About the god of the philosophers

[AgnosticBoy]

Your will IS a brain function. Every stimulus makes subtle modifications to the brain: new connections develop. When you think, you use these neural pathways, which activity will create other connections. Nothing supernatural about it.

I don’t see that you responded to my point so I’ll contrast my point with what’s traditionally held by science. Keep in mind that I’m not just talking about brain activity; I’m also referring to the dependence/control of the brain over the mind. I’m assuming your position is that the brain controls mental activity rather than just merely reacting to mental activity. You should be aware of the fact that your position requires that brain structure/function exert control over behavior and patterns of thought regardless of what someone ‘wants’ (based off of experiences of other people’s behaviors, etc.). In other words, if someone has the brain wiring/structure for obsessive-compulsive disorder or homosexuality, then this will be their behavior and pattern of thought, regardless of if they ‘want’ to change it.

In contrast, my point not only involves a person who does not want their OCD, but also involves this person using their ‘will’ (though thought and behavior) to change their behavior, pattern of thought, which lead to brain function that reflects non-OCD behavior. If you accept this then eventhough you dismissed it as nothing special, but it does show that the brain does not totally control the mind. If the brain does not totally control the mind, then there’s a degree of non-dependence and this begs for an answer of just how much non-dependence is there and how much control can the mind exert on the brain. Can it even totally emerge from the brain or not rely on it at all?

 

[Gorgias]

Where and what are the attributes?

Big ol’ eyes, smiling face, three-tiers of poo. Clearly, the poo emoji is the Platonic ideal of poo!

I am here, waiting and willing.

Wait a minute! So, when you proposed this thread, you weren’t proposing an idea you had? You were just creating a set of rules, boxing us in, in such a way that we can’t use theological concepts, but you’re asking us to defend God? LOL! Have fun with that…

(Seriously, though, you might want to read up a bit. Philosophers have tried this approach throughout the ages. If you’d like to discuss one of them or their approach, perhaps you might suggest one for us to look at?)

Maybe you would want to present a logical and rational argument for this assumed faceless creator who started this whole physical shebang?

Nope. Your project… your groundrules… your ballgame. Tee it up for us.

You might want to present an argument “WHY” is the physical universe insufficient? Because Aquinas could not perform this “trick”.

Sure, he did. He pointed out that the physical universe could not create itself, and started from there. Or is that what you’re looking for, here – a discussion of the five demonstrations?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Pretty bold claim. What evidence do you have that it is correct?

That’s a good question for Vera to answer. My view is that the mind is caused by the brain, but once caused it becomes more than just the brain since it involves aspects/functions that aren’t reducible to physical brain structure (e.g. mental imagery like when we dream).

Those who accept Vera’s position tend to support their point by showing how brain function impacts conscious experience - the neural correlates of conscious experience. You alter or damage some part of the brain, then that will have an effect on a person’s mental function/thought. However, there is evidence of the reverse, that is, a change in thought/behavior leading to changes in brain function/structure. I elaborate on this more in post #41. So it appears that there is evidence for both sides of the mind/body debate as we’d expect with ‘dualism’ ( bidirectional influence as opposed to only the brain affecting thought)

Besides that, lets also keep in mind that there is no scientifically verifiable explanation for how the brain produces conscious experience.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Keep in mind that I’m not just talking about brain activity; I’m also referring to the dependence/control of the brain over the mind. I’m assuming your position is that the brain controls mental activity rather than just merely reacting to mental activity.

The brain is the hardware (wetware), the mind is the operating system (basic program). The brain is not operational without the mind, and the mind cannot exist without the brain.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Big ol’ eyes, smiling face, three-tiers of poo. Clearly, the poo emoji is the Platonic ideal of poo!

Ah, but does it stink? (It might stink for us, but dogs find the smell very pleasant… they love to throw themselves into it.) But jokes aside, the concept of “essence” (or form) is an abstract idea. It cannot be translated into actualities. As such it is useless. What is the essence (or form) of a chair? How does it differ from the essence of a table? What is the essence and what are the accidents? I never found anyone who could have answered these questions. Can you or someone else?

