My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[ryan]

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.

The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds.

 

[bilby]

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.

The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds.

The point is that this is an unsupported statement of belief, and should be disregarded as the nonsense it clearly is.

 

[Juma]

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.

The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds.

But that is not true. That is: it is a totally unsupported, and ridiculous, statement.

The article quotes doesnt support it, so why the quote?

 

[ryan]

The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds.

The point is that this is an unsupported statement of belief, and should be disregarded as the nonsense it clearly is.

You're too arrogant. I don't know why you have to talk like that.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds.

But that is not true. That is: it is a totally unsupported, and ridiculous, statement.

The article quotes doesnt support it, so why the quote?

What quote?

 

[DBT]

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.

I don't think they do, so that's what you need to explain: describing exactly why you believe they do.

 

[bilby]

The point is that this is an unsupported statement of belief, and should be disregarded as the nonsense it clearly is.

You're too arrogant. I don't know why you have to talk like that.

If I am wrong, then please explain why, and I will be happy to apologise for calling your statement unsupported nonsense.

Until you can provide an explanation of how it is sensible and/or supported, I stick by what I said.

Please be aware, I am not attacking you as a person; It is your ideas that are flawed, and by posting them here, you invite criticism of them - as do we all.

Surely you don't expect unsupported assertions about the nature of reality to be accepted without question on this forum?

 

[ryan]

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.

I don't think they do, so that's what you need to explain: describing exactly why you believe they do.

Are you talking about the quote about god? I really can't interpret that quote any other way.

 

[ryan]

You're too arrogant. I don't know why you have to talk like that.

If I am wrong, then please explain why, and I will be happy to apologise for calling your statement unsupported nonsense.

Until you can provide an explanation of how it is sensible and/or supported, I stick by what I said.

Please be aware, I am not attacking you as a person; It is your ideas that are flawed, and by posting them here, you invite criticism of them - as do we all.

Surely you don't expect unsupported assertions about the nature of reality to be accepted without question on this forum?

I know you aren't attacking me personally. You are so much better than those cheap-lawyer tactics that weak and stupid people often get swayed by. We use logic; we don't sell. And most importantly, we aren't certain.

 

[bilby]

If I am wrong, then please explain why, and I will be happy to apologise for calling your statement unsupported nonsense.

Until you can provide an explanation of how it is sensible and/or supported, I stick by what I said.

Please be aware, I am not attacking you as a person; It is your ideas that are flawed, and by posting them here, you invite criticism of them - as do we all.

Surely you don't expect unsupported assertions about the nature of reality to be accepted without question on this forum?

I know you aren't attacking me personally. You are so much better than those cheap-lawyer tactics that weak and stupid people often get swayed by. We use logic; we don't sell. And most importantly, we aren't certain.

Then why did you say "The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds"?

Did you mean "The point is that maybe the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds"?

Either way, do you have any reason to think that it is plausible (much less likely) that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds?

Given that without literally ANYTHING else, it would be?

The OP title is "My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness"; but your statement "... the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds" is not an argument for that; it is a restatement of the thing you are supposed to be arguing for.

It is as compelling an argument as if I were to start a thread "My new argument for the existence of square circles", and then use as my reason for believing in such a thing, the statement "the universe would be very different if some circles were not square".

Are you really surprised that your statement meets with ridicule?

 

[DBT]

I don't think they do, so that's what you need to explain: describing exactly why you believe they do.

Are you talking about the quote about god? I really can't interpret that quote any other way.

That still doesn't explain your reasoning.

But these are the quotes I'd like to see explained in terms of your degree of certainty in relation to non material mind/dualism:

Quote Originally Posted by ryan View Post

Remember (from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ph...ism/#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]

I know you aren't attacking me personally. You are so much better than those cheap-lawyer tactics that weak and stupid people often get swayed by. We use logic; we don't sell. And most importantly, we aren't certain.

Then why did you say "The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds"?

Did you mean "The point is that maybe the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds"?

At this point in the thread, we are discussing minds that don't interact with the physical. So how would it matter to a purely physical universe if there were no minds?

