On Theism & Immaterial Minds

[fr0d0]

I don't think an argument for non existence pans out

In relation to what?

err.... existence?

If you bypass life surely you bypass existence?

Wicked thread by the way. I've loved it, thanks!

[FallentoReason]

In relation to what?

err.... existence?

If you bypass life surely you bypass existence?

But aren't we all essentially immaterial minds "floating" somewhere else? Why do we need to go through this tedious process of living a temporary material life when we all go to heaven anyways..?

Wicked thread by the way. I've loved it, thanks!

Thank you for your arguments!

[fr0d0]

But aren't we all essentially immaterial minds "floating" somewhere else? Why do we need to go through this tedious process of living a temporary material life when we all go to heaven anyways..?

Ah right. 1. What difference did heaven make? Why wasn't it the same with heaven and hell as final destinations? 2. Angels are what you describe.... purely spiritual beings. We are supposedly superior. I like your point though and that's a problem with my position. I think it's our choices that define who we are. Without our material existence all of that is theoretical. Our choices determine how soon we reach heaven. There's only one right answer, and some of us take a lot longer to realise it than others. The point of our existence is that choice.

[Ben Davis]

[bennyboy]

Hi Fallen, why the complication? It's much more simple than this: all the evidence that we have indicates that the mind is an emergent property of brain function. Further, there is no evidence in support of dualism. So I simply can't accept your first premise because if we were to assume dualism, we can speculate pretty much anything we like because there's no evidence for any dualist position.

Sorry if I'm missing the point!

Even if mind is an emergent "property," that doesn't refute dualism-- it just teaches something about its nature, or about its relationship to physical structures.

Even if you can find a 1:1 relationship between brain function and experience (which is so confidently assumed now and so poorly proven), there's still a problem: mind is a brute fact, and it is not objective; you cannot touch someone's mind, or even know if they are actually sentient (as opposed to being a machine which can fake sentience). Brain function, on the other hand, IS objective; you can play with it, monitor it, and do whatever science you want on it.

One approach to this is simply to say that mind is brain function. However, saying repeatedly and confidently that things are equivalent doesn't make them so, and science has a lot more assumptions than proof right now.

[little_monkey]

One approach to this is simply to say that mind is brain function. However, saying repeatedly and confidently that things are equivalent doesn't make them so, and science has a lot more assumptions than proof right now.

It's a lot better if we postulate that "mind is brain function". It favors a scientific investigation. Afterall, science deal with how things function. If we want to understand more about mind/brain, then the scientific method is better equipped than philosophy. If you postulate that mind is separate ( Dualism), that it can't be investigated by empirical method, then what will you say after that?

[bennyboy]

One approach to this is simply to say that mind is brain function. However, saying repeatedly and confidently that things are equivalent doesn't make them so, and science has a lot more assumptions than proof right now.

It's a lot better if we postulate that "mind is brain function". It favors a scientific investigation. Afterall, science deal with how things function. If we want to understand more about mind/brain, then the scientific method is better equipped than philosophy. If you postulate that mind is separate ( Dualism), that it can't be investigated by empirical method, then what will you say after that?

In my opinion, as much can be learned about how the mind works by a subjective observation of one's own mind as by imaging brain function. You can study every pigment, and analyze every speck of paint, on a canvas, and not arrive at an understanding of why the Mona Lisa is a great work of art.

This is because all the objects we study meaningfully actually have no existence outside concept. A brain doesn't exist; what exists is a bunch of particles, arranged in space in varying densities. It is the experiencing mind which formulates ideas about experiences, and identifies some of those particles as a singular concept worth investigating.

[FallentoReason]

[fr0d0]

Our choices determine how soon we reach heaven.

This is certainly a unique take on things, and I respect that. I just don't think the Bible allows for such a liberal p.o.v...

It's a very old idea with quite a bit of support. Rob Bell wrote a book on the biblical justifications for it very recently. It made sense to me.

[FallentoReason]

This is certainly a unique take on things, and I respect that. I just don't think the Bible allows for such a liberal p.o.v...

It's a very old idea with quite a bit of support. Rob Bell wrote a book on the biblical justifications for it very recently. It made sense to me.

Huh... is that so!

Time and time again I find myself running into new theology on this forum that I've never heard with my own ears in the time I spent as a Christian. All these mutually exclusive ideas can't all be right though...