What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[GUBU]

A person with their mind is able to control the hands etc. Thus from the perspective of the mind the body is in its control. So what if the Big bang and as such the universe is the creation of a Mind?  Our own existence is the best evidence that this is a possibility.

Per catholic theology arguing for pantheism is a deadly sin. Recant your sin at the nearest church before you go to hell.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think you can distinguish between "seems" and "fits into my world view."  Let's start with how it seems there's an objective universe, how it seems some objects have mind as I do, how it seems that people experience as I do.  But why does it seem that way?  If I poke a person's brain with an electrode, he/she might say something like, "Hmmmmm, I smell smoke."  This is our entire criteria for determining that we are studying a system with mind: that it makes a smiley face when we think it should smile, and a pouty face when we think it should be sad.

-as much as I'd like -better- criteria...we simply don't have it...and the cosmos has no obligation to satisfy either of us. If you're searching for sound propositions with which to make inferences...you will invariably be forced to defer to this body of knowledge, as incomplete and unsatisfying as it may be, because of it's existence and sufficience...even if not, necessarily, it's truth.  We attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the known.  What we know is, itself, provisional.

That's fine, if you are trying to determine if something is acceptably human enough to go bowling with.  It's does not serve as very good evidence for what physical systems do/do not have anything like a mind.

It is the -only- evidence.....and I don't know what metrics you;re using to determine that it isn't good.  It's evident..firstly, falsifiable, and matches our predictions and expectations.  It sounds like pretty damned good evidence......and it produces results.  So..either we're very, very lucky...or we're on to something.

Stop saying I call neurology "brainwaving."  I do not.  Neurology is not the science of establishing the details of psychogony, and does not / cannot say at what level of organization the elements of mind supervene.  I've already said that neuropsychology is very useful, and tells us a lot about how the brain is involved in our qualitative experiences.

What it does NOT do is say where mind comes from, why there is such a thing, why it supervenes somewhere/somehow in the brain.  If I'm wrong about that, then go ahead to imright.com, and provide links or studies in which neuropsychologists attempt to answer philosophical questions using science.  Otherwise, you are not only brainwaving but appealing to the authority of scientists whose studies don't address the issues of mind in the way you are pretending they do.

You talk about things seeming a certain way, about "best evidence" etc. etc.  Fine.  Explain why they seem that way.  Produce your evidence.

See, right now, I'm agnostic.  I consider IIT a perfectly valid theory, and panpsychism a perfectly valid theory, and I see the merits in both physical monism, idealistic monism, and even pluralism.  But you are skewed toward a particular view of psychogony, and I do not think your evidence for that view is sufficient.

Yes, you do, and contending that you do not is beneath you.  Everytime I (or anyone else) reference something about psychogeny that nuerology helped us to discover...you go on about how brainwaving isn't sufficient (and frankly..you don;t even need any prodding..you'll launch into it of your own accord).  A psychogeny sans nuerology is, itself, an empty set within the context of our current understanding of mind, and what evidence is available.  Mind comes from...wait for it.....-the brain-.  I'm not going to humor your request that I produce evidence of that, you're aware of it...you must be, to consider it unsatisfying to begin with.

Now try and resist the urge to say I'm brainwaving.  

Interaction.  There must be some way to be conscious -of- something....for there to be consciousness in the first place.  The term, otherwise, has no meaning.

How is that interaction conveyed?

The properties of matter, in those instances in which we are capable of demonstration.  Chemical reactivity, electrical conductiveness, mechanical resistence...in our case, specifically.

[GUBU]

When's the last time you found a book on life after death and the fate of humanity in the lite-reading section?

Last time I entered a properly referenced library. A topic for which we have not one shred of evidence, whose proponents admit is outside the bounds of reality*, belongs in the fiction section.

* The literal definition of the term supernatural, which is what religionistas say when you ask them to describe the nature of a soul.

[GUBU]

I am guessing bookstores are quite inept at properly labeling reading materials.

After all, it is probably best to check out the science section than the hocus pocus section.

And what was electromagnetism before scientists explored, worked out the math and explored the mechanics of it?

If you think current science is the end all/be all paradigm, you don't know history and you aren't doing science.

Electromagnetism was a natural force for which humanity had no proper explanation before Maxwell came along. Just because we didn't understand it doesn't mean that "goddidit" was ever the right answer, and neither does that we now understand it mean that its nature changed in the understanding.

Your understanding of reality is sadly lacking, so much so that engaging in intelligent debate on scientific topics is a waste of your time. Much better for you to learn the basics.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's where, I'd say, 99% of things fall apart.  People dive into some topic with a paper in their hands that, they think, says x.  They lack an understanding of the field, and in many cases they lack the ability the manufacture rigorously valid comments and inferences -based- upon what paper they're holding.  Instead of discussing the paper, the science, it becomes a tedious and lengthy exploration into basic propositional structure and mechanics.

