Atheism feels shunned...

[fr0d0]

Answer to Kyu's post here

The brain, being a chemical/ electrical machine that produces thought and contains the mind, OF COURSE affects thought/ mental capacity/ processes when damaged. This in no way provides any evidence against the idea that thought is produced by the brain but does not physically exist.

Yet the fact that thought IS affected by such events infers STRONGLY that thought is of physical nature ... your attempts to claim otherwise supported by bugger all evidence is special pleading.

How the hell does that "infer STRONGLY"? It infers bugger all.. unless you can enlighten us all. It appears to be logical to me that thought, along with other things, is not physically existent. You want me to prove a negative?

So the bus is damaged, the passengers either get to their destination slowly or not at all. The bus and passenger are two different things. Please show me how you think they are the same thing.

A bus and passengers ARE NOT specifically linked items whereas nerves, electrochemical activity and thoughts have been shown to be linked, linked so strongly that one cannot survive without the other.

Big claim there. Unless of course this is another one of your "well I cut his brain out and he stopped thinking" arguments.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fr0d0,

What evidence is there for things that are not physically existent exactly? As you say there are.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You've asked that same question many times now Evie. Why? Do you think my answer should have changed now? Do you not know my answer?

Rabbit has listed a lot of things now that aren't physically existent. I'd like to see you actually address one of those. I think you're in conceptual denial that there's nothing outside the physically existent. It's like you're making yourself see only shades of grey and refusing to accept the other colours in the spectrum. Yes the physical world is made up of physicality. The product of our minds is not physically existent but something entirely different: it isn't physical at all, non physical is a nonsense descriptor to use on it. It'd be like saying all the colours are non grey. For the difference between apples and pears you'd be saying there's apples and then there's non apples. Thought isn't 'non physical'.. it's just thought.

[Kyuuketsuki]

OK ... let's go through this point by point Frodo.

The evidence that supports (strongly infers) that the nature of thought is electrochemical, physical and intimately associated with neural infrastructure:

• In all cases to date thought has been shown to be related to electrochemical activity detected in nerves (using an electroencephalogram and other measuring techniques).
  
• Neural activity has been shown to be associated with neural infrastructure i.e. brain and nerves ... if nerves or brain are not present there is no evidence of neural activity. If neural activity is not detected it is generally accepted that the neural infrastructure has ceased to function and the person within which that infrastructure exists has died.
  
• If a person damages his arm so severely that the nerves are cut that person will lose the use of that limbs unless those nerves can be rejoined.
  
• If a person is involved in an accident or has an illness (e.g. a stroke) that’s severely affects the neural infrastructure of the brain not only is mentality, personality and other aspects associated with mind/thought often affected by sometimes this can result in an extreme character change as happened to my uncle when he had a stroke.
  
• Chips (computers) can be implanted in people brains to rectify serious mental conditions ... one woman was seriously depressed (so depressed that she was unable to even get out of bed and face the world most days) but a chip and electrodes placed in her brain which applied selected voltages across parts of it in multiple areas gave her what she referred to as "new light of day" for the first time in decades.
  
• Japanese scientists have programmed computers to display primitively translated thoughts on screens having first analysed the associated electrochemical impulses.
  
• The basic structure of the brain and which parts of it are associated with specific functions and with aspects of our intelligence and personality is understood to some degree.
  
• There are literally thousands of reputable mind/brain journals so it is naïve to believe we (the scientific community) don't understand a thing or two about mind/brain function and its relationship to thought.
  
• Single cells have been shown to become highly activated during the watching of specific videos and the request to the subjects to think about the same stuff again (no video) shows the same patterns of activation.

So, the general inference is that thought is physical in nature, unless otherwise demonstrated.

OTOH, as was pointed out by my friend Cestus, you have absolutely NOTHING apart from wishful thinking to support your claim that thought ins non-physical. You are making your case on special pleading.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

None of that points to anything remotely resembling evidence in support of the nature of thought being physical.

• In all cases to date thought has been shown to be related to electrochemical activity detected in nerves (using an electroencephalogram and other measuring techniques).
  
  No one disputes this
  
  .
  
• Neural activity has been shown to be associated with neural infrastructure i.e. brain and nerves ... if nerves or brain are not present there is no evidence of neural activity. If neural activity is not detected it is generally accepted that the neural infrastructure has ceased to function and the person within which that infrastructure exists has died.
  
  Ditto
  
  .
  
• If a person damages his arm so severely that the nerves are cut that person will lose the use of that limbs unless those nerves can be rejoined.
  
  Don't get why you wrote this. Like you think somehow thought can magically control severed arms?
  
  .
  
• If a person is involved in an accident or has an illness (e.g. a stroke) that’s severely affects the neural infrastructure of the brain not only is mentality, personality and other aspects associated with mind/thought often affected by sometimes this can result in an extreme character change as happened to my uncle when he had a stroke.
  
  Physical damage affects personality and cognitive processes, sure. The brain is a physical entity.. we know this. Thought is generated in the brain. We know this too. That damage effects cognitive processes.. well I wouldn't conclude anything other. I think this is an "ooh look - he stops thinking when we pull his brain out" revelation.
  
  .
  
• Chips (computers) can be implanted in people brains to rectify serious mental conditions ... one woman was seriously depressed (so depressed that she was unable to even get out of bed and face the world most days) but a chip and electrodes placed in her brain which applied selected voltages across parts of it in multiple areas gave her what she referred to as "new light of day" for the first time in decades.
  
