Civil Christian Debate
|
Where is the Mind?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 36, 37, 38 Next
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
harvey1
First Post |
 Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:52 am Post subject: Where is the Mind? |
 |
|
In another thread QED and I were discussing IGUSes (information gathering & utilizing systems: a term that physicist James Hartle articulated), and there's one issue I'd like to hear back from materialists of the mind. Where is the mind? By that I mean let's suppose that humans can only "see" atoms and sub-atomic particles (e.g., electrons). That's all that we can see. Now, using this illustration, please tell me in conceptual terms where the mind is. For example, if we look at a computer, we can see the operating system as atoms in energized states on what we normally see as a disk drive. We see how atoms are energized, how electrons flow, etc., upon the booting up of that computer, and we see why the computer works at an atomic level. However what we don't see--can never see--is anything but atoms and sub-atomic particles being shifted about inside the machine. So, I think we can quite naturally conclude that the computer has no internal state that is "non-atomic" in nature. That is, the computer has no awareness of itself, and no feelings, etc. (i.e., qualia).
So, being that we humans have this subjective inner state, I'd like to hear how materialists and identity theorists of mind (i.e., mind=brain) can conceptually account for the mind solely in terms of atomic and sub-atomic particles. Where is it among the stew of particles?
|
|
 |
charles51 Apprentice Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Total posts: 147 Location: Virginia Age: 59 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
1565.05 tokens
|
Post 141:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bernee,
| Quote: | | Can you offer a philosophy that provides a conceptual and logically consistent accounting for the interaction of mind and matter? |
No. It's not possible in my judgement.
Reality cannot consist of two mutually irreconcilable and irreducible facts. Either the mind is reducible to matter, or, the material world is reducible to mind. One of these must be true.
The mind itself is an irreducible fact. We know this because the mind, and our direct experience of it, is the very same thing. Its reality IS the experience. Therefore, explaining the mind in terms of matter, or in terms of anything else, is to turn that which we know indisputably is, into that which self evidently it is not.
The same does not hold true for matter. We never directly experience the material world, but only as it’s presented to us by the mind. It is therefore entirely possible that the ‘material world’ is nothing more than a mental illusion, making the material world reducible to the mind. |
_________________
Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy Under ProbationGuru
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Total posts: 1966 Location: North Carolina Age: 55 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
15163.31 tokens
|
|
Post 142:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
charles51
| Quote: | | The mind itself is an irreducible fact. We know this because the mind, and our direct experience of it, is the very same thing. Its reality IS the experience. Therefore, explaining the mind in terms of matter, or in terms of anything else, is to turn that which we know indisputably is, into that which self evidently it is not. |
You make the above statement, yet support it with no evidence. The mind is the result of the complex brain activity, it is intimately tied to the brain. The brain/mind gestalt theory of the German philosophers directly contradicts your statement.
The activity and interactions of the neurons and chemicals of the brain give rise to conciousness, if the neurons are destroyed(say in a stroke) certain aspects of the mind disappear with that damage. Instead of relying solely on philosophy you would do well to look at what those who study the brain directly have found(IE get in touch with reality).
If your philosophical musings do not conform with reality it is your philosophy that is deficient, not reality.
Grumpy  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| charles51 Apprentice Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Total posts: 147 Location: Virginia Age: 59 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
1565.05 tokens
|
|
Post 143:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grumpy,
| Quote: | | You make the above statement, yet support it with no evidence. The mind is the result of the complex brain activity, it is intimately tied to the brain. The brain/mind gestalt theory of the German philosophers directly contradicts your statement. |
If the mind is not an irreducible fact, and its true reality is other than it appears, then we are fundamentally mistaken in judging even the fact-ness of our own conscious existence. This is devastating to your position. Remember, your views are founded on the underlying assumption that conscious experience is not only an incorrigible fact, but reliable in its representation of outside events. Unless you accept the innate and irreducible fact-ness of the mind, your views, your theories, your opinions – all collapse into total skepticism.
And even then, it would still leave unexplained the fact of our mistaken judgment, which itself would remain as a brute undeniable fact. |
_________________
Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrumpyUnder ProbationGuru
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Total posts: 1966 Location: North Carolina Age: 55 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
15163.31 tokens
|
|
Post 144:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
charles51
| Quote: | If the mind is not an irreducible fact, and its true reality is other than it appears, then we are fundamentally mistaken in judging even the fact-ness of our own conscious existence. This is devastating to your position. Remember, your views are founded on the underlying assumption that conscious experience is not only an incorrigible fact, but reliable in its representation of outside events. Unless you accept the innate and irreducible fact-ness of the mind, your views, your theories, your opinions – all collapse into total skepticism.
And even then, it would still leave unexplained the fact of our mistaken judgment, which itself would remain as a brute undeniable fact. |
Gobbledegoop and sophistry do not an arguement make.
The mind is an emergent property of the complex arraingement and activity of the brain. This is an irreducable fact proven by those who have studied brain damage in strokes and accidents. Remove part of the brain and you remove part of the mind. The mind can not exist outside of the brain.