All to often..we find this this, rather than the subject of the paper, is what folks really wanted to do anyway. Argue over the meaning of words, argue over the availability of knowledge, argue over the rules of inference.

Bah.

[bennyboy]

Yes, you do, and contending that you do not is beneath you.  Everytime I (or anyone else) reference something about psychogeny that nuerology helped us to discover...you go on about how brainwaving isn't sufficient (and frankly..you don;t even need any prodding..you'll launch into it of your own accord).

It's not only insufficient, it's not even relevant to the question at hand. Nobody has argued against neurology, neuropsychology or science. What I'm arguing is that you do not know WHAT about the brain allows for qualia, and that some levels of organization aren't unique to the brain.

 A psychogeny sans nuerology is, itself, an empty set within the context of our current understanding of mind, and what evidence is available.  Mind comes from...wait for it.....-the brain-.  I'm not going to humor your request that I produce evidence of that, you're aware of it...you must be, to consider it unsatisfying to begin with.    

The qualitative human mental experience is for sure of the brain. The existence of mind rather than the lack of existence of mind is not demonstrably so. I'd call that qualitative experience "psychology," and the existential question "psychogony."

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not only insufficient, it's not even relevant to the question at hand.  Nobody has argued against neurology, neuropsychology or science.  What I'm arguing is that you do not know WHAT about the brain allows for qualia, and that some levels of organization aren't unique to the brain.

You consistently confuse sufficiency, with satisfaction or totality.  The hypothesis we have are -sufficient-, which is not the same as saying they are true.  It simply means that they -could be- true.  If they were not..they would not satisfy the basic conditions of a working scientific hypothesis.  Sufficiency is a measure of whether or not something -can- explain x...not whether or not it -does-. The distinction is subtle, and important.

The qualitative human mental experience is for sure of the brain.  The existence of mind rather than the lack of existence of mind is not demonstrably so.  I'd call that qualitative experience "psychology," and the existential question "psychogony."

Which, again, is an empty set without the nuerology end of it.  Frankly, when you ask what -allows- for this you are explicitly asking me about nuerology. Which is why it's then futile to talk about brain waving, or insist that we're really just limiting ourselves to psychology or psychogeny in this. You're -asking- for it, and then complaining when you -get- it.

[bennyboy]

You consistently confuse sufficiency, with satisfaction or totality.  The hypothesis we have are -sufficient-, which is not the same as saying they are true.  It simply means that they -could be- true.  If they were not..they would not satisfy the basic conditions of a working scientific hypothesis.  Sufficiency is a measure of whether or not something -can- explain x...not whether or not it -does-.  The distinction is subtle, and important.

The hypotheses are not sufficient, because they do not in fact explain anything. If I ask you "why is there gravity," you would make the "hypothesis" that matter pulls matter toward itself, I suppose, and claim that that's where the best available evidence points.

Which, again, is an empty set without the nuerology end of it.  Frankly, when you ask what -allows- for this you are explicitly asking me about nuerology.  Which is why it's then futile to talk about brain waving, or insist that we're really just limiting ourselves to psychology or psychogeny in this.  You're -asking- for it, and then complaining when you -get- it.

I'm pretty sure I'm not asking you about neurology or even psychogeny, and that I'm talking about psychogony. But I'm interested that we are no longer waving at the brain, but at neurons. Tell me, what is it about the neurons that allows for subjective awareness?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we're going to have to just disagree on this one.  I do think that scientific hypothesis, in this field, currently....have explanatory value.  A Theory of Mind (in the scientific sense) will either emerge from the contenders or will not, and we'll just keep looking...but what we have moves those chains. It may not explain it all, it may even be wholly wrong, but it gives us a piece to work with.

You've been asking me what -allows- for mind, qualia, psychogony, psychology.  Both of us, it seems...say brain, to one extent or another.  I think that what we do know -could-, not necessarily does, but -could- explain what we desire to know.  I appreciate that you wonder if there's more, or think that there must be more - in order to explain the phenomena we both agree exists and is real in a tangible and meaningful sense.  An unknown, or barely known quantity or quality that might be rationally inferred, directly or indirectly tested...but not - heretofore, described.  I wonder that too.  It's certainly possible, and would resolve some paradox, in specific instances, for sure.  I can only say that we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[Whateverist]

A person with their mind is able to control the hands etc. Thus from the perspective of the mind the body is in its control. So what if the Big bang and as such the universe is the creation of a Mind?  Our own existence is the best evidence that this is a possibility.

I'm pretty sure personhood is centered in the hands.  It is they which move themselves and at the same time create the illusion that we have a 'mind'.