Physicalism

[DBT]

Yes. You are not reducing anything. That means you are not reducing mind to material processes. You aren't because you can't. But, if you are to assert that mind is nothing but material processes, you MUST reduce it. And since you can't, there is no reason to assume that it must be true. I might be true, but we can not show that so far.

No, there is no evidence to suggest that mind is anything but the physical activity of a brain. Therefore the proposition - an assertion - that mind is ''non material'' has no foundation.

And I ask you again: what is the nature and quality of this non material entity called mind?

Mind is not material. You've admitted that you can't reduce it to material processes. So it is not material, or at least, it can't be proven to be.

That is an assertion. You know nothing about non material things. You know nothing about non material mind. The claim that mind is non material explains nothing whatsoever.

The fact it is, the electrochemical activity of the brain has been shown to be the counterpart of conscious experience. The brain of a subject being imaged by fMRI can describe their thoughts and feeling while the images of the neural activity is observed in each respective region of the brain and analyzed on screen in real time. This clearly being a physical process.

So to claim it must be non material is just not supported by evidence.

Consciousness is not required to explain ANY human function. All of our behavior can be explained, in principle at least, through information processing. And when we're done explaining all of that, we still have consciousness left over. That's the "hard" problem.

The hard problem is how the brain forms mental images, thoughts and feelings. Not that this must be non material.

Again, given that we do not know how a brain forms mental experience, it is not logical to resort to catch phrases such as ''the mind cannot be material'' as a solution to the problem.

The best we can say is: we do not know how a brain forms conscious experience.

YOU are the nature of this non-material substance. Of course, your body is material but your psychology, your self-identity, your thoughts and your feelings are NOT material. Why is that so hard to understand?

That's not an explanation of 'non material' - you are simply reasserting your original assertion.

A non-material proposal IS required due to the failure of materialism. Gee, why did Lavoisier come up with his ridiculous notion of oxygen when it wasn't required. After all, we already knew all about phlogiston.

Oxygen is a material substance. As a material substance, oxygen is a part of the physical world and its processes. 'Non material' things are a different beast altogether.

What is this 'non material' substance?

How is it supposed to interact with the physical world?

Where does it come from?

The real problem isn't explaining mind, it's explaining matter. That's what Descartes work was all about. Mind was a given. How do you know that matter exists? How do you know the external world isn't just a figment of your imagination? Matter is the metaphysical entity, not mind. Check out George Berkley on this one. I don't need matter to explain the universe. If some thing is hard, I know that hardness exists. Why do I need to invent a metaphysical entity that causes the hardness. What exists besides mental qualities? And how do you prove that existence?

This is drifting into the realm of solipsism.

How do you know that? We know that the brain transmits various electrical pulses. What makes these pulses information? They only become information to a conscious observer. So you need the non-material conscious observer even to explain the brain in terms of information processing.

What do you think the complex architecture of the brain does, if not evolved for the very purpose of responding to its environment? The world is composed of information; EM wavelength, pressure waves, airborne molecules, texture, properties, attributes, etc, and all of this is a formof information when quantified. A brain, as an evolved information processor, quantifies its inputs: wavelength, pressure waves, airborne molocules, etc.

