ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th February 2019, 12:55 AM   #241
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
Sorry brother. Doesn’t take that long. A mind can’t exist without a brain ...and done
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 01:01 AM   #242
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is what happens when you try to use logic or science to prove a religious proposition.

It it were that easy then you wouldn't need faith.
Fantastic and well said
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 11:28 AM   #243
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 872
Originally Posted by Wonder234
a living body is no better than a dead one when it comes to free will. The they both essentially lack personhood due to just being a substance like a rock. That free will must ultimately come from things that are people and that thus, to have free will a body must have a soul.
Originally Posted by Wonder234
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.
To paraphrase both these statements:

"I don't know how minds can be an emergent property of matter therefore it isn't true and minds exist independently of matter"

"I also don't know how minds can exist independently of matter, but it's true anyway."

You've just declared both mind being an emergent property of matter and mind arising independently of matter to be very problematic, yet you've just declared the first one false and the second one true even though you've got no actual argument favour one over the other and that your entire argument supposedly depends upon!

Where's your argument that mind existing independently of matter is such a superior proposition that you declare it true over mind existing as an emergent property of matter?

This is what happens when you cobble together a terrible argument that you then ad hoc try and patch up when it becomes apparent it's full of gaping holes.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 11th February 2019 at 11:37 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 03:33 PM   #244
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I see no problem with the idea that there could be something that exists but never began to exist.
Do you have any problem applying that idea to The Universe?

If you do, why?

If not, then no creator required.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 11:08 PM   #245
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
Sorry brother. Doesn’t take that long. A mind can’t exist without a brain ...and done

Translation:
Code:
A mind can’t exist without a brain because ----->|
^                                                |
|                                                |
|<-----------------------------------------------|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 11:33 PM   #246
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
...because a mind is just what a brain does.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 11:57 PM   #247
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
...because a mind is just what a brain does.

Translation:
Code:
..because a mind is just what a brain does ----->|
^                                                |
|                                                |
|<-----------------------------------------------|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 12:17 AM   #248
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Do you have any evidence that a mind is what anything else does?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:12 AM   #249
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Do you have any evidence that a mind is what anything else does?
No, but you don't have anything other than a circular argument either.

Religious people often come under criticism for making assertions without proof. Others should also be held under that same standard.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 01:58 AM   #250
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,523
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Do you have any problem applying that idea to The Universe?
If you had continued and read the very next sentence after the one you quoted you would have seen that I don't.
Quote:
If not, then no creator required.
Whoever said a creator was required?


Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 03:58 PM   #251
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,161
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No, but you don't have anything other than a circular argument either.

Religious people often come under criticism for making assertions without proof. Others should also be held under that same standard.
This isn't an assertion without proof however. It's an explanation for observed phenomena which is supported by a ton of hypotheses and predictions.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 06:02 PM   #252
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
We know that minds are what brains do. We can look at a brain, see it working, and we can even tinker with it, which has definite measurable effects on the consciousness of the brain's owner. Damage to the brain affects the mind (cf. Phineas Gage).

On the other hand, we have seen a mind in nothing other than brains, despite looking for them for hundreds of years. This doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, somewhere in the universe, but we probably would have seen one by now if there were one here on Earth.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 09:21 AM   #253
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No, but you don't have anything other than a circular argument either.

Religious people often come under criticism for making assertions without proof. Others should also be held under that same standard.
He didn't give a circular argument. He described an object (a brain) and an action (mental processes), and noted that our observations show that the process does not appear anywhere else.

It's similar to stating that our observations confirm that a fire cannot burn without oxygen.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 10:14 AM   #254
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,996
Title: "Free Will Argument for God"

Reason alone cannot provide what is needed: empirical proof.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 02:11 PM   #255
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
How a mind can exist without a brain is a tough problem and may take a while to figure out.

You going to use your mind or your brain to do the figuring?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 07:34 PM   #256
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
He didn't give a circular argument. He described an object (a brain) and an action (mental processes), and noted that our observations show that the process does not appear anywhere else.

