About the god of the philosophers

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Even with arguments from analogy, there are some embedded premises, like the premise that the mind and brain works together, etc. I agree with that premise, but I don’t agree with the other ones that involve the mind being a product and function of the brain. Multiple people have asked you multiple times to provide evidence for your bold claims on this issue but all you’ve offered is an analogy.

So I’ll ask again. Do you have anything more than just abstract examples/analogies to prove your claim? In other words, do you have any scientific evidence?

The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the “dwgmah” that there is a separate “mind” independent of the brain.

So then why is there an issue here with you presenting the evidence? Is it just that you don’t like the alternatives (dualism) if materialism/determinism are shown to be inadequate?

I’ve been searching for the scientific evidence and so far I’ve found nothing conclusive. Instead, I’ve found that the issue has been dogmatized by materialists (some scientists, some philosophers, and atheists) that assume that the mind must be physical just because the brain is. Although this view sounds reasonable, but the empirical verification is lacking and it doesn’t fit well with common experience where the mind doesn’t seem to be physical/mechanistic.

The “overwhelming” evidence that I’ve found is that brain states affect mental states. However, this does not explain how or if brain states cause mental states (subjective experiences). So your claim that the mind is the brain is not a scientifically-backed statement. It’s just a jump to a conclusion since you make it before the evidence is in. Then there’s emerging evidence showing mental activity that cause brain states to change and this doesn’t bode well for a deterministic/materialistic worldview. Factoring in the evidence from both sides, I can conclude that the mind and brain are a function of each other.

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.

Perhaps you’re only speaking for yourself, and if so, I respect that! However, a lot of materialists and atheists presume that no God nor supernatural exist. This belief or metaphysical claim turns into dogma when it is accepted and used unquestionably by many atheists. There are many atheist groups, atheist podcasts/media, as well as notable atheist authors and debaters out there. Inevitably, atheists are getting a lot of their views from these higher-ups while also sharing them between each other just like an organization. It’s no accident that many atheists share many of the same arguments and skeptical attitudes against Christianity.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Dr. Schwartz makes a lot of his case in his book that’s called, The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. Besides his book and one debate with Michael Shermer, I haven’t seen him argue for or explain his position further. It is novel in the sense that neurobiological disorders were only thought to respond to drug therapy and not psychotherapy. His research shows that psychotherapy (which relies on subjective experience) can also work to treat neurobiological disorders, and it opens the door to the question of what other potential does the mind have over the brain. Can any other behaviors that are thought to be at the mercy of biology also be changed?

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.

I believe that his studies speak directly to determinism in that he has shown the direction of causation going from mind to brain. I take the extra step to infer some form of dualism for two reasons:

• Self-directed neuroplasticity research results conflict with biological determinism and without it, reductive materialist are without a major supporting point
• If the mind is not completely controlled by the brain, as thought by materialists, then it is more than the brain. And this is not only because of ‘control’ but it’s also because of well-defined mental attributes (e.g. mental imagery) that aren’t shared by the brain’s physical properties. The degree to which it is more than the brain may be something supernatural, natural, or in-between.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

If that were always the case we would never be able to think for ourselves or choose what to believe, how to live or who to love. We would be impotent biological robots without any responsibility whatsoever for our mental or physical activity…

 

[tonyrey]

Dr. Schwartz makes a lot of his case in his book that’s called, The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. Besides his book and one debate with Michael Shermer, I haven’t seen him argue for or explain his position further. It is novel in the sense that neurobiological disorders were only thought to respond to drug therapy and not psychotherapy. His research shows that psychotherapy (which relies on subjective experience) can also work to treat neurobiological disorders, and it opens the door to the question of what other potential does the mind have over the brain. Can any other behaviors that are thought to be at the mercy of biology also be changed?

I believe that his studies speak directly to determinism in that he has shown the direction of causation going from mind to brain. I take the extra step to infer some form of dualism for two reasons:

• Self-directed neuroplasticity research results conflict with biological determinism and without it, reductive materialist are without a major supporting point
• If the mind is not completely controlled by the brain, as thought by materialists, then it is more than the brain. And this is not only because of ‘control’ but it’s also because of well-defined mental attributes (e.g. mental imagery) that aren’t shared by the brain’s physical properties. The degree to which it is more than the brain may be something supernatural, natural, or in-between.

The hypothesis that the mind is nothing more than brain activity is self-destructive because it implies we have no control over our thoughts, decisions or conclusions. We would be no longer be independent rational beings but biological computers incapable of thinking for ourselves and without the slightest responsibility for our behaviour.