''Our mind is fully determined by our brain. Brain is the cause of the existence of the mind and also the mind is a feature of brain. He states that “Mental phenomena are caused by neurophysiological processes in the brain and are themselves features of the brain.” (Searle, 54). Searle gives water as an example to illustrate his thesis. If we study the relations between the water (H2O) and liquidity we will find that water possess the feature of liquidity. Same the mind is the feature of brain. At the same time the feature of liquidity is determined by the molecular structure of the water. It’s not an extra-quality of the water molecules but the one of the molecularly features. “The liquid state of this water can be causally dependent on the behavior of the molecules, and can also be a feature of the system made up of the molecules?" (Searle). So, Searle describes two levels of event and phenomena and these levels and micro level and macro level. Micro level defines macro level but at the same time it is identical with it. Molecules make the micro level in the example with water while liquidity makes macro level. If we turn back to mind and brain correlation we will see that the mind is a macro level of brain and neurons make its micro level. So, if we apply Searle’s conclusion to the mind and brain correlation, we will see that the mind is caused by neurons and at the same time it is a feature of brain. Expanding these conclusions we will see that mental is also the part of the physical. There can be no division to physical and mental any more. Everything derives from physical but some things have mental-physical and others have non-mental physical nature. A person can not have mind without a brain but they do not make one unite and stay two different things. The mind represents mental reality while the brain represents physical one. Mind and brain are both real but present different types of reality. Searle tries to prove that being the cause for mind, brain possess mind as its feature. From the first sight it may seem that mind and brain are identical. Knowing about possible critics of such an approach, Searle has made a ready answer for those, who will blame him. To escape controversy, he states that mind and brain are different things and mind doesn’t cause brain. He says that “Either you have dualism and an unintelligible account of causation or you have an intelligible account of causation and abandon the idea of the causal efficacy of the mental in favor of some version of the identity thesis with an attendent epiphenomenalism of the mental aspects of psycho-physical events.”(Searle) So, the mind is described as a higher aspect of brain and thus it possess same physical nature as brain does but being its higher aspect it also possess some additional characteristics.''

I've already answered this. YOU are that nature. Your mind is non-physical.

It is an answer. But it is not an explanation.

Are you kidding? What the hell has this entire discussion been about? You are so close-minded in your materialism that you are unable to find even yourself. You believe you are nothing but a robot. But take a minute to realize that you are not a robot, and what makes you not a robot is what you are failing to see.
.

Wrong on all counts. You have not provided an argument for your proposition. You have made assertions.

As for me being closed minded, I say that I am not willing to accept an assertion as being true and accurate representation of the way the world works without a good reason to do so. That requires an argument that is sufficient to prove the assertion through evidence, logic and reason.

That is what I ask you to provide.

 

[Juma]

Thanks for this answer. However, it is very unsettling. There should be a spatial and temporal account for anything that is said to exist i.e. what, when and where. The property containment is in our brains; what it symbolizes is unique and outside of our brains.

Yes. So what is your problem?

 

[ryan]

Thanks for this answer. However, it is very unsettling. There should be a spatial and temporal account for anything that is said to exist i.e. what, when and where. The property containment is in our brains; what it symbolizes is unique and outside of our brains.

Yes. So what is your problem?

Well since you now agree with my last post about a property of containment being in our brains, I have no problem.

 

[ryan]

I am not 'reducing' anything. The available evidence supports the proposition that it is the brain that is the sole author of conscious experience. This is not reductionism. It is a broad outline of our current understanding.

What is not supported is the proposition of non material elements at work within the brain, where the proposition of a non material element is not required as an explanation for brain function.

And again: what exactly is the nature of this non material substance?

Well wait a minute; apparently properties are immaterial. All boneyard bill has to do is call god, qualia, unicorns etc. properties, and then they could exist in theory.

But you probably won't respond to this because it is not fun when your own theories bite you in the ass.

Are you ready to admit that properties either don't exist, are in our brains or are immaterial?

 

[Juma]

Thanks for this answer. However, it is very unsettling. There should be a spatial and temporal account for anything that is said to exist i.e. what, when and where. The property containment is in our brains; what it symbolizes is unique and outside of our brains.

Yes. So what is your problem?

Well since you now agree with my last post about a property of containment being in our brains, I have no problem.

But you still believe in something "non-physical"?

 

[Juma]

Well wait a minute; apparently properties are immaterial. All boneyard bill has to do is call god, qualia, unicorns etc. properties, and then they could exist in theory.

No, since then they will be concepts without references. That is: they exists in the same way as the santa. Not much gained there really...

 

[ryan]

Thanks for this answer. However, it is very unsettling. There should be a spatial and temporal account for anything that is said to exist i.e. what, when and where. The property containment is in our brains; what it symbolizes is unique and outside of our brains.

Yes. So what is your problem?

Well since you now agree with my last post about a property of containment being in our brains, I have no problem.