Wait a minute! So, when you proposed this thread, you weren’t proposing an idea you had? You were just creating a set of rules, boxing us in, in such a way that we can’t use theological concepts, but you’re asking us to defend God? LOL! Have fun with that…

Hold it. I explicitly said that I am NOT interested in discussing the “God of the Revelation”. As far as I am concerned, the whole idea of “supernatural” is ridiculous. So I invited you (in general) to prove me wrong. As Aquinas and others asserted, the existence of “God” can be demonstrated in purely rational way. I am familiar with the “five ways”, or the “twelve ways” (by Kreeft), and found all of them wanting.

(Seriously, though, you might want to read up a bit. Philosophers have tried this approach throughout the ages. If you’d like to discuss one of them or their approach, perhaps you might suggest one for us to look at?)

You might look at the book written by George H. Smith. Its title is “Atheism, the Case against God”.

Sure, he did. He pointed out that the physical universe could not create itself, and started from there. Or is that what you’re looking for, here – a discussion of the five demonstrations?

You see, this sentence is already a logical problem. No one should assume a-priori that the universe was “created”. As I said, the starting point is that the universe exists. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no “absolute” space outside the universe, there is no “absolute” time outside the universe, there is no “causation” outside the universe. Aquinas and al. were unfamiliar with the modern cosmology, they thought that the universe is some “blob” of matter floating in a huge space of nothing. They cannot be blamed for their simplistic worldview… how could they have know any better? But YOU (in general) can and must be blamed for sticking to this outdated view. A metaphysics which is contrary to the actual physics is junk. The metaphysics which is congruent with actual physics is useless. In all the different parts of philosophy the only important branch is “epistemology”.

 

[davidv]

Ah, but does it stink? (It might stink for us, but dogs find the smell very pleasant… they love to throw themselves into it.) But jokes aside, the concept of “essence” (or form) is an abstract idea. It cannot be translated into actualities. As such it is useless. What is the essence (or form) of a chair? How does it differ from the essence of a table? What is the essence and what are the accidents? I never found anyone who could have answered these questions. Can you or someone else?

Hold it. I explicitly said that I am NOT interested in discussing the “God of the Revelation”. As far as I am concerned, the whole idea of “supernatural” is ridiculous. So I invited you (in general) to prove me wrong. As Aquinas and others asserted, the existence of “God” can be demonstrated in purely rational way. I am familiar with the “five ways”, or the “twelve ways” (by Kreeft), and found all of them wanting.

You might look at the book written by George H. Smith. Its title is “Atheism, the Case against God”.

You see, this sentence is already a logical problem.** No one should assume a-priori that the universe was “created”. **As I said, the starting point is that the universe exists. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no “absolute” space outside the universe, there is no “absolute” time outside the universe, there is no “causation” outside the universe. Aquinas and al. were unfamiliar with the modern cosmology, they thought that the universe is some “blob” of matter floating in a huge space of nothing. They cannot be blamed for their simplistic worldview… how could they have know any better? But YOU (in general) can and must be blamed for sticking to this outdated view. A metaphysics which is contrary to the actual physics is junk. The metaphysics which is congruent with actual physics is useless. In all the different parts of philosophy the only important branch is “epistemology”.

Can you please identify where Thomas makes the assumption noted in bold above? It seems that is the implication.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The brain is the hardware (wetware), the mind is the operating system (basic program). The brain is not operational without the mind, and the mind cannot exist without the brain.

I agree that there’s a relationship between the mind and brain, but your analogy does little to answer if there are distinct, and if so, which one is in charge. In other words, is consciousness a product and function of the brain just as you claimed earlier? If it is a product of the brain, then how did the brain produce mental characteristics that aren’t physically reducible, like mental imagery? And before you say that mental images aren’t real or don’t effect physical systems, then besides electrochemical activity, explain to me how or why does a mental imagery of sexual activity stimulate people in the same way that viewing it outside of the mind (on TV or in person) would stimulate someone?

