My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

Physics/science cannot rule anything out that isn't falsifiable. How on Earth could you even imagine falsifying dualism? We could never rule out dualism.

OK; you tell me what can interact with the physical world, can exist at energy densities compatible with the continued existence of brain tissue, but is not both a part of currently known physics and readily detectable by common and widely available technology.

Hint: for such a thing to exist and not yet have been detected would require that modern physics is dramatically wrong in ways that would be very obvious indeed.

When something undetected would require a major revision of all of science in order to exist, you would have to be a total moron to not rule it out. If we can't rule out dualism, we don't know anything at all, and all our technology is based on lucky guesses.

Surely you don't believe this?

I am more confident that dualism doesn't exist than I am that I won't win the lotto every week for the next decade.

Sure, it's not proof; proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

But you would be insane to bet against physics on this one.

See what I added in my last reply to you.

 

[ryan]

Remember (from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#CasForPhy),

"(1) Physicalism is true at a possible world w iff any world which is a physical duplicate of w is a duplicate of w simpliciter. ".

Another quote in there is,

"According to (1), what this means is that if physicalism is true, there is no possible world which is identical to the actual world in every physical respect but which is not identical to it in a biological or social or psychological respect.".

Ryan, what do you believe your quotes mean in relation to your claim for the virtual certainty (90%) of the existence of non material mind/dualism?

Please see the larger quote from the same post that got these. The mind is simply not necessary for a purely physical reality. It is something extra.

 

[bilby]

OK; you tell me what can interact with the physical world, can exist at energy densities compatible with the continued existence of brain tissue, but is not both a part of currently known physics and readily detectable by common and widely available technology.

Hint: for such a thing to exist and not yet have been detected would require that modern physics is dramatically wrong in ways that would be very obvious indeed.

When something undetected would require a major revision of all of science in order to exist, you would have to be a total moron to not rule it out. If we can't rule out dualism, we don't know anything at all, and all our technology is based on lucky guesses.

Surely you don't believe this?

I am more confident that dualism doesn't exist than I am that I won't win the lotto every week for the next decade.

Sure, it's not proof; proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

But you would be insane to bet against physics on this one.

See what I added in my last reply to you.

Any posited non physical mind needs to interact constantly with its 'host' brain or it will drift away. Brains constantly move and accelerate in a variety of directions; nobody loses their mind as a result.

That's just one of countless examples of major flaws in your ad-hoc and rather pathetic 'maybe the mind only interacts one in a while' defence has.

Really, you need to give this a lot more thought.

It's you against the whole of modern physics; ad-hoc rationalisations are not going to cut it.

 

[DBT]

Ryan, what do you believe your quotes mean in relation to your claim for the virtual certainty (90%) of the existence of non material mind/dualism?

Please see the larger quote from the same post that got these. The mind is simply not necessary for a purely physical reality. It is something extra.

I read your post, but did not see an explanation for the questions I asked.

 

[ryan]

See what I added in my last reply to you.

Any posited non physical mind needs to interact constantly with its 'host' brain or it will drift away. Brains constantly move and accelerate in a variety of directions; nobody loses their mind as a result.

That's just one of countless examples of major flaws in your ad-hoc and rather pathetic 'maybe the mind only interacts one in a while' defence has.

Really, you need to give this a lot more thought.

It's you against the whole of modern physics; ad-hoc rationalisations are not going to cut it.

There is a causal relationship with the mind and body, yet the mind does not need to exist in a purely physical reality. That tells us that the mind at least runs parallel with physical rules. That's the non-physical argument. However, I also believe that the mind actually has a non-causal properties, but that is a discussion I had with everyone on the other thread about free will.

 

[ryan]

Please see the larger quote from the same post that got these. The mind is simply not necessary for a purely physical reality. It is something extra.

I read your post, but did not see an explanation for the questions I asked.

My answer was the last two sentences in my last post to you. They seem to answer your question quite directly.

The quotes mean that the mind is something extra to what is physical.

 

[Juma]

I read your post, but did not see an explanation for the questions I asked.

My answer was the last two sentences in my last post to you. They seem to answer your question quite directly.

The quotes mean that the mind is something extra to what is physical.

The qoutes may want to convey that opinion. The quotes does not mean that.

 

[Kharakov]

The quotes mean that the mind is something extra to what is physical.

They don't. The one quote is a thought experiment in which one assumes the mind is made of a substance other than what exists in the cosmos, and is then "attached" to brains in the cosmos (in the case of God imbuing physical brains with consciousness).

This doesn't even imply that the mind is not physical: one can create parts in 2 factories, and put them together in a 3rd, even making them out of different physical substances without any of them being nonphysical.


You might be so obsessed with seeing a nonphysical connection between things, that you don't realize that any connection is physical, although they can be between different levels of physical reality.

 

[ryan]

The quotes mean that the mind is something extra to what is physical.

They don't. The one quote is a thought experiment in which one assumes the mind is made of a substance other than what exists in the cosmos, and is then "attached" to brains in the cosmos (in the case of God imbuing physical brains with consciousness).

