Brain / Mind

[InReverse]

Here are some facts (the list should be longer but it can be extended if needed):
-Damage to certain brain areas causes predictable loss of function. There is list with types of agnosias here.
There are also documented cases of damage to functions such as memory formation.(H.M.)
-Split brain patients cannot verbally relate to information presented only to their right hemisphere, but can nonetheless react to it unconsciously. (ref)
-Certain substances alter the function of the brain (by known mechanisms) and also the state of consciousness (alcohol, drugs, anesthetics)

Question: "Is evidence from neuroscience sufficient for one to reject the mind-brain dualism?"
If not, how does one reconcile the facts above (and many others) with the separation between mind and brain. Also, how would you disprove "minds are what brains do".

[instantc]

I'll quickly respond to the two main disagreements, and more thoroughly later.

Elasticity between parts of an object doesn't change the fact that it is still one object. However, this does not change the argument in any case, put a solid rod between them and the contradiction still stands. The object should fall faster than the original heavy object, but at the same time the attached lighter object should brake the heavy object down.

If the two objects act identical to a single heavier object then the two combined objects will fall at the same speed as the single object because they act like a single heavy object. There is no reason to suggest that the smaller object will brake the bigger one. If the objects are separated then they act according to their weight individually. There is no logical contradiction here at all.

The logical contradiction would be in your first sentence. The Aristotelian theory of gravity says that the lighter object does fall slower, and therefore if you attach it to a heavier object, it will work as a brake.

However, let me give you another more well-known example. Without feeding in any data from the real world, no matter what the laws of physics are like, we know that the law of conservation of energy is true in every possible world with any given set of laws of physics. This is shown by Noether's theorem, and has been proven mathematically.

Although the law of conservation of energy was discovered through experiment, it is also available to a logician sitting in his armchair without using any data from the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

The only thing you've done is try to punch holes in physicalist claims. Its very similar to how Young Earth creationists think that if they point out enough problems with evolution then somehow it magically makes young earth creationism true. It doesn't. An explanation stands on its own merits. Not on the failure of other explanations.

But property dualism isn't just a rejection of certain materialist claims. It has its own claim about "mental properties".

I think you are simply wrong here. If my thoughts cannot be reduced to physical brain activity, it logically follows that they are non-physical properties of the brain. It is a true dichotomy, there is no third option.

If evolution is shown false, the only thing that follows is that evolution cannot explain the changes in life forms. Similarly, if narrow physicalism is shown false, the only thing that follows is that my thoughts are not physical properties of my brain. Since we know that the mind is a property of the brain, it then follows that the mind is a non-physical property of the brain, which is exactly the claim of property dualism.

So property dualism is a combination of the evidence presented in the OP, which indicates that the mind is a property of the brain on the one hand, and logical inconsistencies in the physicalist theory on the other hand. It's a combination of a positive and a negative claim. The positive claim, that the mind is a property of the brain, you agree with. The negative claim is that the mind cannot be reduced to physical brain activity.

[McCulloch]

Although the law of conservation of energy was discovered through experiment, it is also available to a logician sitting in his armchair without using any data from the real world.

But without experimentation, the armchair logician has no way to know with any certainty which of his many conjectures are true and which ones are not.

Since we know that the mind is a property of the brain, it then follows that the mind is a non-physical property of the brain, which is exactly the claim of property dualism.

So property dualism is a combination of the evidence presented in the OP, which indicates that the mind is a property of the brain on the one hand, and logical inconsistencies in the physicalist theory on the other hand. It's a combination of a positive and a negative claim. The positive claim, that the mind is a property of the brain, you agree with. The negative claim is that the mind cannot be reduced to physical brain activity.

This translates to me into "I don't personally understand how something like my mind can be the physical property of a material mind, therefore there must be something non-physical about the brain."

[instantc]

Although the law of conservation of energy was discovered through experiment, it is also available to a logician sitting in his armchair without using any data from the real world.

But without experimentation, the armchair logician has no way to know with any certainty which of his many conjectures are true and which ones are not.

Since we know that the mind is a property of the brain, it then follows that the mind is a non-physical property of the brain, which is exactly the claim of property dualism.

So property dualism is a combination of the evidence presented in the OP, which indicates that the mind is a property of the brain on the one hand, and logical inconsistencies in the physicalist theory on the other hand. It's a combination of a positive and a negative claim. The positive claim, that the mind is a property of the brain, you agree with. The negative claim is that the mind cannot be reduced to physical brain activity.

This translates to me into "I don't personally understand how something like my mind can be the physical property of a material mind, therefore there must be something non-physical about the brain."

Some skeptics tend to see arguments from ignorance everywhere.

The above is merely an outline of my position. Notice that I have presented reasons to believe that the mind cannot be reduced to physical activity.

I would be glad to hear your criticism to my arguments. If you can show that the reasons I presented are flawed, then you are justified in saying that my position is only based on scientific ignorance.

[JohnA]

Although the law of conservation of energy was discovered through experiment, it is also available to a logician sitting in his armchair without using any data from the real world.

But without experimentation, the armchair logician has no way to know with any certainty which of his many conjectures are true and which ones are not.

Since we know that the mind is a property of the brain, it then follows that the mind is a non-physical property of the brain, which is exactly the claim of property dualism.

So property dualism is a combination of the evidence presented in the OP, which indicates that the mind is a property of the brain on the one hand, and logical inconsistencies in the physicalist theory on the other hand. It's a combination of a positive and a negative claim. The positive claim, that the mind is a property of the brain, you agree with. The negative claim is that the mind cannot be reduced to physical brain activity.

This translates to me into "I don't personally understand how something like my mind can be the physical property of a material mind, therefore there must be something non-physical about the brain."

Some skeptics tend to see arguments from ignorance everywhere.

The above is merely an outline of my position. Notice that I have presented reasons to believe that the mind cannot be reduced to physical activity.

I would be glad to hear your criticism to my arguments. If you can show that the reasons I presented are flawed, then you are justified in saying that my position is only based on scientific ignorance.

What reasons have you presented that the mind can not be reduced to physical activity?
The mind is just a function of the brain organ. We KNOW what the brain is made of: material.
if you are trying to argue that the mind is immaterial, then can you please explain:

1) How can the immaterial (mind) link to the material (brain)?

If you can convince me of 1), then you have my attention. if not, then you are merely offer ignorance, similar to your argument that your god does not exist (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 643#595643)