If the mind is a function of the brain as many scientists believe, then explain why brain function can change in response to thought/behavior. Earlier, you gave some response that thoughts are the brain but this assumes that the mind is a product of the brain which is something which you also need to prove as I pointed out earlier in this post. Either way, it doesn’t make sense to say that the brain governs human behavior but then we’re able to change our behavior based on our willpower while also finding that the brain structure/function changes to reflect the behavior that we wanted. In this case, the brain would be acting as a function of the mind OR there’s bidirectional influence.

 

[Gorgias]

So I invited you (in general) to prove me wrong.

That’s obvious now.

It seemed you were framing up a discussion, so I was waiting to hear the discussion… not realizing that all you had to offer was the definition of a sandbox in which to play.

You see, this sentence is already a logical problem. No one should assume a-priori that the universe was “created”. As I said, the starting point is that the universe exists. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a starting point, it’s pretty shaky. After all, if entropy is the natural process of the physical universe, don’t we have to posit some initial state (from which decay began)? Don’t we have to posit that, in natural processes, nothing comes from ‘nothing’, and therefore, we must posit an ultimate cause?

There is no “absolute” space outside the universe, there is no “absolute” time outside the universe, there is no “causation” outside the universe.

You took care of that with your definition. If you want to speak of the ‘physical universe’ as a proper subset of the universe, and ‘god’ existing “within” the universe (but not within the physical universe), then we’re ok. We agree here – by your definition, God isn’t “outside the universe”… just outside the physical universe. No problems there.

But YOU (in general) can and must be blamed for sticking to this outdated view.

Which ‘outdated view’, exactly, is that?

In all the different parts of philosophy the only important branch is “epistemology”.

Ahh, but how do you know that? (I love philosophy jokes…)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That’s obvious now.

It seemed you were framing up a discussion, so I was waiting to hear the discussion… not realizing that all you had to offer was the definition of a sandbox in which to play.

At least we are in synch now.

As a starting point, it’s pretty shaky. After all, if entropy is the natural process of the physical universe, don’t we have to posit some initial state (from which decay began)? Don’t we have to posit that, in natural processes, nothing comes from ‘nothing’, and therefore, we must posit an ultimate cause?

No, for two reasons. One is that the law of entropy is a stochastic (statistical) law, and two, because it is only applicable to finite and closed systems. It cannot be applied to the universe.

You took care of that with your definition. If you want to speak of the ‘physical universe’ as a proper subset of the universe, and ‘god’ existing “within” the universe (but not within the physical universe), then we’re ok. We agree here – by your definition, God isn’t “outside the universe”… just outside the physical universe. No problems there.

Yes, and the point is - can you substantiate that the “non-physical” part exists? I stipulated the non-physical part as the basis of the thought experiment. But it can be taken seriously only if you can provide a good reason for it. So, go ahead, give us a reason. The law of entropy does not work.

Which ‘outdated view’, exactly, is that?

The one I mentioned, that the physical universe is a blob of matter in the sea of “nothing”. That was the cosmology until Einstein came along. Up until that point the universe was assumed to be a Newtonian, deterministic “clockwork”.

Ahh, but how do you know that? (I love philosophy jokes…)

It is a result of the few thousand years of speculation, called “metaphysics” which has been gradually replaced with actual physics. Of course speculation is fine. But it can be taken seriously, only if it leads to reality. Otherwise it is only entertainment, which has its own use.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Your will IS a brain function. Every stimulus makes subtle modifications to the brain: new connections develop. When you think, you use these neural pathways, which activity will create other connections. Nothing supernatural about it.

Pretty bold claim. What evidence do you have that it is correct?