 

[tonyrey]

The hypothesis that the mind is nothing more than brain activity is self-destructive because it implies we have no control over our thoughts, decisions or conclusions. We would be no longer be independent rational beings but biological computers incapable of thinking for ourselves and without the slightest responsibility for our behaviour.

In daily life there is no normal person who behaves as if free will doesn’t exist…

 

[inocente]

So I’ll ask again. Do you have anything more than just abstract examples/analogies to prove your claim? In other words, do you have any scientific evidence?

Pardon my interruption, but unlike a priori arguments, a posteriori arguments can never be proved. No one can even prove today that the Sun will still exist tomorrow. The weight of evidence is it’s highly probable, but it cannot be proved.

The null hypothesis is that the mind can be explained, as in all the rest of science, from the physical alone. That hypothesis remains until there is contrary evidence. To date there is no contrary evidence.

Dr. Schwartz makes a lot of his case in his book that’s called, The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. Besides his book and one debate with Michael Shermer, I haven’t seen him argue for or explain his position further. It is novel in the sense that neurobiological disorders were only thought to respond to drug therapy and not psychotherapy. His research shows that psychotherapy (which relies on subjective experience) can also work to treat neurobiological disorders, and it opens the door to the question of what other potential does the mind have over the brain. Can any other behaviors that are thought to be at the mercy of biology also be changed?

No, drug therapies have only been available for 25 years whereas psychotherapy has been used for over 100 years.

Schwartz’ method is just one of many products, and I can find no controlled trials. Without independent controlled testing it’s unscientific and may even be harmful.

*I believe that his studies speak directly to determinism in that he has shown the direction of causation going from mind to brain. I take the extra step to infer some form of dualism for two reasons:

• Self-directed neuroplasticity research results conflict with biological determinism and without it, reductive materialist are without a major supporting point
• If the mind is not completely controlled by the brain, as thought by materialists, then it is more than the brain. And this is not only because of ‘control’ but it’s also because of well-defined mental attributes (e.g. mental imagery) that aren’t shared by the brain’s physical properties. The degree to which it is more than the brain may be something supernatural, natural, or in-between.*

We don’t even know if his method works, or if it only works in certain mild cases. But if it does then it’s nothing exciting, it’s just “neurons which fire together, wire together”.

“Self-directed neuroplasticity”, without the jargon, is also known as training.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The null hypothesis is that the mind can be explained, as in all the rest of science, from the physical alone. That hypothesis remains until there is contrary evidence. To date there is no contrary evidence.

Thank you for your contribution. Not just there is no evidence to the contrary, but not even a hypothesis to the contrary.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’ve been searching for the scientific evidence and so far I’ve found nothing conclusive. Instead, I’ve found that the issue has been dogmatized by materialists (some scientists, some philosophers, and atheists) that assume that the mind must be physical just because the brain is.

That is NOT reasonable. The mind is not a physical object, just like walking is not a physical object either. It is an activity not an object.

Then there’s emerging evidence showing mental activity that cause brain states to change and this doesn’t bode well for a deterministic/materialistic worldview. Factoring in the evidence from both sides, I can conclude that the mind and brain are a function of each other.

Except that the materialistic view is not deterministic. And it is obvious that the activity of the brain - the MIND - causes physical changes in the brain. Just like walking results in physical changes in the legs. Wear and tear, changing muscle tension, tiredness etc…

A final advice: do not confuse physical OBJECTS with their ACTIVITY. They are not the same. The objects are physical, the activity is not.

 

[MJDorry]

Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.

This is self-contradictory. Even an atheist with his head screwed on properly would tell you so. You cannot establish that which is beyond by starting with that which is within. Time, space, quantity; all are contained within the universe, and none can be used to infer the “beyond” unless the “beyond” is material in its own right and possessed of a material relationship to our universe.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is self-contradictory. Even an atheist with his head screwed on properly would tell you so. You cannot establish that which is beyond by starting with that which is within. Time, space, quantity; all are contained within the universe, and none can be used to infer the “beyond” unless the “beyond” is material in its own right and possessed of a material relationship to our universe.

Theoretically you can. Aquinas tried it and failed. If you can prove that some aspect of the universe requires a logical explanation which is “supernatural”, then you are on the right track. The trouble is that you need to show that some aspect of the universe is logically nonsensical without the assumption of the supernatural. Not just unlikely, but logically impossible.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Pardon my interruption, but unlike a priori arguments, a posteriori arguments can never be proved. No one can even prove today that the Sun will still exist tomorrow. The weight of evidence is it’s highly probable, but it cannot be proved.