This doesn't even imply that the mind is not physical: one can create parts in 2 factories, and put them together in a 3rd, even making them out of different physical substances without any of them being nonphysical.


You might be so obsessed with seeing a nonphysical connection between things, that you don't realize that any connection is physical, although they can be between different levels of physical reality.

I don't see how the quote can be anymore clearer.

If minds exist, then physical universe A (without minds) = physical universe B (with minds).

Exactly what does your factory argument have to do with this?

 

[Juma]

They don't. The one quote is a thought experiment in which one assumes the mind is made of a substance other than what exists in the cosmos, and is then "attached" to brains in the cosmos (in the case of God imbuing physical brains with consciousness).

This doesn't even imply that the mind is not physical: one can create parts in 2 factories, and put them together in a 3rd, even making them out of different physical substances without any of them being nonphysical.


You might be so obsessed with seeing a nonphysical connection between things, that you don't realize that any connection is physical, although they can be between different levels of physical reality.

I don't see how the quote can be anymore clearer.

If minds exist, then physical universe A (without minds) = physical universe B (with minds).

Exactly what does your factory argument have to do with this?

Why do you bring the quote up at all? It really doesnt help your case at all.

 

[bilby]

Any posited non physical mind needs to interact constantly with its 'host' brain or it will drift away. Brains constantly move and accelerate in a variety of directions; nobody loses their mind as a result.

That's just one of countless examples of major flaws in your ad-hoc and rather pathetic 'maybe the mind only interacts one in a while' defence has.

Really, you need to give this a lot more thought.

It's you against the whole of modern physics; ad-hoc rationalisations are not going to cut it.

There is a causal relationship with the mind and body, yet the mind does not need to exist in a purely physical reality.

Yes, it fucking does. What is this, the output of the Deepak Chopra Woo Generator?

That tells us that the mind at least runs parallel with physical rules. That's the non-physical argument. However, I also believe that the mind actually has a non-causal properties, but that is a discussion I had with everyone on the other thread about free will.

Your beliefs don't add up to shit.

You can't refute physics by saying 'Nuh-uh'; you actually have to come up with some observations that don't fit the current theories, or at the very least a new hypothesis that fits the observed facts.

If you are satisfied with contrived woo and appeals to belief, then abandon all reason and admit that you are engaged in religion, not philosophy or science.

You can believe that you can fly; but science says 'No'. You can believe that the mind is non physical; but science says 'No'. Your only remaining choices at this point are 1) Accept that you were wrong; or 2) Continue to be wrong.

 

[ryan]

I don't see how the quote can be anymore clearer.

If minds exist, then physical universe A (without minds) = physical universe B (with minds).

Exactly what does your factory argument have to do with this?

Why do you bring the quote up at all? It really doesnt help your case at all.

I have explained why many times in the past two pages.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a causal relationship with the mind and body, yet the mind does not need to exist in a purely physical reality.

Yes, it fucking does. What is this, the output of the Deepak Chopra Woo Generator?

That tells us that the mind at least runs parallel with physical rules. That's the non-physical argument. However, I also believe that the mind actually has a non-causal properties, but that is a discussion I had with everyone on the other thread about free will.

Your beliefs don't add up to shit.

You can't refute physics by saying 'Nuh-uh'; you actually have to come up with some observations that don't fit the current theories, or at the very least a new hypothesis that fits the observed facts.

If you are satisfied with contrived woo and appeals to belief, then abandon all reason and admit that you are engaged in religion, not philosophy or science.

You can believe that you can fly; but science says 'No'. You can believe that the mind is non physical; but science says 'No'. Your only remaining choices at this point are 1) Accept that you were wrong; or 2) Continue to be wrong.

You obviously don't even understand my argument because you won't address it.

Figure it out, and then maybe you will actually think up a counter point.

 

[Kharakov]

They don't. The one quote is a thought experiment in which one assumes the mind is made of a substance other than what exists in the cosmos, and is then "attached" to brains in the cosmos (in the case of God imbuing physical brains with consciousness).

This doesn't even imply that the mind is not physical: one can create parts in 2 factories, and put them together in a 3rd, even making them out of different physical substances without any of them being nonphysical.


You might be so obsessed with seeing a nonphysical connection between things, that you don't realize that any connection is physical, although they can be between different levels of physical reality.

I don't see how the quote can be anymore clearer.

If minds exist, then physical universe A (without minds) = physical universe B (with minds).

Since minds are physical, that statement isn't true.

Exactly what does your factory argument have to do with this?

You can create a universe that evolves according to some laws, and a mind that acts in certain ways, out of the same substance.

In the quote, a God created the universe, and later attached minds to brains. Doesn't mean they are made of different substances- they would both be physical creations, just one is prepared using a certain method, and has certain characteristics, and another has other characteristics. They are later put together.

 

[ryan]

I don't see how the quote can be anymore clearer.

If minds exist, then physical universe A (without minds) = physical universe B (with minds).

Since minds are physical, that statement isn't true.

Exactly what does your factory argument have to do with this?

You can create a universe that evolves according to some laws, and a mind that acts in certain ways, out of the same substance.

