My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

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).

Substance A and substance B are analogous to a physical substance and a non-physical substance respectively.

 

[beero1000]

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.

At least then, someone will...

 

[Kharakov]

Reminds me of untermensche's determination that everyone except for him was wrong about infinities. Including mathematicians.

 

[Kharakov]

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).

Substance A and substance B are analogous to a physical substance and a non-physical substance respectively.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming a nonphysical substance exists. You have no evidence that mind is not physical (you can alter your mind by altering your brain chemistry), you just... claim that it is.

If mind is not generated by fundamental particles and their interactions, but is instead another substance entirely, one should be able to detect it interacting with physical reality in more ways than simply through humans (ok, I've seen stuff that seems to indicate mind acting through more than just humans, but... anyway, the name of the mind I'm in could be Sane).

If instead, as I and many fundamentalist particleists sometimes say, fundamental particles and their interactions form everything we see, minds are formed out of the fundamental interactions.

Anyways...

 

[ryan]

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).

Substance A and substance B are analogous to a physical substance and a non-physical substance respectively.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming a nonphysical substance exists. You have no evidence that mind is not physical (you can alter your mind by altering your brain chemistry), you just... claim that it is.

If mind is not generated by fundamental particles and their interactions, but is instead another substance entirely, one should be able to detect it interacting with physical reality in more ways than simply through humans (ok, I've seen stuff that seems to indicate mind acting through more than just humans, but... anyway, the name of the mind I'm in could be Sane).

If instead, as I and many fundamentalist particleists sometimes say, fundamental particles and their interactions form everything we see, minds are formed out of the fundamental interactions.

So here in this last bit you say that we only see particles and interactions. Then you say that minds form from them. That is a third entity/(fundamental substance).

Aren't particles and their interactions enough for physicalism? Why does it need minds?

 

[Kharakov]

Aren't particles and their interactions enough for physicalism? Why does it need minds?

Well, it could very well be the case that minds need it. If you wouldn't mind (I mean, do mind), please read the following from  Neuroscience#Translational_research_and_medicine :

Show

Neurology, psychiatry, neurosurgery, psychosurgery, anesthesiology and pain medicine, neuropathology, neuroradiology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, clinical neurophysiology, addiction medicine, and sleep medicine are some medical specialties that specifically address the diseases of the nervous system. These terms also refer to clinical disciplines involving diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. Neurology works with diseases of the central and peripheral nervous systems, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and stroke, and their medical treatment. Psychiatry focuses on affective, behavioral, cognitive, and perceptual disorders. Anesthesiology focuses on perception of pain, and pharmacologic alteration of consciousness. Neuropathology focuses upon the classification and underlying pathogenic mechanisms of central and peripheral nervous system and muscle diseases, with an emphasis on morphologic, microscopic, and chemically observable alterations. Neurosurgery and psychosurgery work primarily with surgical treatment of diseases of the central and peripheral nervous systems. The boundaries between these specialties have been blurring recently as they are all influenced by basic research in neuroscience. Brain imaging also enables objective, biological insights into mental illness, which can lead to faster diagnosis, more accurate prognosis, and help assess patient progress over time.^[17]
Integrative neuroscience makes connections across these specialized areas of focus.

 

[Juma]

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).

Substance A and substance B are analogous to a physical substance and a non-physical substance respectively.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming a nonphysical substance exists. You have no evidence that mind is not physical (you can alter your mind by altering your brain chemistry), you just... claim that it is.

If mind is not generated by fundamental particles and their interactions, but is instead another substance entirely, one should be able to detect it interacting with physical reality in more ways than simply through humans (ok, I've seen stuff that seems to indicate mind acting through more than just humans, but... anyway, the name of the mind I'm in could be Sane).

If instead, as I and many fundamentalist particleists sometimes say, fundamental particles and their interactions form everything we see, minds are formed out of the fundamental interactions.

So here in this last bit you say that we only see particles and interactions. Then you say that minds form from them. That is a third entity/(fundamental substance).

And everyone has tried to explain this to you in more than thousand posts (there have been more threads than this about your folly): that third stuff is time/change/dynamics.

Already three bodies makes a very complicated dybamic system. How complex cannot then a system of 1E23 particles be?

 

[bilby]

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).

Substance A and substance B are analogous to a physical substance and a non-physical substance respectively.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming a nonphysical substance exists. You have no evidence that mind is not physical (you can alter your mind by altering your brain chemistry), you just... claim that it is.

If mind is not generated by fundamental particles and their interactions, but is instead another substance entirely, one should be able to detect it interacting with physical reality in more ways than simply through humans (ok, I've seen stuff that seems to indicate mind acting through more than just humans, but... anyway, the name of the mind I'm in could be Sane).

If instead, as I and many fundamentalist particleists sometimes say, fundamental particles and their interactions form everything we see, minds are formed out of the fundamental interactions.

So here in this last bit you say that we only see particles and interactions. Then you say that minds form from them. That is a third entity/(fundamental substance).

Aren't particles and their interactions enough for physicalism? Why does it need minds?

Everything forms from particles and interactions. You are finding a problem where none exists. Physicalism doesn't need minds, any more than it needs planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle.

 

[ryan]

Aren't particles and their interactions enough for physicalism? Why does it need minds?

Well, it could very well be the case that minds need it.