Up until now, Vera_Ljuba has not provided any scientific evidence to support his claim that mental aspects are produced and controlled by the brain. Instead he offered an analogy that is open to multiple interpretations. I’ll present the scientific evidence for my position that shows the brain acting as a function of the mind (this defeats biological determinism, a pillar of materialism):

Scientific studies

1. Systematic changes in cerebral glucose metabolic rate after successful behavior modification treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder.
2. Journal of Experimental Neuropsychology, Vol. 28, No. 8, May 2006: pp. 0–0 Journal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologyNeuropsychological Impairment in ObsessiveCompulsive Disorder—Improvement Over the Course of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
   excerpt from Discussion section-
   “Taken together, these data confirm our hypothesis that neuropsychological impairment before therapy is based on metabolic dysfunction of the orbitofrontal feedback-loop that may return to normal during the course of treatment.”
3. A good summary about obsessive compulsive disorder and how it fares with CBT…
   AN UPDATE ON THE COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR THERAPY OF OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER IN ADULTS
   Excerpt:

For a long time, OCD has been regarded as the window towards unconscious functioning, being attributed to unconscious conflicts. Today, OCD is seen as a good example of a neuropsychiatric disorder, mediated by dysfunctions in some specific neuronal circuits, accessible by specific psychopharmaceutical and psychotherapeutic means. As a result of a number of functional neuroimaging studies, it has been concluded that OCD symptoms appear mainly as a result of hyperactivity in the orbito-fronto-subcortical circuit (caudate nucleus and thalamus) (Ardelean, & Suciu, 2006).

Schwartz, Stoessel, Baxter, Martin and Phelps (1996), using positron emission tomography (PET) to correlate the answer to treatment in OCD, with the activity of certain brain structures, compared behavioral therapy with pharmacotherapy (fluoxetine). Scans performed before treatment showed an increased activity in the caudate nucleus in all patients. Patients were split into two groups. Some received only behavioral therapy, while others only pharmacotherapy (i.e., fluoxetine). Approximately 70% of the patients in both groups responded to the treatment. The PET exam, after the treatment, showed a decreased activity in the right caudate nucleus, only in the case of the patients that responded to treatment, regardless of the modality of treatment. This study suggested the existence of certain biological markers for OCD, as well as the fact that psychological intervention can favorable modify the functional neuroanatomy of the patients. This is a very important study, with multiple implications regarding the future of psychotherapy. Psychiatrists have always assumed that psychotherapy can modify brain activity, and we now have increasing scientific evidence of this. The precise way in which psychotherapy normalizes the activity of the cortical-subcortical circuit involved in the physiopathology of OCD is yet to be discovered.

So again, what does Vera mean by “function of” or “brain function”? Since when does cognitive therapy work for neurobiological based behaviors?!

Once the mind emerges from the brain, which is in control? The brain, the mind, or both to a degree? Is this just scratching the surface and will more studies show other brain functions that the mind can potentially effect and change?

 

[inocente]

Once the mind emerges from the brain, which is in control? The brain, the mind, or both to a degree? Is this just scratching the surface and will more studies show other brain functions that the mind can potentially effect and change?

If you’re talking about neuroplasticity, there are lots of existing studies.

“Neuroplasticity can be observed at multiple scales, from microscopic changes in individual neurons to larger-scale changes such as cortical remapping in response to injury. However, cortical remapping is more extensive early in development. Behavior, environmental stimuli, thought, and emotions may also cause neuroplastic change through activity-dependent plasticity, which has significant implications for healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

 

[tonyrey]

Your will IS a brain function. Every stimulus makes subtle modifications to the brain: new connections develop. When you think, you use these neural pathways, which activity will create other connections. Nothing supernatural about it.

If “your will IS a brain function” it doesn’t make sense to use the term “your” - or “will”. It would be more accurate to refer to "The brain function located in the body described as ‘AgnosticBoy’. For materialists there is no such entity as a person with a mind. It is illogical and inconsistent to continue to use supposedly meaningless terms which refer to illusions. A mindless body is mindless in more ways than one…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If you’re talking about neuroplasticity, there are lots of existing studies.