Using reason alone, you can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow but you can do so with empirical verification via observation. The claim that the mind is the brain can be evaluated empirically which is why I asked Vera for scientific 'evidence.

You mentioned that the “weight” of the evidence leans in favor of the materialist view, and I agree with that. However, my view is not that the materialist view is wrong but rather that it is incomplete. I am an emergent dualist, so I view the mind and brain relationship as being one that involves bidirectional causation since the two interact. So I’d expect there to be evidence for brain states affecting mental states which is in line with the materialist side, but I’d also expect there to be evidence of the reverse happening, as well (mind to brain). We don’t have much scientific evidence for the latter scenario because the dualist view of the ‘mind’ is not suited for scientific testing as much as the materialist view is. So while there’s much more scientific evidence for the materialist view than the dualist view, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s more correct because it could just be that it’s easier to test and evidence using current scientific methods. Despite the “weight” of evidence, as it stands now, there is no actual scientifically verified explanation for how the brain produces conscious experience.

The null hypothesis is that the mind can be explained, as in all the rest of science, from the physical alone. That hypothesis remains until there is contrary evidence. To date there is no contrary evidence.

Saying that the mind can be explained from the physical alone is a metaphysical statement that presumes that the mind and everything else is physical or natural. You’re confusing metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. The latter is what science should be about, since science is a tool and not a worldview. If the methods of science show that the mind is non-physical then that is still valid science just as long as the scientific method was used.

No, drug therapies have only been available for 25 years whereas psychotherapy has been used for over 100 years.

While certain concepts involved in CBT has been around for a long time, however, evidence that it is effective against neurobiological disorders has only come out in the last 1 or 2 decades. CBT was only thought to be effective against psychological problems before Dr. Schwartz’s studies came out.

Schwartz’ method is just one of many products, and I can find no controlled trials. Without independent controlled testing it’s unscientific and may even be harmful.

Dr. Schwartz has several controlled studies that are published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. His studies have been replicated, as well. Please refer to my previous post, post#50.

We don’t even know if his method works, or if it only works in certain mild cases. But if it does then it’s nothing exciting, it’s just “neurons which fire together, wire together”.

Well the best therapy for OCD is a combination of drug therapy and psychotherapy. Dr. Schwartz chose to do studies that use psychotherapy alone (although it has been compared w/ patients receiving drug therapy as a control) because it’s the only way to isolate its effects on OCD. And thus far, it not only improves OCD symptoms but CBT alone is shown to normalize brain function.

You say that it’s “nothing exciting”. If having evidence against biological determinism is nothing exciting to you then I assume that you never were a proponent of it regardless of the fact that many scientists are. In theory, if homosexuality is also a neurobiologically based behavior, then with proper training, I don’t see why CBT can’t also work for that. Although, as Dr. Schwartz points out in his work, a willingness to change must be involved, and with homosexuality being a clouded issue (as in many don’t see it as something to change from which takes away the motivation to change), then I doubt it would yield as big as results as OCD would.

“Self-directed neuroplasticity”, without the jargon, is also known as training.

It’s also the beginning of the end for biological determinism.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

The amount of matter and energy in the universe is finite. And, as there’s no physical matter outside of the physical universe (by your very definition), it’s a “closed” system. Therefore, entropy does apply.

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.

Can you show a single instance of matter or energy that comes into existence of its own accord? There are none that I’m aware of. The claim, then, is that all things must have been created – and therefore, need a creator.

The law of entropy does not work.

Perhaps you can provide a better reason why not – your earlier reasons don’t hold up.

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”.

Why are you suggesting that believers hold to pre-Einsteinian physics? That doesn’t make sense.

It is a result of the few thousand years of speculation, called “metaphysics” which has been gradually replaced with actual physics.

LOL! I’m thinking you might not be as aware of the history of science and philosophy as you might think you are. Physics belongs to natural science, whereas metaphysics belongs to philosophy. Physics cannot ‘replace’ metaphysics, not only because they’re parts of different disciplines, but also because metaphysics attempts to describe the fundamental nature of being, whereas physics describes the universe’s physical attributes.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The amount of matter and energy in the universe is finite. And, as there’s no physical matter outside of the physical universe (by your very definition), it’s a “closed” system. Therefore, entropy does apply.