But you still believe in something "non-physical"?

Wait, do you actually agree with me about properties not existing outside of our brains!?!?!?

As for the non-physical, I have consistently said that I have nothing but an incredibly strong intuition that qualia, and possibly other entities, are non-physical.

I have many arguments for the non-physical brewing, but they are not quite ready to be posted yet.

 

[ryan]

Well wait a minute; apparently properties are immaterial. All boneyard bill has to do is call god, qualia, unicorns etc. properties, and then they could exist in theory.

No, since then they will be concepts without references. That is: they exists in the same way as the santa. Not much gained there really...

Well qualia can certainly exist in this magical land of emergent properties: things coming from nothing, sums not equaling their parts, entities supervening on the physical, etc.

 

[Juma]

Wait, do you actually agree with me about properties not existing outside of our brains!?!?!?

What I say is that the brain host processes that models a world that makes sense of our sensory data.

Since this model works so well I am confident that its features somehow maps to the source of these inputs.

 

[ryan]

Wait, do you actually agree with me about properties not existing outside of our brains!?!?!?

What I say is that the brain host processes that models a world that makes sense of our sensory data.

Hmmm, I am not sure that we are actually in agreement here. Are you saying that properties such as containment don't exist outside of our brains?

 

[Juma]

Wait, do you actually agree with me about properties not existing outside of our brains!?!?!?

What I say is that the brain host processes that models a world that makes sense of our sensory data.

Hmmm, I am not sure that we are actually in agreement here. Are you saying that properties such as containment don't exist outside of our brains?

The concept "containment" is how humans represent a specific type of behavior in the model of the real world presented by the human brain.

That specific behaviour, and what the concept is used to refer to, exist outside the human brain.
The concept in itself is a process in the human brain.

 

[ryan]

Wait, do you actually agree with me about properties not existing outside of our brains!?!?!?

What I say is that the brain host processes that models a world that makes sense of our sensory data.

Hmmm, I am not sure that we are actually in agreement here. Are you saying that properties such as containment don't exist outside of our brains?

The concept "containment" is how humans represent a specific type of behavior in the model of the real world presented by the human brain.

That specific behaviour, and what the concept is used to refer to, exist outside the human brain.
The concept in itself is a process in the human brain.

Can I gather from this that properties do not exist outside of our brains, yes or no?

 

[boneyard bill]

DBT writes:

No, there is no evidence to suggest that mind is anything but the physical activity of a brain. Therefore the proposition - an assertion - that mind is ''non material'' has no foundation.

And I ask you again: what is the nature and quality of this non material entity called mind?

The absence of proof is not proof. The inability to reduce mind to material processes means that we cannot assert that mind is material. It is reasonable, therefore, to consider other options.

I have answered your last question numerous times already. If you can't figure it out, that is your problem.

Mind is not material. You've admitted that you can't reduce it to material processes. So it is not material, or at least, it can't be proven to be.

That is an assertion. You know nothing about non material things. You know nothing about non material mind. The claim that mind is non material explains nothing whatsoever.

The mind is the most obvious thing in the world. It appears to be non-material. The fact that we cannot explain as material makes it reasonable to assume that it is not even though we can't be certain that we never will.

You aren't saying anything so far that you haven't said before. Do you have anything new to offer to this discussion?

The fact it is, the electrochemical activity of the brain has been shown to be the counterpart of conscious experience. The brain of a subject being imaged by fMRI can describe their thoughts and feeling while the images of the neural activity is observed in each respective region of the brain and analyzed on screen in real time. This clearly being a physical process.

No it is NOT! I have responded to this before, and all you do is repeat your logical errors. The correlation between brain activity and subjective states may indicate that the brain activity causes those mental states (though it doesn't necessarily prove that they do. Correlation does not prove causation). But even if physical processes cause mental states, it doesn't prove that they ARE mental states.

Now, I suppose you can go on denying this, but you will be wrong because, logically speaking, a cannot be not a. You denying that fact does not change it.

So to claim it must be non material is just not supported by evidence.