“Neuroplasticity can be observed at multiple scales, from microscopic changes in individual neurons to larger-scale changes such as cortical remapping in response to injury. However, cortical remapping is more extensive early in development. Behavior, environmental stimuli, thought, and emotions may also cause neuroplastic change through activity-dependent plasticity, which has significant implications for healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Yes, my points are about ‘neuroplasticity’ but I’m referring to a specific kind that’s called ‘self-directed’ neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity usually involves the brain changing or adapting on its own, and this is an unconscious and purely biologically driven process. However, self-directed neuroplasticity, which most notably was evidenced by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, is neuroplasticity that is triggered and driven by the mind, that is, the person changes their thinking and behavior toward a behavior that they “want”, and subsequently physical changes in the brain follow to reflect the ‘want’ or desired behavior. The self-directed neuroplasticity studies show that this change is predictable and occurs as a result of initiating well-defined systematic practices (cognitive-behavioral therapy) that largely rely ‘thought’ rather than on drugs or surgery. From these studies, I see two implications that are damaging to materialism, especially biological determinism.

First, we have the mind (mainly subjective experiences), which appear to be non-physical (has not been reduced to physical properties), being able to effect or change a physical system - the brain.

Secondly, my studies show an example of the mind not only behaving differently than the current wiring/function of the brain, but also being able to rewire and change brain function. If biological determinism was correct, then every neurobiological-based behavior (including mental experience) would be at the mercy of current brain wiring/function no matter how much someone wanted to change. But here we have scientifically verified examples of brain function bending to the ‘wants’ (through thoughts/behavior) of a person.

Just ask any typical materialist how do they know that the brain gives rise to the mind and they’ll point you to all the evidence that shows that changing or damaging some part of the physical structures of the brain will also change a person’s mental experience. This is basically biological determinism and it’s their main supporting point. So any evidence against biological determinism, as I explained in the previous paragraph, leaves materialist without a solid supporting point for their mind/body view.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Once the mind emerges from the brain, which is in control?

The question is not even wrong. They cannot be separated.

 

[tonyrey]

The question is not even wrong. They cannot be separated.

You haven’t explained why “they” (the mind and the brain) need to be distinguished if “Your will IS a brain function”. You are violating the principle of economy. It is unnecessary to posit two entities if one is sufficient.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Once the mind emerges from the brain, which is in control? The brain, the mind, or both to a degree?

The question is not even wrong. They cannot be separated.

Earlier, you used computer hardware and software as an analogy to explain the relationship between the brain and mind. Without getting into the shortcomings of your analogy, I want to know did you also intend to factor in that software can be transferred to other computers? That shows some separation. I suppose some people might even say your analogy lends support to reincarnation if minds are also transferrable.

Either way, your response is inadequate to say the least. You’ve offered no scientific evidence to prove that the mind is the brain and nothing more. This is atheist/materialist DOGMA at its finest.

 

[tonyrey]

Earlier, you used computer hardware and software as an analogy to explain the relationship between the brain and mind. Without getting into the shortcomings of your analogy, I want to know did you also intend to factor in that software can be transferred to other computers? That shows some separation. I suppose some people might even say your analogy lends support to reincarnation if minds are also transferrable.

Either way, your response is inadequate to say the least. You’ve offered no scientific evidence to prove that the mind is the brain and nothing more. This is atheist/materialist DOGMA at its finest.

In the words of the archsceptic David Hume “The cause is not proportioned to the effect”. The hypothesis that the mind is a biological computer doesn’t correspond to our self-awareness or power of self-control, let alone the way we regard and treat our family and friends, nor to human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Yet Hume contradicted himself when he disparaged our mental activity:

“To hate, to love, to think, to feel, to see; all this is nothing but to perceive what a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain” …

Pascal was far closer to the truth:“Penser fait la grandeur de l’homme”.(The greatness of man consists in his power of thought.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Earlier, you used computer hardware and software as an analogy to explain the relationship between the brain and mind. Without getting into the shortcomings of your analogy, I want to know did you also intend to factor in that software can be transferred to other computers?