These are fairly simple concepts, why you argue with them is a mystery to me.
Grumpy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| charles51 Apprentice Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Total posts: 147 Location: Virginia Age: 59 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
1565.05 tokens
|
|
Post 145:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grumpy,
You state positions but adamantly refuse to consider, discuss, or take seriously their logical implications. These are the actions of a non-rational mind.
Your personal distain for anything resembling a logical argument is by now well known to anyone following these and other threads. Perhaps if you had the courtesy of stating this in your profile people would not waste their time or yours.
Maybe a Christian fundy website would be more compatible with your method of argumentation. |
_________________
Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrumpyUnder ProbationGuru
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Total posts: 1966 Location: North Carolina Age: 55 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
15163.31 tokens
|
|
Post 146:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
charles51
Reality a little too much for you charles?
Your(and Harvey's) dogmatic reliance on philosophical logic is YOUR problem, not mine. I know philosophy without congruence with observable evidence is pure sophistry, useless and wrong!!!
At the risk of repitition, If your philosophy fails to explain ALL of the observable facts, it is you logic(or philosophical stance) that must be in error!!! That is the bottom line irreducable fact underlying all of science. Platonic navelgazing died a well deserved death long ago(Except among philosophy majors). No confirmation of the stands philosophy makes is possible without observation and confirmation by looking at WHAT REALLY IS, PERIOD.
The mind has been demonstrated to be the product of the BMG. Until your philosophical arguement can account for that irreducable fact IT is useless and wrong.
Now go forth and argue from the reality we see, you'll do much better in these forums.
And by the way, put whatever label you like on my philosophy(I think realism fits), it means little to me, but don't for an instant think I don't know what I speak of in the real sciences. Errors I will make, but I will never deny the reality we see about us. Understanding changes, but it will always be based on the evidence we see.
Grumpy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| charles51 Apprentice Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Total posts: 147 Location: Virginia Age: 59 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
1565.05 tokens
|
|
Post 147:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grumpy,
Whatever. |
_________________
Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| otseng Savant
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 Total posts: 7469 Location: Atlanta, GA, USA Age: 43 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
18849.13 tokens
|
|
Post 148:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just an interjection here to please avoid making comments about other posters. Present your case and argue for your position, but avoid arguing about your opponents. Thanks. |
_________________
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD
Isa 1:18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bugmaster Site SupporterGuru
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Total posts: 1000 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
7819.61 tokens
|
|
Post 149:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Where is the Mind? |
|
|
Boo ! I've been absent for a while, and I'll probably be absent again very soon :-( Anyway:
| harvey1 wrote: | For example, if we look at a computer, we can see the operating system as atoms in energized states on what we normally see as a disk drive. We see how atoms are energized, how electrons flow, etc., upon the booting up of that computer, and we see why the computer works at an atomic level. However what we don't see--can never see--is anything but atoms and sub-atomic particles being shifted about inside the machine....
Where is [the mind] among the stew of particles? |
I think this entire question is based on false premises. If you subscribe to a purely materialistic viewpoint, then there's no such thing as an "operating system". There are only atoms and quantum particles, that happen to behave in a certain way. The "operating system" is just shorthand we use to designate one particular pattern of quantum particles. When a computer programmer says things like, "the file manager got confused by the flags, and ate my file", he knows full well that there exists no homunculus named "file manager" who is eating manila folders; the entire statement is a metaphor.
Similarly, from a strictly materialistic perspective, the mind is yet another metaphor. There are energized atoms in your brain, just as there are energized atoms inside your CPU, or inside your coffee cup. They all behave in different ways, and we can use metaphors and generalizations to describe these behaviors. There's nothing magical or etherial about them.
Additionally, I think Harvey succumbs to the old fallacy: "we know how a computer works, but we don't know how the mind works, therefore the mind cannot possibly be material". It is possible to have good reasons to believe that a certain entity is material in nature, and yet not know the exact details of its behavior. In fact, most people are unaware of how their own computers work, and yet they do not automatically conclude that computers have souls. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| charles51 Apprentice Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Total posts: 147 Location: Virginia Age: 59 Gender: Male
Usergroups: None
1565.05 tokens
|
|
Post 150:
Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bugmaster,
As you rightly point out, programming in computers is nothing more than energized particles in particular configurations. The language we use to describe programs is just a shorthand way of referring to these patterns of particles.
The mind and brain are different. There really is something called ‘mind’ that is not merely complex patterns of particles. I can have a thought, feeling or sensation that makes no reference to particles at all. Yet this thought, feeling or sensation presumably exists in my brain. An opinion, for example, cannot be fully described in terms of particles and their configurations and still retain its essential meaning. Something real and important to its definition would be lost in the translation. Only a mindless automaton would fit your computer analogy. |
_________________
Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index
-> Philosophy |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 36, 37, 38 Next
|
| Page 15 of 38 |
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
