Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

How many times have I said that I'm not claming to know it's material? I'm only saying that there's no reason to believe it isn't! No reason to make an exception.

I guess it all boils down to this sentence. It essentially says that you will not accept any observation on the mental as an exception to the rule that all is material. IOW there is no reason to doubt such a claim. I say that science's current inability to show how the mental is a product of the material is in itself a reason to doubt the claim that the material view is complete. The problem of qualia, the inaccessibility of first-person experience from third-person perspective, the relative independence of mental concepts from material configuration (multiple realizability) all are clear reasons for doubt. As long as science does not explain these features of existence there is clear reason to doubt the material view. Both science and philosophy of science acknowledge that these facts of existence are reason enough to doubt the completeness of the material view.

---

You cannot show me here that you understand anything of such a simple thing as what I perceive as red.

So? Who says it has to be intuitively understood?

You have added the word 'intuitively' here yourself, I haven't used the word in this topic and I do not assert that it is necessary for a scientific theory to be intuitively understood. Only that adopting completeness for it as you do with the argument that there is no reason to think it's not a complete description of the mental also defies logic.

'I have no reason to think that things that cannot be explained in the material view can cast doubt on the material view.'

[Kyuuketsuki]

Show me. How can you measure a thought? Are you talking measuring the electrical activity? Translating the electrical activity into something else? This still isn't the thought itself, just the transport, facilitator or receiver. Without substantiation your point is outside reality and only in theory. It doesn't count.

Of course I am talking about measuring the electro-chemical impulses but then I never claimed we could measure every aspect ... my position all along has been that this is a technological limitation and that it is only a matter of time before we gain full visualisation of mental processes. Presumably when they can display someone's thought in full 3D colour (on whatever is the medium for such things then) you will STILL claim they haven't measured thought? What exactly to you use that grey mush inside your head for Frodo?

All you are doing is making a vacuous claim just like the metaphysical idea of separating mind from brain which is self-evident [expletive deleted]'s because whenever the physical brain is damaged there are accompanying mind changes (usually for the worse).

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Like I've said several times Kyu, the mechanical processes are what generate, transport and receive thought. thought isn't these processes. Thought is something that rides it. Radio is simpler.. the voice is coded and then de-coded - this is not the case with thought.

To claim anything more is fanciful.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Like I've said several times Kyu, the mechanical processes are what generate, transport and receive thought. thought isn't these processes. Thought is something that rides it. Radio is simpler.. the voice is coded and then de-coded - this is not the case with thought. To claim anything more is fanciful.

And the fact is YOU DON'T KNOW THAT nor do experts in the field of brain/mind claim that because it sure as hell don't exist is not expressed in popular science magazines like New Scientist which reflects published papers.

IOW, you're talking out of your backside UNLESS you can demonstrate your claim with papers or an article referring to them in something like New Scientist.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

The claim that is being made (at least by EvF) is that science has shown that there is nothing beyond the physical, in other words that what we call mental states ARE in fact physical states.

I've read the whole post, but I need to cut you off right here PR.

I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that science has positively shown that there is nothing beyond the physical. I am just noting that - at least as far as I know - there is no valid evidence for anything non-physical, right? So why make an exception to the physical and say thought isn't physical?

Well I see that my wording of your stance was not accurate. I therefore will rephrase:
The claim that is being made (at least by EvF) is that science has shown that mental states are nothing beyond the physical, in other words that what we call mental states ARE in fact physical states.

All I mean by that I believe thought is physical in the sense that it's part of the physical universe and made of physical matter. I believe this because it's the only alternative to believing it's non physical - I can't not believe either because it's either one or the other and this isn't a 50/50 thing.

Well I agree it's not a 50/50 thing, and I am definitely not defending dualism or theism or a claim for the supernatural here. But there are alternatives to materialism. An immaterial version of a mind in a jar is one of them but also a much more feasible one than that, a non-reductive physicalism (the idea that while mental states are physical they are not reducible to physical properties) such as supervenience physicalism.

Your claim implies that it already is possible to discriminate between pure physicalism (the claim that mental states are physical states, i.e. a reductive physicalism) and, for instance, non-reductive physicalism. My position is that science has no evidence to discriminate between these stances and that there are clear indications that reductive physicalism is not the whole story: among them are multiple realizability, the instrinsic qualitative nature of experience that is unexplained by reductive physicalism and the inaccessibility from third-person perspective of first-person perspective.

Why isn't it a 50/50 thing? Because, as I said: So far - at least as far as I know - everything that there is evidence of is physical so why make an exception for thought without any reason to do so? To make such an exception, without evidence for such an exception, without valid reason - seems utterly bizarre and just special pleading to me.

You are too hasty with your jargon you mostly use in the theism/atheism debates. You fail to recognize that scientific models are incapable of explaining mental properties in terms of physical properties. That you are not capable of seeing other options is not an argument in favour of reductive physicalism. You haven't
responded to the clear indications of a gaping hole in reductive physicalism I have given you. Concluding reductive physicalism from neglect of these arguments is special pleading.

I am not claiming that science has shown thought is physical. I am just noting that: As far as I know, there is no valid evidence, scientific or otherwise - for anything non-physical (Unless you can enlighten me). So why make an exception and believe thought is somehow non-physical?

I have given you reasons, why not respond to them? Also I explicitly urge you to take note of the fact that your wording is such that it strongly suggests reductive physicalism, i.e. that mental states are reducible to physical properties.

Why would it be some sort of bizarre one-off exception in what is as far as we know an entirely physical universe, right? I need evidence for that! Why wouldn't it be made out of physical matter? - that's the sense of physical I'm talking about, not 'untouchable' or anything like that. Physically undetectable is not the same as something that isn't made out of physical matter. Physically undetectable could just be physical matter that we (at least) can't physically detect. How could it not still be made up of matter like the rest of the physical universe?