It's similar to stating that our observations confirm that a fire cannot burn without oxygen.
It is reasonable to believe that the mind and the brain are intertwined but not a fact. Assuming that it is then using this assumption to "prove" that the mind can not exist without the brain falls under the category of "begging the question".

If you claim that no combination of chemicals (none of which are oxygen) can produce a fire then I will defer to your superior knowledge.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 07:51 PM   #257
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is reasonable to believe that the mind and the brain are intertwined but not a fact.
It is a fact. It is known and proven to the best of our ability. As much as we can call anything a fact, we can call this a fact. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 08:53 PM   #258
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,161
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is reasonable to believe that the mind and the brain are intertwined but not a fact. Assuming that it is then using this assumption to "prove" that the mind can not exist without the brain falls under the category of "begging the question".
This is about as insightful and cogent as saying, "it is reasonable to believe that 'running' and 'legs' are intertwined but not a fact."
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 09:32 PM   #259
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
This is about as insightful and cogent as saying, "it is reasonable to believe that 'running' and 'legs' are intertwined but not a fact."
The difference is that we know what "running" is but we don't have a satisfactory definition for the "mind".

We know that altering the brain will alter a person's thoughts and behaviour but we can't say what effect it will have on their mind because of the lack of a suitable definition.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 09:46 PM   #260
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The difference is that we know what "running" is but we don't have a satisfactory definition for the "mind".

We know that altering the brain will alter a person's thoughts and behaviour but we can't say what effect it will have on their mind because of the lack of a suitable definition.
The mind is thoughts and behaviour.

But seriously, is your argument really "we can't say that mind and brain are entangled because we can't define mind"?

Try this: The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

There. I (and the Oxford Dictionary) just defined "mind" for you. Please, continue with your argument that we can't define "mind".
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 12:01 AM   #261
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The mind is thoughts and behaviour.

But seriously, is your argument really "we can't say that mind and brain are entangled because we can't define mind"?

Try this: The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

There. I (and the Oxford Dictionary) just defined "mind" for you. Please, continue with your argument that we can't define "mind".
So there is no such thing as a "mind"? Just "thoughts and behaviour"? Next you will be saying that there is no such thing as "sentience" - just brain activity.

As for "consciousness", maybe we should start a thread about that!
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 12:05 AM   #262
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,903
Is there such a thing as life, or is it just biological activity?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 12:52 AM   #263
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So there is no such thing as a "mind"? Just "thoughts and behaviour"? Next you will be saying that there is no such thing as "sentience" - just brain activity.

As for "consciousness", maybe we should start a thread about that!
Maybe we should.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 01:24 AM   #264
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Maybe we should.
Irony is lost on you.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 04:07 AM   #265
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,479
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
How to post links is lost on you.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 04:33 AM   #266
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293
How to post links is lost on you.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 09:11 AM   #267
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,813
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is reasonable to believe that the mind and the brain are intertwined but not a fact. Assuming that it is then using this assumption to "prove" that the mind can not exist without the brain falls under the category of "begging the question".
I'm sorry, you're not making any sense. Basing a conclusion on an underlying premise is not begging the question.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 09:17 AM   #268
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,437
Hmmm... in a bit late.

Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Tell me what you think of the following argument for God.

1. There are three ways that events come about in the world: free will, determinism and indeterminism.
Oops. Fails at point 1. There are two ways: random, and deterministic. There might be a mix as well.

Quote:
2. The universe came into existence.

3.The coming into existence of the universe is an event.
But it might not be caused.

Quote:
4. The coming into existence of the universe can not be due to determinism. (This is because every deterministic event requires a prior event to bring it about and that event requires another event and so on to infinity. A deterministic system can not just initiate action out of nowhere or from a state of rest.)
Actually, infinity might be a real thing, and so you could have events/causes back infinitely. Or the universe might be eternal, or uncaused. God doesn't solve this issue.

Quote:
5. The coming into existence of the universe can't be due to indeterminism
Wrong; it absolutely can.

Quote:
6. Therefore, the universe must have been brought into being through an act of free-will.
Except that I don't accept your premise in 1 that free will is a thing.