Are you really surprised that your statement meets with ridicule?

Ridiculing is a waste of time. It doesn't bring anything to the discussion.

We all like to ridicule a little bit by throwing a jab every once in a while. But doing it every second post is ridiculous, and in my opinion is just immature.

 

[bilby]

Then why did you say "The point is that the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds"?

Did you mean "The point is that maybe the universe's physical behavior wouldn't be any different without minds"?

At this point in the thread, we are discussing minds that don't interact with the physical. So how would it matter to a purely physical universe if there were no minds?

Are you really surprised that your statement meets with ridicule?

Ridiculing is a waste of time. It doesn't bring anything to the discussion.

We all like to ridicule a little bit by throwing a jab every once in a while. But doing it every second post is ridiculous, and in my opinion is just immature.

You might be discussing minds that don't interact with the physical; But as far as I can tell, nobody else is.

How would a mind that didn't interact with the physical be distinguishable from a mind that didn't exist?

 

[ryan]

That's it. I don't have any more fight left in me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

At this point in the thread, we are discussing minds that don't interact with the physical. So how would it matter to a purely physical universe if there were no minds?

How would a mind that didn't interact with the physical be distinguishable from a mind that didn't exist?

Such a mind surely would be able to make the distinction if it knew it existed. You know, like we sometimes do. Well, maybe you don't but right now I do anyway.
EB

 

[bilby]

How would a mind that didn't interact with the physical be distinguishable from a mind that didn't exist?

Such a mind surely would be able to make the distinction if it knew it existed. You know, like we sometimes do. Well, maybe you don't but right now I do anyway.
EB

Perhaps. Although I am thinking that a mind with no connection to the physical is an impossibility; like the idea of speed that has no connection to the physical - the speed of nothing relative to nowhere is just not a meaningful concept, and nor is the idea of a mind with no interaction with anything physical.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Ok. You run into problems if minds are created by physical processes. I just woke up recently, 1 minute before my alarm was set to go off. Did my consciousness float around my head and alarm clock until it was time to "be me", and wake me up early to umm... I dunno, avoid the alarm?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Such a mind surely would be able to make the distinction if it knew it existed. You know, like we sometimes do. Well, maybe you don't but right now I do anyway.
EB

Perhaps. Although I am thinking that a mind with no connection to the physical is an impossibility; like the idea of speed that has no connection to the physical - the speed of nothing relative to nowhere is just not a meaningful concept, and nor is the idea of a mind with no interaction with anything physical.

You know the expression: comparison is not reason.

I would also struggle fruitlessly to give meaning to the speed of nothing but I don't find there is nearly the same difficulty in the idea of a mind with no interaction with anything physical. Unless your definition of "meaningful" requires some sort of scientific approval, as some have claimed it should. A mind with no relation to the physical would also not need to pay attention to your critic.

Also, this stand-alone mind could perhaps think up a physical world, interactions of itself with it, and maybe thereby give meaning to itself as a by-product of this physical world. It could even get to agree (metaphysically) with you and convince itself that it's own existence proves that of this physical world. It would be wrong in this instance of course.

Do you agree?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Did my consciousness float around my head and alarm clock until it was time to "be me", and wake me up early to umm... I dunno, avoid the alarm?

Yeah, I do that too a lot.
EB

 

[WAB]

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.

Ok. You run into problems if minds are created by physical processes. I just woke up recently, 1 minute before my alarm was set to go off. Did my consciousness float around my head and alarm clock until it was time to "be me", and wake me up early to umm... I dunno, avoid the alarm?

That happens to me a lot! Just as a drive-by here: while a mind 'connected' to something physical, like a super-duper computer, incredibly complex alien brain, other human or lower animal brains, or just one's own brain, doesn't seem too far-fetched to me - a mind connected to nothing physical seems like a stretch. Like a cellphone with no electronics, no material object, nothing at all.

 

[DBT]

That's it. I don't have any more fight left in me.

Put the feet up, slowly sip a nice glass of chilled wine and you'll be eager to get back in the fray in no time.