia, emerges out of thin air under certain conditions. That is the extraordinary claim. Is some kind of qualia already present in a light bulb and that we only become aware of its presence in complex aggregates like brains? If not, where did it come from and when?

…giving an analogy [car and parts] and then showing the analogy to be false actually says nothing about the actual position?...All you have done here is show that why the analogy is not applicable. You have not given a reason as to why that position is incorrect in itself.

Actually I borrowed the analogy you used elsewhere to present the idea of emergence (sorry, I should have given you a hat tip). Showing that the analogy does not hold shows that emergence is not a viable option for materialism

… What you are ignoring is the distinction between physical and conceptual. "Thought" is a word denoting and describing a particular process - a mechanism.

Thought is a concept a thought is the thing to which the concept applies. The word can be used as both a noun and a verb. You want to confine thought to a function. Functions are indeed descriptions of a process. The job of the materialist is to justify the belief that some physical functions have qualia and while others do not.

… Even if one physical process giving rise to the mechanism is damaged, mechanism itself is still not damaged - it simply ceases to exist.

Functions, like motor skills, can cease. That is not the issue. Not all brain function are associated with qualia. Many are unconscious. If the ability to experience qualia is a function, then what is the difference between a qualia function and a non-qualia function? Within the materialist paradigm, why is it reasonable to assume that brain states give rise to qualia when only some do and some do not.

… Your error here is thinking that just because it reduces to physical processes, it can be described by the sum of its parts.

You have not shown that it reduces to physical processes although I can accept the idea that if thought is a physical process technological advances may be able to explain it. But there is no place to look. The real error is trying to insert a very real and visceral feature of reality into a paradigm (materialism) that has no place for it.

BTW to the mockers, threads end when people stop posting. Brian is a moron because he wants the thread to end yet keeps posting. I still see value in the thread and continue to post. My posting is consistent with my desire. His is not. Your failure to understand that basic distinction makes you just as stupid as he is.

[Epimethean]

I think the thread was laid to rest a few times, but you have an agenda, so by all means, keep the process going.

BTW, are the words left in the wake of the immaterial material evidence for the immaterial?

[fr0d0]

Essentially, you become like a computer that can turn on but can't load and start its operating system.

Indeed. Any data in the hard drive would be wiped, the computer is useless.

The brain is what performs the mechanics enabling us to think. Thoughts =/= brain. The brain facilitates what we understand to be us > our personality. The brain =/= us.

Information > Information gathering device (senses) > information storage device (bio electric circuitry within the brain)

Thought: use of brain to cogitate information / physical process. Facilitating =/= thought

I completely agree that the processes that lead to thoughts are mechanical.

If a computer had a thought - would that thought be physical? No never. It's still something not physical in nature.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='genkaus' pid='293503' dateline='1338618040']Why do you assume those experiences are non-physical?

This is a burden of proof challenge. The materialist must justify the reduction.

In what way are the experiences immaterial? they are a result of processes in the brain that are made up of physical interactions between chemcals and electricity that can be studied as they happen, the structures that support them can be dissected.

You have yet to show that the immaterial realm exists at all and claim that we have the burden of proof.

I suspect that you try to insert the supernatural to make your silly beliefs not seem quite so ridiculous.

[FallentoReason]

You have yet to show that the immaterila realm exists at all and claim that we have the burden of proof.

Actually it has already been pointed out by someone that immaterial stuff exists, such as electromagnetism.

[Epimethean]

Although this incompatibility of the relativistic view with electrodynamics does not come as a surprise given the mathematical inconsistencies in the Lorentz Transformation itself, it is probably important that the suggested velocity dependence of the electrostatic and magnetostatic forces would actually not explain the Lorentz force in terms of electrostatics either as again the field would decrease like 1/r4. This would suggest that the magnetic field is in fact primarily a different physical phenomenon and can not be explained in terms of electrostatics (see the home page entry regarding Maxwell Equations for more in this respect). On the other hand, it is hard to believe that the apparent velocity dependence of the electrostatic force observed in accelerators for instance is not real, so one would have to assume the existence of two components which are identical for the near field but are different in the indicated sense for the far field. Clarification in this respect can probably only be achieved by making exact measurements of the magnetic far field of current systems.

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lorentzforce.htm

[Brian37]

To quote the two old men in the balcony in the Muppet Show

"Why do we always come here
I guess we'll never know
It's kinda like a torture
To have to watch this show"

The OP is a hopeless case. We have already explained over and over that "thoughts" are not material things anymore than "speeding" is a material thing. We've already over and over told him the scientific medical FACT that once your brain dies, you die.

Woo is woo and this nutter simply doesn't want to face facts.

---

Material World, By Brian37



Thoughts are

To the brain

What speeding is

To a car



Those who insist

That "we" are separate

From our brains

Are deluded



Victor S

In his book

Said that science

Could take a look



Science can study

The immaterial

Like dark matter

And black holes



Just like speed

Is not a thing

How is it then

Police give you a ticket?



Thoughts are not things

Merely a word

Used to describe

Outcomes of material processes



We do not

Outlast our bodies

When the brain dies

You die, that is it.



The needless conflation

Of the ordinary

Of our existence

Is all it is



It's not sexy enough

For woo mongers

To face the finite

They MUST live on



No one does

No one will

Vile speculation

Reason mutilated

[LastPoet]

I prefer a simplier analogy, the brain is the hardware, the mind is the software.

But seriously, evidence for the mind as a function of the physical brain:

- We can map and see different emotions, reactions, mind statuses, with devices capable of measuring electrical currents on the brain, or chemical coumpound presence.

- We have many documented brain injuries with dire effects on who the individual is, and we are able to pinpoint what those injuries in that specific point of the brain do.

- We are able to drastically change people personalities and behaviour by adding a chemical (AKA Drugs). The same with electroshocks.

- and many others I'll not bother to do the research for you. Use the fucking google or read a book on neuroscience.

Now, evidence that there is something else that is part of the mind:

- 0, zero, nada, zit, jack shit, void, negative.

Now Chad, present your evidence, so we can test it or shut the fuck up. Philosobabble, pausing on semantics and the gaps in our knowledge doesn't constitute evidence.

[Brian37]

Thats not my point. People who post garbage like this want there to be a "beyond nature". The Op's goal is to create a comic book and treat it like reality.

Again consciousness is an outcome, not a starting point. Just like if a car is stationary "speed" cannot occur in context to that object, and even if the car was in motion,. "speed" still would not be a thing, but an observation.

I get riled by the way people conflate the mundane reality and want everyone to buy their own personal fantasy and project it on everyone else.