Quote:
7. Only beings have free will. (Free will requires a mind in order to judge various options and choose)
Possibly.

Quote:
8. Therefore, a being is responsible for the universe.
Fails at 1, 4 and 5 specifically.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 02:56 PM   #269
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,479
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Still fails.



This has been explained so many times on this site I cannot believe you are not aware of it.

POSTING A LINK TO YOUR PERSONAL SEARCH RESULTS ALWAYS FAILS.

Clear enough? Want the technical reasons why that is? Again?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 05:19 PM   #270
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
We know that minds are what brains do. We can look at a brain, see it working, and we can even tinker with it, which has definite measurable effects on the consciousness of the brain's owner. Damage to the brain affects the mind (cf. Phineas Gage).

On the other hand, we have seen a mind in nothing other than brains, despite looking for them for hundreds of years. This doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, somewhere in the universe, but we probably would have seen one by now if there were one here on Earth.
This is a good post. There is a lot of truth in your position. There is also truth in evidence though.

Dr Oliver Wolf Sacks wrote a book on his experience with 1920's Encephalitis victims, It was made into a movie called "Awakenings" which featured Robin Williams and Robert Deniro. In his experience with these patients, by prescribing the drug LDopa, he was able to bring them back from a catatonic state into one of awareness and functioning. The patients reported they were fully aware when in the catatonic state but simply could not react with the physical World, meaning the damage to their brains was preventing them from speaking, moving etc, though they were aware of their surroundings the whole time. Their minds were functioning but trapped and immobile.

Closer to home, my best friend's wife who recently passed away, was diagnosed with brain cancer 6 years ago. She had surgery to remove part of a brain tumor but the Doctor was unable to remove some of the deeper embedded parts of the tumor. He was afraid it would leave her unable to speak as it was deep into the speech center of the brain. It turned out that he was correct. Though not robbing her of speech entirely, her ability to speak was altered in a strange way.

I spoke with her about her symptoms on a few occasions. She was having trouble speaking certain words. Not any one word in particular. She knew what she wanted to say, but the word would not come out in speech. She could even write down the word she wanted to say, but could not force herself to speak that word. Now I don't mean that she garbled the word when trying to speak it, she simply could not make any sound in relation to that word. Her mind was telling her mouth to say something but the mouth would not speak it. Otherwise, she spoke and communicated normally and you would have never known she had any sort of problem.

This lead me to question that if our mind is indeed a product of our brain, then the damaged portion of the physical brain should also damage the mind and prevent it from operation there. But that's not the case. The mind is working in spite of the damaged area of brain tissue. And that's something different.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 05:31 PM   #271
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post

This lead me to question that if our mind is indeed a product of our brain, then the damaged portion of the physical brain should also damage the mind and prevent it from operation there. But that's not the case. The mind is working in spite of the damaged area of brain tissue. And that's something different.

Chris B.

You haven't proven any such thing. Just because a part of the brain that has to do with speach isn't functioning well, doesn't mean other parts that are, are part of "mind", as a separate entity.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 05:54 PM   #272
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
This lead me to question that if our mind is indeed a product of our brain, then the damaged portion of the physical brain should also damage the mind and prevent it from operation there. But that's not the case. The mind is working in spite of the damaged area of brain tissue. And that's something different.
But it would be working differently, which is what we see. No-one's saying that if you damage the brain, the mind just completely stops working.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 06:30 PM   #273
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You haven't proven any such thing. Just because a part of the brain that has to do with speach isn't functioning well, doesn't mean other parts that are, are part of "mind", as a separate entity.
I never claimed to have proof, merely observation. In her case the part of the brain that controlled speech was damaged, yet her mind still wanted her body to speak, the thoughts and words/their meanings were there, just without the physical ability to say those certain words.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
But it would be working differently, which is what we see. No-one's saying that if you damage the brain, the mind just completely stops working.
If the two are bound within a biological organism, damage to one should damage the other. The "will" to do something not being limited by the damage to the biological area suggests some sort of separation to me.