In the quote, a God created the universe, and later attached minds to brains. Doesn't mean they are made of different substances- they would both be physical creations, just one is prepared using a certain method, and has certain characteristics, and another has other characteristics. They are later put together.

Of course it means they are made of different substances!!!! If you put substance A into a beaker with substance B, and there is no change in the amount of substance B, then substance A is clearly not substance B.

Why is this so hard for everyone to understand - what is going here!?!?!?

 

[bilby]

Why do you bring the quote up at all? It really doesnt help your case at all.

I have explained why many times in the past two pages.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a causal relationship with the mind and body, yet the mind does not need to exist in a purely physical reality.

Yes, it fucking does. What is this, the output of the Deepak Chopra Woo Generator?

That tells us that the mind at least runs parallel with physical rules. That's the non-physical argument. However, I also believe that the mind actually has a non-causal properties, but that is a discussion I had with everyone on the other thread about free will.

Your beliefs don't add up to shit.

You can't refute physics by saying 'Nuh-uh'; you actually have to come up with some observations that don't fit the current theories, or at the very least a new hypothesis that fits the observed facts.

If you are satisfied with contrived woo and appeals to belief, then abandon all reason and admit that you are engaged in religion, not philosophy or science.

You can believe that you can fly; but science says 'No'. You can believe that the mind is non physical; but science says 'No'. Your only remaining choices at this point are 1) Accept that you were wrong; or 2) Continue to be wrong.

You obviously don't even understand my argument because you won't address it.

I don't need to care about the details of an argument that is based on a premise that is demonstrably false.

It is physically impossible for there to be a non physical entity of any kind that has any effect on the physical components of a living human being.

Unless you can show that basic fact to be in error, the rest of what you say is meaningless.

So how does a non physical entity interact with a physical person?

We know it isn't:

Gamma rays, X-Rays, UV, visible light, infrared, microwaves or radio; because all these are easy to detect.
Magnetic or electric fields; also easy to detect
Gravity; easy to detect, and too weak to do much of anything given the low mass of a human.
Neutrino radiation; doesn't interact enough with matter.
Ionising radiation; very easy to detect.
The strong or weak nuclear interactions; too short range, and far too energetic
Higher energy particles - such as Muons - too energetic. Not only would they be obvious, they would also be deadly.
Higgs bosons; far too massive/energetic.

There is nothing else. Physics has ruled out the existence of anything else, except at scales tens of orders of magnitude too small to be relevant, and/or energies tens of orders of magnitude too high to be survivable.

There CANNOT be a non physical interaction with the brain that we don't know about.

Figure it out, and then maybe you will actually think up a counter point.

All of modern physics.

That's your counter point.

I am sorry if it is too big for you to see it.


It is not necessary to be able to refute someone's hypothesis about the layout of Noah's ark in order to show that creationism is bunk.

Your idea is impossible at a fundamental level; the details are therefore irrelevant.

 

[ryan]

So how does a non physical entity interact with a physical person?

...

There CANNOT be a non physical interaction with the brain that we don't know about.

I have been over this too many times to count. I strongly suggest that you actually understand the argument.

 

[bilby]

So how does a non physical entity interact with a physical person?

...

There CANNOT be a non physical interaction with the brain that we don't know about.

I have been over this too many times to count. I strongly suggest that you actually understand the argument.

You don't HAVE an argument. Or if you do, you haven't presented it. So far, all you have presented is a bunch of wooly thinking and desperation, masquerading as an argument.

 

[ryan]

I have been over this too many times to count. I strongly suggest that you actually understand the argument.

You don't HAVE an argument. Or if you do, you haven't presented it. So far, all you have presented is a bunch of wooly thinking and desperation, masquerading as an argument.

Then don't worry about some guy with no argument.

This whole topic for me is clear. I am going to be leaving this topic for good unless someone actually has a relevant argument.

 

[Kharakov]

Since minds are physical, that statement isn't true.

Exactly what does your factory argument have to do with this?

You can create a universe that evolves according to some laws, and a mind that acts in certain ways, out of the same substance.

In the quote, a God created the universe, and later attached minds to brains. Doesn't mean they are made of different substances- they would both be physical creations, just one is prepared using a certain method, and has certain characteristics, and another has other characteristics. They are later put together.

Of course it means they are made of different substances!!!! If you put substance A into a beaker with substance B, and there is no change in the amount of substance B, then substance A is clearly not substance B.

Why is this so hard for everyone to understand - what is going here!?!?!?

If substance A can be formed into water, oil, and minds, you don't have 2 different substances in a beaker when you combine water and oil, unless you are equivocating the term substance to mean something other than what we are discussing (the fundamental substance).

 

[bilby]

You don't HAVE an argument. Or if you do, you haven't presented it. So far, all you have presented is a bunch of wooly thinking and desperation, masquerading as an argument.

Then don't worry about some guy with no argument.

This whole topic for me is clear. I am going to be leaving this topic for good unless someone actually has a relevant argument.

If your religion makes you feel better, then go for it. But don't expect anyone else to subscribe to your bizarre and unsupported beliefs.