You STILL cannot extrapolate from the part to the whole. Two examples: “Every tile on the floor is white, therefore the whole floor is white” - correct extrapolation. On the other hand: “Every tile on the floor is square, therefore the whole floor is square” - incorrect extrapolation. And don’t forget the law of entropy is STILL just a stochastic, statistical law, not like - for example - gravity.

Can you show a single instance of matter or energy that comes into existence of its own accord? There are none that I’m aware of. The claim, then, is that all things must have been created – and therefore, need a creator.

You need to prove that matter “came” into existence. Which would require that there was a “time” when there was “nothing”, and then a “miracle occurred” and the universe popped into existence. Of course there is no “time” outside the universe, and “nothing” is just a concept, not an existing entity.

Why are you suggesting that believers hold to pre-Einsteinian physics? That doesn’t make sense.

Because the whole metaphysics of Aristotle, Aquinas et al. is based on pre-Einsteinian physics.

LOL! I’m thinking you might not be as aware of the history of science and philosophy as you might think you are. Physics belongs to natural science, whereas metaphysics belongs to philosophy.

Before there were natural sciences, there was only speculation - philosophy. The better we understand the reality, the less need is there for speculation.

Physics cannot ‘replace’ metaphysics, not only because they’re parts of different disciplines, but also because metaphysics attempts to describe the fundamental nature of being, whereas physics describes the universe’s physical attributes.

The so-called “fundamental nature of existence” is irrelevant, if it remains empty speculation. However, if it can be observed and thus - verified - it becomes actual physics.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That is NOT reasonable. The mind is not a physical object, just like walking is not a physical object either. It is an activity not an object.

Your view does not adequately describe what the mind is. The mind can involve activity but it also contains states. Mental states can be beliefs, attitudes, consciousness, imagination, wants, etc. For example, I visualize a green apple in my mind. Sure, you can say that this involves activity like neurons firing, and you can even say that ‘visualizing’ is an act. However, the image itself is a mental state - it’s the product of those activities.

Except that the materialistic view is not deterministic.

This is your position but other materialists often use biological determinism as evidence for the mind being physical.

And it is obvious that the activity of the brain - the MIND - causes physical changes in the brain. Just like walking results in physical changes in the legs. Wear and tear, changing muscle tension, tiredness etc…

I already explained how the mind is not just an activity earlier in this post. Even if your characterization of the mind was correct, it still doesn’t make sense to say that the brain is in control but then you’re able to change neurobiologically-based behaviors using simple mental activity. Why do you think people make a big deal about homosexuality being rooted in biology!!! (biology implies no changing from it?!)

A final advice: do not confuse physical OBJECTS with their ACTIVITY. They are not the same. The objects are physical, the activity is not.

I view mental images as being mental objects, in a sense. Perhaps you can apply your advice there so that you don’t confuse brain activity with the mental images that the activity produces or corresponds with.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you for your contribution. Not just there is no evidence to the contrary, but not even a hypothesis to the contrary.

The fatal flaw in materialism is the fact that **our primary datum **and sole certainty is our mental activity. We **infer **the existence of everyone and everything else from our perceptions. Our starting point is not the outside world but within our mind. We are all without exception in the egocentric predicament and to think otherwise is to ignore our reliance on our power of reason without which we would know precisely nothing - and there would be no hypotheses! The materialist puts the cart right before the horse as if it is the primary force even though a mindless body is not worth having…

 

[Wesrock]

Five pages, five pages… First time I’ve had a chance to look at this topic, and no idea whether to start my own line of thought from the beginning or if I need to catch up on everything.

 

[Wesrock]

I used the lower-case spelling for god, to make sure that it is not confused with the God of Christianity.

If anyone is interested in discussing this concept, I will be glad to do so. Please, let’s stick to the topic, and avoid reference to the Bible, the Revelation, the Magisterium, the Sacred Tradition or the Catechism. As Joe Friday said in Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am”.

I offer the starting point which is unquestionable: “the universe exists”. The word “universe” is used in its literal meaning: “everything that exists”. It obviously includes the physical part, which we experience with our senses and its extensions.

