There’s no such thing. Suppose I tell you there are fairies. You can’t verify there aren’t by simultaneously observing every inch of the planet. All you can say is that you have no evidence.
There is a such thing as empirical or scientific verification. We already went over one example about observing the sunrise. The claim that the mind is physical means that there is a physical property underlying every mental attribute, and this can be verified by reducing the mind to its most basic components to yield its physical constituents (reductive-materialism). As it stands, there is no empirical verification for the view that the mind is entirely physical.
Besides which, if I make the claim that there are fairies, I can say “prove it ain’t so” as often as I like but you’re under no obligation. I’m making the claim, so it’s for me to demonstrate my claim.
Usually when I debate atheists and skeptics on other issues, many of them demand and expect scientific standards with solid verifiable evidence. They make similar demands even with historical claims, like claims about the historical Jesus. Not to sound too much like an atheist but thus far you have not offered any scientific peer-reviewed successfully replicated/verifiable evidence to show that the mind is physical. This amounts to nothing more than filling in the huge gaps with dogma (metaphysical naturalism).
Universities offer courses on change of mind = change of brain, including the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved.
Are they offering courses to change neurobiological-based behaviors, like OCD, schizophrenia, sexual orientation, etc.? If not, then your point is not relevant to my argument.
As far as I can tell, ‘self-directed neuroplasticity’ is a buzz phrase invented by Schwartz for his therapy program, and is what everyone else calls training.
Self-directed neuroplasticity was coined to distinguish between the biologically triggered and driven process and the mentally triggered and driven process. The latter process is self-directed. A neurobiological state doesn’t
decide one day that it doesn’t like OCD, homosexuality, schizophrenia, so lets change it. Behaviors that are rooted in neurobiology, like the three mentioned in the last sentence, are suppose to remain fixed - no choice involved. In contrast, we can use our mental faculties to self-reflect on our thoughts/behavior and we can decide to change them. Of course, you’d need work for the change (changing thoughts/behaviors). Scientific peer-reviewed studies show that this can be done for neurobiological-based behaviors, like OCD. Theoretically, this can also work for other behaviors that are rooted in biology, like schizophrenia, sexual orientation, etc… There’s already some evidence that CBT works for schizophrenia - another neurobiological based behavior (source:
Psychiatric Times). We’ll need to do neuroimaging to see if or how CBT changes brain function for this behavior.
We’ve known for thousands of years that practicing virtue helps make us virtuous, that practice makes perfect, and we didn’t need brain scans to confirm it happens. But we are now finding out how it works, that pathways which get used a lot become freeways while those which don’t get overgrown with weeds. Change of mind = change of brain.
From a scientific-standpoint, we have not known (via empirical methods) for thousands of years that changing your mind equals changing
physical brain states/function. You need brain scans to verify that.
I only found one source,
a blogger, who thinks like you that it shows substance dualism, but he forgot neurons which wire together fire together.
Dr. Schwartz and those in his camp tend focus more on the practical aspect of neuroplasticity while I’ve chosen to focus on the intellectual aspect - the reason and evidence behind the phenomena. I also wouldn’t consider myself a ‘substance dualist’ because I don’t subscribe to the whole package of ideas that comes with it. I accept some points from the materialist side; however, I don’t accept that it’s the full story which leads me to accept some points from the non-materialist side.
You also seem to be implying that arguments are valid based on who argues them and not on what is being argued. If so, then you’ve committed two logical fallacies which are the argument from popularity and argument from authority.
All children go through puberty, proving that biologically-based behaviors do not imply fixed behaviors. “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.” And even the most ardent determinist knows that with willpower he can stop smoking.
Well you offered ONE example but of course there are other examples that don’t fit your point. Either way, hard-wired or biological-based behavior does not simply apply to behavior or characteristics that are static or that remain in one state. It refers to behavior or activity that is triggered and driven by a biological process. So eventhough we don’t start off with puberty and we don’t remain in that state, since we eventually go through puberty, the process is still driven by biology - choice or ‘thoughts’ are a nonfactor. And if you are consistent in your position, you should also be open to accepting that sexual orientation can be changed in principle, even if it’s harmful.
Anything that is assumed to be beyond this must be established by logical and rational reasoning, starting with the observed, physical universe.