Your dislike of exceptions (quite contrary to scientific thinking) is not an argument at all. The greatest reason of all is right in front of you: physical properties don't add up to the components of personal experience such as mathematics, free will, freedom etc. What even makes you think that you can measure the quantity with which physicalism describes the total of existence. That is arrogance, not science, not critical thinking.

P.S: Ok, I'm going out now so I won't be able to respond till later on.

That's fine by me. I was busy doing other things yesterday and I can wait.

---

Of course I am talking about measuring the electro-chemical impulses but then I never claimed we could measure every aspect ...

OK, so you are only filling in some gaps in scientific evidence by yourself? I see.

my position all along has been that this is a technological limitation and that it is only a matter of time before we gain full visualisation of mental processes.

Is your last name Nostradamus? For most people cannot see into the future and in general in a debate concerning the question whether the evidence supports the claim it is unwise to claim capabilities to see into the future.

Presumably when they can display someone's thought in full 3D colour (on whatever is the medium for such things then) you will STILL claim they haven't measured thought?

The 'presumably' really says it all.

All you are doing is making a vacuous claim just like the metaphysical idea of separating mind from brain which is self-evident [expletive deleted]'s because whenever the physical brain is damaged there are accompanying mind changes (usually for the worse).

All you are doing is giving a a partly suppressed hormonal response to a valid question. Face the facts and show me how third-person representation adds up to first-person qualities of experience.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh you can be as sarcastic as you like and yet PR/Frodo the one plain fact remains ... nothing beyond the physical has EVER been established to exist so any claim you or anyone else makes becomes extraordinary ... it is therefore not I or Ev who have to disprove your assertions but YOU that has to make a supported case for what you are inferring.

In other words, as politely as you'd like, you can shove it

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh you can be as sarcastic as you like and yet PR/Frodo the one plain fact remains ... nothing beyond the physical has EVER been established to exist

Interesting, you haven't experienced anything mental yet and/or you have singlehandedly solved the gap between the physical and the mental with.....hormone arguments...hmmm...explains a lot.

so any claim you or anyone else makes becomes extraordinary ...

Don't be silly. You are making the claim, kereltje. Science does not claim to have bridged the gap between the physical and the mental. Just read up on it. Actually, almost any intro on the net will do.

it is therefore not I or Ev who have to disprove your assertions but YOU that has to make a supported case for what you are inferring.

Get a first course on debating skills please. You are the one claiming to have bridged the gap between the physical and the mental, aren't you? If you are not, then what the flying hormones are you shooting at? If you are, then what the roaring hormone expletives are you shooting at? Either way it looks stupid from where I am standing.

In other words, as politely as you'd like, you can shove it

Impressive argumentation and moderation.....for a three year old. Get a life and do your homework on this because your lack of knowledge is becoming quite embarassing.

[Dotard]

I'm suggesting thought doesn't physically exist on it's own.

And you would be right. It doesnt. It requires a brain.

@EV.
I agree with PR. You're asking frodo to prove a negative. BoP is on you.

[Edwardo Piet]

'I have no reason to think that things that cannot be explained in the material view can cast doubt on the material view.'

But I agree with that. Because failure to explain the material doesn't prove it's immaterial in any way, does it? It just shows that hasn't been shown to be material at least yet.

Because - It could just be material but physically undetectable! The immaterial and the material yet physically undetectable, the two are indistinguishable.

But with the immaterial it would mean it isn't made out of physical matter and so it is some sort of strange one-off exception to the rest of the known universe....

If it is material but just physically undetectable, then that means it's made out of physical matter but can't be physically detected/hasn't been yet. The point is that it's still made out of matter! Not that it's not made out of matter...it's not completely immaterial!

If it's not physically detectable, that is enough. One doesn't have to add the notion that this means it is not even physical at all, completely immaterial, not made out of matter, etc. It could just be undetectable matter (iow, matter that has not yet been detected). To go further and suggest the completely immaterial I would require evidence for...in order to believe that that is true.

Do you agree that there is a difference between physically undetectable and non-physical? Non-physical would mean that it's not made of physical matter and not part of the physical universe - iow because what's not physical can't effect ('can't touch') the physical.

Physically undetectable would mean that it's just...not physically detectable! It could still be actually made of physical matter and part of the known physical universe, and therefore able to effect the rest of it...physically! It's just not detected, at least yet, at least by us humans on this planet.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I'm almost off with the family to a themepark, so time is limited.

Is mathematics immaterial or material? You tell me. I am not referring to storage of information, but the information itself. Not the way the information is kept in our heads or on disc, but what it actually means in relation to other information and the physical reality. Some mathematics is yet to be discovered, it isn't necessarily stored anywhere. Is it's content non-existent when no-one is thinking about it? That would be odd wouldn't it? Then if some alien race is thinking about it, it exists, even when no human is thinking about it. If yo can physically detect mathematical concepts that would be nice, but fantasy.

Your dislike of the immaterial seems laden with your disprove of the supernatural, but the existence of the immaterial I am speaking of is a plain fact of life: fantasy, abstract concepts, mathematics it all is there. But I am not advocating the supernatural. I am not ascribing special powers over the physical to the immaterial, and I am not saying that it is indepent of the physical. I am saying that these things exist and that as of yet it is impossible to reduce them to physical properties. I am saying that there is another level of existence that supervenes the physical that for now is unexplained by the physical properties known to man.

Science is not about what is physically detectable but about what exists and enters our reality in some way.