That has nothing to do with my argument. The central point that I am trying to convey is that the particles and the processes do not need the mind. The mind is not necessary in a physical universe.

 

[ryan]

And everyone has tried to explain this to you in more than thousand posts (there have been more threads than this about your folly): that third stuff is time/change/dynamics.

Time/change/dynamics is already implied with "interactions".

 

[ryan]

Everything forms from particles and interactions. You are finding a problem where none exists. Physicalism doesn't need minds, any more than it needs planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle.

That's totally wrong. You don't understand what I am saying. How the hell can you say that physicalism doesn't need interacting systems such as puppies? You can't take away a puppy and have the universe behave the exact same way. However, you CAN take away minds and have the universe behave the exact same way.

Focus on what I am saying.

 

[bilby]

Everything forms from particles and interactions. You are finding a problem where none exists. Physicalism doesn't need minds, any more than it needs planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle.

That's totally wrong. You don't understand what I am saying. How the hell can you say that physicalism doesn't need interacting systems such as puppies? You can't take away a puppy and have the universe behave the exact same way. However, you CAN take away minds and have the universe behave the exact same way.

Focus on what I am saying.

How about you focus on saying something that is not just a bald, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion of your faith?

What evidence have you that minds are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle?

'Necessary' is simply not an applicable concept. Reality as a whole doesn't 'need' things. It just is things.

What evidence do you have that you can take away minds and have the universe behave the exact same way?

 

[ryan]

That's totally wrong. You don't understand what I am saying. How the hell can you say that physicalism doesn't need interacting systems such as puppies? You can't take away a puppy and have the universe behave the exact same way. However, you CAN take away minds and have the universe behave the exact same way.

Focus on what I am saying.

How about you focus on saying something that is not just a bald, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion of your faith?

What evidence have you that minds are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle?

Bilby, you have got to be kidding me. I have been saying over and over and over that minds are NOT necessary. You still have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[bilby]

How about you focus on saying something that is not just a bald, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion of your faith?

What evidence have you that minds are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle?

Bilby, you have got to be kidding me. I have been saying over and over and over that minds are NOT necessary. You still have no idea what I am talking about.

Then that makes two of us.

What evidence have you that puppy dogs are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or minds, or peanut brittle?

WHY DO YOU NOT TREAT MINDS EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER PHENOMENON???

What is your justification for treating 'mind' as something different?

 

[Juma]

And everyone has tried to explain this to you in more than thousand posts (there have been more threads than this about your folly): that third stuff is time/change/dynamics.

Time/change/dynamics is already implied with "interactions".

Good. Then what the heck is you arguing about?

 

[Juma]

How about you focus on saying something that is not just a bald, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion of your faith?

What evidence have you that minds are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle?

Bilby, you have got to be kidding me. I have been saying over and over and over that minds are NOT necessary. You still have no idea what I am talking about.

And that is definitely not his fault.

 

[Juma]

That's totally wrong. You don't understand what I am saying. How the hell can you say that physicalism doesn't need interacting systems such as puppies? You can't take away a puppy and have the universe behave the exact same way. However, you CAN take away minds and have the universe behave the exact same way.

Focus on what I am saying.

How about you focus on saying something that is not just a bald, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion of your faith?

What evidence have you that minds are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or puppy dogs, or peanut brittle?

'Necessary' is simply not an applicable concept. Reality as a whole doesn't 'need' things. It just is things.

What evidence do you have that you can take away minds and have the universe behave the exact same way?

Mind IS (part of) the behaviour of the universe.

Why would something behave the same way if you took away some of that behaviour?

Mind is something that happens. Not a substance.

 

[ryan]

Bilby, you have got to be kidding me. I have been saying over and over and over that minds are NOT necessary. You still have no idea what I am talking about.

Then that makes two of us.

What evidence have you that puppy dogs are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or minds, or peanut brittle?

Well, do you think we can take puppies out of the universe with no physical consequence? We can take minds out of the universe with no physical consequence.

WHY DO YOU NOT TREAT MINDS EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER PHENOMENON???

What is your justification for treating 'mind' as something different?

My other reply in this post answers this directly.

 

[ryan]

Bilby, you have got to be kidding me. I have been saying over and over and over that minds are NOT necessary. You still have no idea what I am talking about.

And that is definitely not his fault.

At least your responses make sense as arguments to my posts. Bilby and sometimes K are in some kind of stupor.

- - - Updated - - -

Time/change/dynamics is already implied with "interactions".

Good. Then what the heck is you arguing about?

K said it was something that comes from interactions. K did not say that it is interactions.

 

[bilby]

Then that makes two of us.

What evidence have you that puppy dogs are 'necessary', and not just something that happens to exist - like planets, or minds, or peanut brittle?

Well, do you think we can take puppies out of the universe with no physical consequence? We can take minds out of the universe with no physical consequence.

WHY DO YOU NOT TREAT MINDS EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER PHENOMENON???

What is your justification for treating 'mind' as something different?

My other reply in this post answers this directly.

"We can take minds out of the universe with no physical consequence", is an assertion, not a justification.

How do you know this?

Given that it is true of NOTHING else, why are you making an exception for this one phenomenon?

If I said "We can take puppy dogs out of the universe with no physical consequence", you would say that I was crazy.

Why do you get a pass when you make the exact same claim for a different entity?