The claim is that we cannot prove that it is material so others avenues need to be explored. You are just trying to shift the burden of proof. Again, this is all just a re-hash of what we've already discussed. You haven't really responded to the criticisms of your position that I have made.

Consciousness is not required to explain ANY human function. All of our behavior can be explained, in principle at least, through information processing. And when we're done explaining all of that, we still have consciousness left over. That's the "hard" problem.

The hard problem is how the brain forms mental images, thoughts and feelings. Not that this must be non material.

In terms of the debate in philosophy of mind over this issue, you just don't know what you are talking about. Do a search on "philosophy of mind hard problem" and see what you get.

The best we can say is: we do not know how a brain forms conscious experience.

Apparently, you can't see the obvious error in your own formulation. The statement you put forward assumes from the outset that the brain forms conscious experience. There may be a whole lot more involved than the brain, even from a materialist perspective.

YOU are the nature of this non-material substance. Of course, your body is material but your psychology, your self-identity, your thoughts and your feelings are NOT material. Why is that so hard to understand?

That's not an explanation of 'non material' - you are simply reasserting your original assertion.

I'm giving you the same answer to the same question. And now you are denying what I mean when I say 'non-material.' Sorry, but you can't ask me for a definition and then say my definition is wrong.

A non-material proposal IS required due to the failure of materialism. Gee, why did Lavoisier come up with his ridiculous notion of oxygen when it wasn't required. After all, we already knew all about phlogiston.

Oxygen is a material substance. As a material substance, oxygen is a part of the physical world and its processes. 'Non material' things are a different beast altogether.

What is this 'non material' substance?

How is it supposed to interact with the physical world?

Where does it come from?

The real problem isn't explaining mind, it's explaining matter. That's what Descartes work was all about. Mind was a given. How do you know that matter exists? How do you know the external world isn't just a figment of your imagination? Matter is the metaphysical entity, not mind. Check out George Berkley on this one. I don't need matter to explain the universe. If some thing is hard, I know that hardness exists. Why do I need to invent a metaphysical entity that causes the hardness. What exists besides mental qualities? And how do you prove that existence?

This is drifting into the realm of solipsism.

How do you know that? We know that the brain transmits various electrical pulses. What makes these pulses information? They only become information to a conscious observer. So you need the non-material conscious observer even to explain the brain in terms of information processing.

What do you think the complex architecture of the brain does, if not evolved for the very purpose of responding to its environment? The world is composed of information; EM wavelength, pressure waves, airborne molecules, texture, properties, attributes, etc, and all of this is a formof information when quantified. A brain, as an evolved information processor, quantifies its inputs: wavelength, pressure waves, airborne molocules, etc.

''Our mind is fully determined by our brain. Brain is the cause of the existence of the mind and also the mind is a feature of brain. He states that “Mental phenomena are caused by neurophysiological processes in the brain and are themselves features of the brain.” (Searle, 54). Searle gives water as an example to illustrate his thesis. If we study the relations between the water (H2O) and liquidity we will find that water possess the feature of liquidity. Same the mind is the feature of brain. At the same time the feature of liquidity is determined by the molecular structure of the water. It’s not an extra-quality of the water molecules but the one of the molecularly features. “The liquid state of this water can be causally dependent on the behavior of the molecules, and can also be a feature of the system made up of the molecules?" (Searle). So, Searle describes two levels of event and phenomena and these levels and micro level and macro level. Micro level defines macro level but at the same time it is identical with it. Molecules make the micro level in the example with water while liquidity makes macro level. If we turn back to mind and brain correlation we will see that the mind is a macro level of brain and neurons make its micro level. So, if we apply Searle’s conclusion to the mind and brain correlation, we will see that the mind is caused by neurons and at the same time it is a feature of brain. Expanding these conclusions we will see that mental is also the part of the physical. There can be no division to physical and mental any more. Everything derives from physical but some things have mental-physical and others have non-mental physical nature. A person can not have mind without a brain but they do not make one unite and stay two different things. The mind represents mental reality while the brain represents physical one. Mind and brain are both real but present different types of reality. Searle tries to prove that being the cause for mind, brain possess mind as its feature. From the first sight it may seem that mind and brain are identical. Knowing about possible critics of such an approach, Searle has made a ready answer for those, who will blame him. To escape controversy, he states that mind and brain are different things and mind doesn’t cause brain. He says that “Either you have dualism and an unintelligible account of causation or you have an intelligible account of causation and abandon the idea of the causal efficacy of the mental in favor of some version of the identity thesis with an attendent epiphenomenalism of the mental aspects of psycho-physical events.”(Searle) So, the mind is described as a higher aspect of brain and thus it possess same physical nature as brain does but being its higher aspect it also possess some additional characteristics.''