It was an analogy, not an equivalence. I could have used the legs/walking paradigm. You could argue that “walking” is primary, and “legs” are secondary.

Either way, your response is inadequate to say the least. You’ve offered no scientific evidence to prove that the mind is the brain and nothing more. This is atheist/materialist DOGMA at its finest.

The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the “dawgmah” that there is a separate “mind” independent of the brain. By the way, maybe you are not familiar with the concept of “dawgmah”, which is something you must accept not on evidence, but on some authority. In the atheistic / materialistic world there are no “dawgmahs”. All you need to do is bring up evidence to the contrary, and the original assumption WILL be discarded. Though it is amusing that you use the word in a pejorative fashion.

 

[inocente]

Yes, my points are about ‘neuroplasticity’ but I’m referring to a specific kind that’s called ‘self-directed’ neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity usually involves the brain changing or adapting on its own, and this is an unconscious and purely biologically driven process. However, self-directed neuroplasticity, which most notably was evidenced by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, is neuroplasticity that is triggered and driven by the mind, that is, the person changes their thinking and behavior toward a behavior that they “want”, and subsequently physical changes in the brain follow to reflect the ‘want’ or desired behavior. The self-directed neuroplasticity studies show that this change is predictable and occurs as a result of initiating well-defined systematic practices (cognitive-behavioral therapy) that largely rely ‘thought’ rather than on drugs or surgery. From these studies, I see two implications that are damaging to materialism, especially biological determinism.

First, we have the mind (mainly subjective experiences), which appear to be non-physical (has not been reduced to physical properties), being able to effect or change a physical system - the brain.

Secondly, my studies show an example of the mind not only behaving differently than the current wiring/function of the brain, but also being able to rewire and change brain function. If biological determinism was correct, then every neurobiological-based behavior (including mental experience) would be at the mercy of current brain wiring/function no matter how much someone wanted to change. But here we have scientifically verified examples of brain function bending to the ‘wants’ (through thoughts/behavior) of a person.

Just ask any typical materialist how do they know that the brain gives rise to the mind and they’ll point you to all the evidence that shows that changing or damaging some part of the physical structures of the brain will also change a person’s mental experience. This is basically biological determinism and it’s their main supporting point. So any evidence against biological determinism, as I explained in the previous paragraph, leaves materialist without a solid supporting point for their mind/body view.

I just watched him on YouTube. It was like being back on a course for new managers. There’s always an X Step method. He has four: Relabel, Reframe, Refocus, Revalue. Standard stuff, don’t run on autopilot, be aware of your habits of thought, then you can change them. Along with a bit of meditation, a bit of being in the moment, a bit real science, a bit of pseudo-science.

Fine, standard Know Thyself given in management course speak. He quotes Hebb’s Law “neurons which fire together wire together”, which I find dates from 1949. This is not exactly new stuff. Learn new habits = new neural connections.

His brain images for before and after show brain activity changes after it learns something. Well duh . If it didn’t then that would prove Descarte’s dualism. But change of mind = change of brain, and change of brain = change of mind. An injured brain = an injured mind, but plasticity allows rewiring. The human brain is v cool.

 

[Bradski]

You haven’t explained why “they” (the mind and the brain) need to be distinguished if “Your will IS a brain function”. You are violating the principle of economy. It is unnecessary to posit two entities if one is sufficient.

Try this anaology The wet meat is a plane. The mind is the act of flying. If the mind is separate from the brain, then it’s the equaivalent of flying without a plane.

We need to get rid of the homunculus, so it flies itself. Solar powered so when it’s in the shade it flies to sunnier areas. When there’s turbulence, it flies around it. It gets (name removed by moderator)ut from the environment just like we do and responds accordingly. Just like we do.