Unquestionable? Obvious? Don’t get me wrong, I’m perfectly content to accept that my experiences and yours have a causal relationship with the world external to our experiences; that is the most rational conclusion to make. But it’s not something we should, if we’re truly starting at the beginning, just take as an unquestionable given. You cannot provide me with any concrete evidence that my experiences are caused by the outside world. There’s no way to test that. Any data or observations presented to me are knowable only to me through my experience. My entire experience and perception of causation could itself be completely uncaused or planted or perhaps implanted there by some malicious “demon” of some sort. The first thing you need to do is accept that you are accepting this premise as a rational conclusion, not as something empirically provable, because any attempt at proof is circular. You have to take your experiences as caused as true before you can take your experiences as proof of causation. Again, I think solipsism is an irrational position to take. If we’re truly going to start a philosophical inquiry into the nature of being, though, the sciences of sciences, we have to be aware of our starting assumptions.

Part of the universe is the realm of “ideas and concepts”. They do not exist independently from the physical universe; they are not ontological objects. There is no ontological “distance” or “before” or “in-between”. There is no ontological “love”, “freedom”, “good” or “evil”. Concepts describe attributes, relationships and activities. Concepts do not exist independently from the physical realm. No Platonic ideal of “forms” are accepted.

See, you go wrong here as well. You’re already ruling things out before any actual inquiry begins. You’re tying two hands behind your back here. Now, I don’t hold to there being a Platonic realm of forms, either, but if we’re truly starting from the beginning, you can’t just scratch things off your list willy-nilly to fit you’re already realized view of reality. You’re assuming the conclusion before the inquiry even starts. Shouldn’t we instead be looking at our experience of reality, the sciences, our ability to reason, and only from there begin to determine what best serves as a model of reality? Realism, conceptualism, nominalism… Perhaps there are more isms out there.

Physical existence and conceptual existence are not the same. It is somewhat unfortunate that both are describe by the same word: “existence”. Physical existence is “active”, it interacts with our senses, while the conceptual existence is “inactive”. Conceptual existence is merely a mental construct. The concepts MAY refer to physical entities, other concepts or nothing at all.

This seems rational, and is in agreement with the Scholastics I’m familiar with, too.

**I use the word “god” in the following meaning: “an entity, which is not physical, but not merely conceptual either. It is not part of the physical universe, but it can interact with the physical universe.” **

That’s not what I’d call God. Perhaps I’m going ten steps ahead here, as we shouldn’t just be assuming God from the start, but I’m not interested in something that just *interacts *with something external to itself, but with something that is the source of all things.

 

[Wesrock]

The universe is assumed to be WYSIWYG. Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.

Again with the assumptions. I don’t know why we must *assume *WYSIWYG. However, obviously all of our inquiry should be based only on what we can observe and our experiences, so I’m with you there. To be is to make oneself known to others. I don’t mean to personify inanimate objects, there, but to be is to be observable, no? If something exists but is completely hidden such that it is completely unobservable in itself or through its effects, it’s essentially non-existent.

This is NOT a full picture. It is only a basic definition of the entities involved in the topic. I offer it as a starting point for a discussion. You are welcome to accept it, or criticize it, or discard it fully or partially. It would be nice to start your reply with either an acceptance of these terms, or a criticism of them. But I would hope to see constructive criticism, not a flat-out rejection like “You are wrong”. And also, please avoid presenting a generic link to some website. I would prefer to see your arguments, expressed in your words.

I realize I’ve offered some criticisms and haven’t engaged in any further inquiry, yet. Certainly I agree that, even though it can’t be empirically proven, that there’s a causal relationship between the external world and my senses, and that my senses can perceive real knowledge about things external to myself, even if my observation doesn’t provide me with total knowledge of a thing. And furthermore that all metaphysical inquiry should be based on this experience. It’s not enough to simply say “based on external facts”, because the external facts are themselves only perceived through my experience. There’s no way around that. (Certainly we can develop better tools to refine our observations in a way more accurate than my physical senses would be able to on their own, but even these results can only be understood through my experience. It’s a filter we can’t do away with).

If you don’t like these simple terms, you are welcome to stay away.

I think some of your terms are quite flawed. I don’t know if that’s something you wish to discuss further, but we are in agreement on the most important basis of any further inquiry, I think.

 

[Gorgias]

You STILL cannot extrapolate from the part to the whole.

I’m not, though. “Entropy applies to closed, finite systems.” “The physical universe is a closed, finite system.” No extrapolation.

You need to prove that matter “came” into existence.

What argument would you use to prove that matter always existed?

Which would require that there was a “time” when there was “nothing”, and then a “miracle occurred” and the universe popped into existence.

Ever hear of the Big Bang?

Of course there is no “time” outside the universe, and “nothing” is just a concept, not an existing entity.