Searle is saying that the brain causes the mind even as he denies it later in the paragraph. Causation does not prove identity. Saying that mind is a feature of the brain does not prove that the mind is material. Searle's views are well-known in the philosophy of mind community, but no one says that he has solved the mind-body problem. Saying that the mind is a feature of the brain is merely trying to define the problem away. You can't just say it, you have to prove it.

At least here you've brought in something new to your argument.

I've already answered this. YOU are that nature. Your mind is non-physical.

It is an answer. But it is not an explanation.

Are you kidding? What the hell has this entire discussion been about? You are so close-minded in your materialism that you are unable to find even yourself. You believe you are nothing but a robot. But take a minute to realize that you are not a robot, and what makes you not a robot is what you are failing to see.
.

Wrong on all counts. You have not provided an argument for your proposition. You have made assertions.

What "propositions" have I put forward? We cannot prove that the mind is material. That is all that I have claimed.

As for me being closed minded, I say that I am not willing to accept an assertion as being true and accurate representation of the way the world works without a good reason to do so. That requires an argument that is sufficient to prove the assertion through evidence, logic and reason.

That is what I ask you to provide.

Mind cannot be reduced to matter. That is my assertion. I don't need to provide more than that. You can refute it simply by showing how mind can be reduced to matter, but you can't do that.

All you've done throughout is to make the same unsubstantiated claims, and then sought to shift the burden of proof.

When you've asked for an example of a non-material substance I have responded with examples such as "your own thoughts," and you had the temerity to deny it! It is impossible to argue with someone who simply denies the obvious.

 

[none]

boneyard bill, if we map the electrical footprint in a brain that corresponds to the belief in a mind, will that solve the problem?

 

[ryan]

boneyard bill, if we map the electrical footprint in a brain that corresponds to the belief in a mind, will that solve the problem?

The problem with this is that if it is true, then what we think are intelligent answers and understandings about the universe are just tiny processes/reactions in the brain. In that case, all knowledge becomes meaningless. But, if it is true, then we do know something, which then falsifies the possibility in your question.

 

[none]

boneyard bill, if we map the electrical footprint in a brain that corresponds to the belief in a mind, will that solve the problem?

The problem with this is that if it is true, then what we think are intelligent answers and understandings about the universe are just tiny processes/reactions in the brain. In that case, all knowledge becomes meaningless. But, if it is true, then we do know something, which then falsifies the possibility in your question.

yeah throw the baby out with the bath water...
just because a thought is an electrical impulse doesn't stop discussion.
we can and do interact with our brains already, just having a mri of the brain doesn't change that.
If images are that powerful then x-rays of a broken bone should make the fracture go away?

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is the thought 2 + 2 = 4 a mathematical truth, or is it process A in the brain?

 

[none]

Okay, so is the thought 2 + 2 = 4 a mathematical truth, or is it process A in the brain?

both

 

[ryan]

Okay, so is the thought 2 + 2 = 4 a mathematical truth, or is it process A in the brain?

both

Since we can probably both agree that process A is physical, what then is the mathematical truth?

 

[none]

Okay, so is the thought 2 + 2 = 4 a mathematical truth, or is it process A in the brain?

both

Since we can probably both agree that process A is physical, what then is the mathematical truth?

who cares, i'd say it is a category... a thought derived from processes within the brain.