Don't get me wrong, I realize her brain must have been functioning differently. I know the mind must be located within the biological parts of the brain, whether it is energy or whatever the construction happens to be. She certainly had damage to the speech center of her brain. But this damage did not effect her mind, only the physical ability of her body to speak certain words. She knew what she wanted to say and could write it down complete with definitions of the word she wanted to speak.

A head scratcher IMO.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 06:35 PM   #274
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
If the two are bound within a biological organism, damage to one should damage the other.
It does.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The "will" to do something not being limited by the damage to the biological area suggests some sort of separation to me.
I refer you once again to the story of Phineas Gage, who is one of many, many, many case studies.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Don't get me wrong, I realize her brain must have been functioning differently. I know the mind must be located within the biological parts of the brain, whether it is energy or whatever the construction happens to be. She certainly had damage to the speech center of her brain. But this damage did not effect her mind, only the physical ability of her body to speak certain words. She knew what she wanted to say and could write it down complete with definitions of the word she wanted to speak.
In this case, if the damage was limited to Broca's area, little else would have been affected. If the damage had been to the frontal lobe, as it was with Gage, you would have seen something different.

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
A head scratcher IMO.
Not really.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2019, 07:12 PM   #275
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,380
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
If the two are bound within a biological organism, damage to one should damage the other. The "will" to do something not being limited by the damage to the biological area suggests some sort of separation to me.

Don't get me wrong, I realize her brain must have been functioning differently. I know the mind must be located within the biological parts of the brain, whether it is energy or whatever the construction happens to be. She certainly had damage to the speech center of her brain. But this damage did not effect her mind, only the physical ability of her body to speak certain words. She knew what she wanted to say and could write it down complete with definitions of the word she wanted to speak.

These two paragraphs contradict each other. You realize that, right? Damage to the speech area of the brain doesn't damage the "formation of thought" area of the brain. There's no need to introduce a mind-brain duality, whether it is energy or whatever the construction happens to be. A person with damage to a specific area of the brain will not have damage to the undamaged area. Physiology explains everything you're saying - which you admit. Then you go on to argue that this means that physiology does not explain everything you're saying. Then you switch back to the first one again.

You haven't laid out any evidence that shows that the mind is in any way distinct from the brain. All you've done is show that various areas of the brain have different functions.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:10 AM   #276
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,712
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
In her case the part of the brain that controlled speech was damaged, yet her mind still wanted her body to speak, the thoughts and words/their meanings were there, just without the physical ability to say those certain words.
Damage to the part of the brain controlling speech affects the ability to speak? Amazing.


Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post

A head scratcher IMO.

Chris B.
No, not really.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:01 PM   #277
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,541
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
This lead me to question that if our mind is indeed a product of our brain, then the damaged portion of the physical brain should also damage the mind and prevent it from operation there. But that's not the case. The mind is working in spite of the damaged area of brain tissue. And that's something different.

Chris B.
Well, not if neural processing is shared and plastic, some other areas can help balance out the damage, unless there is widespread damage
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 8th March 2019 at 12:05 PM.
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 12:05 PM   #278
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,541
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I never claimed to have proof, merely observation. In her case the part of the brain that controlled speech was damaged, yet her mind still wanted her body to speak, the thoughts and words/their meanings were there, just without the physical ability to say those certain words.

Chris B.
Which is actually what you expect neurologically, breaking the piece that turns thoughts and intent into spoken speech means the subject can't verbalize, not that they don't have intent of thought.

You are sort of saying, if I break a video camera the TV station should stop working.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 03:20 PM   #279
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 872
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The "will" to do something not being limited by the damage to the biological area suggests some sort of separation to me.
It suggests to me that the will to speak is controlled by a different part of the brain than the mechanics of speaking. I don't see at all how this implies some sort of separation of mind and brain.

Quote:
A head scratcher IMO.
It is?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2019, 08:33 PM   #280
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,951
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
The "will" to do something not being limited by the damage to the biological area suggests some sort of separation to me.
It suggests to me that, by analogy, her CPU is working, but her audio card is damaged.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.