Bad logic. We don’t need a “time” when there was nothing in the physical universe, just a state in which no matter or energy was present.

“Nothing” isn’t a concept – it’s the state in which no matter or energy is present. Why do you claim that this is impossible?

Because the whole metaphysics of Aristotle, Aquinas et al. is based on pre-Einsteinian physics.

I think you have that backward. Pre-Einsteinian physics (as it originated – that is, as a philosophical discipline) is based on metaphysics.

Before there were natural sciences, there was only speculation - philosophy.

So, philosophy is merely “speculation”? Guess you’re wasting your time here in the philosophy forum, then, eh?

The better we understand the reality, the less need is there for speculation.

This presumes that the physical universe is the basis of reality. It’s the basis of ‘physical reality’, to be sure… but you cannot extrapolate as you’ve done, without a big presumption.

The so-called “fundamental nature of existence” is irrelevant, if it remains empty speculation. However, if it can be observed and thus - verified - it becomes actual physics.

“Fundamental nature” is a philosophical concept; it cannot be measured. Therefore, physics can speak of “fundamental particles”, but not “fundamental nature”.

 

[inocente]

Using reason alone, you can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow but you can do so with empirical verification via observation.

No you can’t. No one can make a logical proof of the future. No one can prove an a posteriori argument. It’s why science is based on disproof (falsification), not on proof. Newton’s gravity was replaced by Einstein’s, all scientific knowledge is provisional.

You mentioned that the “weight” of the evidence leans in favor of the materialist view, and I agree with that.

You misread me. Lots of Christian scientists are not materialists. They work on the same basis as all scientists, that until there is evidence to the contrary, the mind can be explained from the physical alone.

However, my view is not that the materialist view is wrong but rather that it is incomplete. I am an emergent dualist, so I view the mind and brain relationship as being one that involves bidirectional causation since the two interact. So I’d expect there to be evidence for brain states affecting mental states which is in line with the materialist side, but I’d also expect there to be evidence of the reverse happening, as well (mind to brain). We don’t have much scientific evidence for the latter scenario because the dualist view of the ‘mind’ is not suited for scientific testing as much as the materialist view is. So while there’s much more scientific evidence for the materialist view than the dualist view, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s more correct because it could just be that it’s easier to test and evidence using current scientific methods. Despite the “weight” of evidence, as it stands now, there is no actual scientifically verified explanation for how the brain produces conscious experience.

There’s lots of evidence for mind affecting brain, it’s how we learn. No dualism needed, not even a tiny little bit. As I said, it’s been known for a long time that the mind changes the brain. Read up and you’ll find out.

One way the mind changes the brain is used (in a simplified way) in neural network computer systems, such as facial recognition and stock market prediction: “In the late 1940s psychologist Donald Hebb created a hypothesis of learning based on the mechanism of neural plasticity that is now known as Hebbian learning. Hebbian learning is considered to be a ‘typical’ unsupervised learning rule and its later variants were early models for long term potentiation. Researchers started applying these ideas to computational models in 1948 with Turing’s B-type machines.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

Saying that the mind can be explained from the physical alone is a metaphysical statement that presumes that the mind and everything else is physical or natural. You’re confusing metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. The latter is what science should be about, since science is a tool and not a worldview. If the methods of science show that the mind is non-physical then that is still valid science just as long as the scientific method was used.

There is no presumption. The null hypothesis is that the mind can be explained from the physical alone. When you have a tested alternative hypothesis, which disproves that null hypothesis, let the world know and you’ll get a Nobel.

Dr. Schwartz has several controlled studies that are published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. His studies have been replicated, as well. Please refer to my previous post, post#50.

Well the best therapy for OCD is a combination of drug therapy and psychotherapy. Dr. Schwartz chose to do studies that use psychotherapy alone (although it has been compared w/ patients receiving drug therapy as a control) because it’s the only way to isolate its effects on OCD. And thus far, it not only improves OCD symptoms but CBT alone is shown to normalize brain function.

His program is just a version of a technique called exposure and response prevention (ERP) which dates from 1966. - ocdhistory.net/20thcentury/behaviortherapy.html

*You say that it’s “nothing exciting”. If having evidence against biological determinism is nothing exciting to you then I assume that you never were a proponent of it regardless of the fact that many scientists are.

It’s also the beginning of the end for biological determinism. *

I can’t stop you imagining that the entire world, all science, all medicine, all religions, all newspapers, all TV channels, all missed this and only you saw the light.