  Stimulating areas of the brain with electrical impulses would no doubt screw up thought generation. Nothing about physical thought there tho'.
  
  .
  
• Japanese scientists have programmed computers to display primitively translated thoughts on screens having first analysed the associated electrochemical impulses.
  
  They're displaying electrical impulses. Not thoughts.
  
  .
  
• The basic structure of the brain and which parts of it are associated with specific functions and with aspects of our intelligence and personality is understood to some degree.
  
  Indeed.
  
  .
  
• There are literally thousands of reputable mind/brain journals so it is naïve to believe we (the scientific community) don't understand a thing or two about mind/brain function and its relationship to thought.
  
  The relationship is not the subject. Generation is not the subject. Your claim that thought has to exist on a scale of physical existent property is.
  
  .
  
• Single cells have been shown to become highly activated during the watching of specific videos and the request to the subjects to think about the same stuff again (no video) shows the same patterns of activation.
  
  You're looking at the engine rather than the passenger again.
  
  .
  

So, the general inference is that thought is physical in nature, unless otherwise demonstrated.

And I'd like to knowhow exaclty, from the above, you reached this fantastic conclusion!

[Purple Rabbit]

But there is not enough evidence for the statement that all there is, is physical. Suggesting this with the above sentence is plain false.

I'm not saying that there's evidence that everything is physical. I'm saying that I don't know of any evidence of anything but the physical. So I'm not going to believe thought isn't physical without evidence for such a (at least seemingly) one-off exception.

You haven't shown that the phenomena I have given you are physical. It is accepted by science itself that these phenomena have no physical explanation and that they currently are outside the physical framework. You refuse to accept this as evidence on your willpower alone.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

If this is meant as an argument you of all should recognize it as a argumentam ad ignorantiam. Your ignorance cannot be evidence of anything.

No because as I have said many times. I am not saying that no evidence of the non-physical means that it 'must be physical', which would be the argumentum ad ignorantum. What I am saying is that no evidence for the non-physical=there's no reason to believe that there's anything non-physical. Untill there is any evidence for the non-physical. That's the reasonable stance.

OK we will do this really slow now and one step at the time.

Your argumentam ad ignorantiam is as follows (pay close attention, it is really easy to follow):

You said:
1. There's evidence for the physical and
2. I have no evidence of the contrary

In (2) you say that you KNOW of no evidence that contradicts premisse (1). So you put forward your NOT KNOWING, your ignorance, as a relevant part of your argumentation for (1). You do not give other evidence that (1) is true. The essence of what you say is that (1) has not been proven false and THEREFORE it is true.

What is an argument from ignorance? This is the definition of the argument from ignorance:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. (source Wikipedia)

Since you claim that premise (1) is true only because it has not been proven false (2), your argument is clearly an argumentam ad ignorantiam, a proof from the negative.

Do you need any more elaboration on this? Is this completely, utterly clear now, or shall we go through this one more time? If so, what part of this don't you get?

You therefore cannot, at the moment, conclude that mental states are physical states.

Nor can you conclude that they're not, without evidence. There is evidnece for the physical in this universe however, and no evidence for the non-physical.

Again you use the argument from ignorance. Do you recognize it now or shall I spell this one out for you also?
Also you say that I cannot conclude that they (referring to mental states here) are not without evidence. IOW you say that I cannot conclude that mental states have evidence. But it is established fact in cognitive science that mental states exist. Everybody can experience them from first-person experience. So you are clearly and utterly in denial here, mental states do exist and they cannot be explained from the physical framework.

But let's pause here for a while and see if you're still with me or need a complete rerun of this.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And I'd like to knowhow exaclty, from the above, you reached this fantastic conclusion!

Because that IS the inference [expletive deleted], it's what workers in the field will tell you ... you have provided precisely BUGGER ALL evidence to support any other [expletive deleted] conclusion!

IOW it is firstly wishful thinking on your part that thought is in some way special or above or non-physical and secondly it is YOU That needs to provide the evidence for what is ultimately an EXTRAORDINARY claim

Kyu

---

Big claim there. Unless of course this is another one of your "well I cut his brain out and he stopped thinking" arguments.

Are you disputing that if someone's brain is damaged in some fashion it cannot SERIOUSLY affect this intelligence & personality ? IOW physical damage can change WHO YOU ARE ... if thought were not physical THIS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.

You are simply separating thought/mind from nerve/brain in exactly the same way as you separate your imaginary god world from reality ... both apparently to satisfy your own warped viewpoint and both on no evidence other than wishful thinking!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I see. It is because 'it is'.

One person I take it works in the field(??) A. constitutes the consensus of opinion of every worker in that field and B. makes claims that have yet to materialize, or if they have are precisely not evidence or even close to reasoning about the subject for reasons stated above.

I suggest thought doesn't exist physically, you do. Yet it is me who needs to prove my negative position.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Frodo,

I have given you a series of very good supporting evidences that strongly infer thought has a physical nature.

Now ... are you going to supply any evidence (and I mean real, evidence, not the usual philosophical bullshit) to counter it?

A theory and some evidence please Mr. Frodo!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

We appear to have gone circular Kyu. Either that or I'm in a time warp and posting answers to the post you are about to post.

It seems you don't want to think about this, just state a position. A position that falls on it's face it's so ill considered. Still you'll soldier on with it because that's what you do. Present statements that to you are set in stone, ignoring anything that would further your thoughts.