About the god of the philosophers

[STT]

What is wrong with that statement?

 

[tonyrey]

Big Bang to the best of our knowledge.

In other words we don’t know for certain…

It depends on how you define matter. I believe in spiritual realm but I think that they can interact with each other, meaning that we can put them in a same category (matter for example), otherwise you have two different separated realms. Nevertheless the existence of spiritual world doesn’t mean that it comes to existence form nothing. In fact there is an issue in the idea that the universe comes out of nothing if we accept that time is part of creation. The problem is related to the fact that there is no point before beginning therefore we couldn’t have nothing.

Creation implies a Creator!

It depends on how do you define mind. Mind can only experience and affect stuff, matter for example, without that it is blind or might not exist at all therefore we need stuff in order to mind could experience and affect it.

Why can’t mind experience and control itself?

Mind cannot be initial state of being if its very existence depends on existence of matter.

“if” gaves the game away!

Matter and its mental activity. Matter to me is conscious too.

What evidence is there that material objects are conscious?

 

[STT]

In other words we don’t know for certain…

We have evidences for that to be true.

Creation implies a Creator!

It seems that you didn’t get my argument: In fact there is an issue in the idea that the universe comes out of nothing if we accept that time is part of the universe. The problem is related to the fact that there is no point before beginning therefore we couldn’t have nothing.

Why can’t mind experience and control itself?

What is mind?

“if” gaves the game away!

I think that becomes clear when you answer the previous question.

What evidence is there that material objects are conscious?

I have a thread on this here.

 

[inocente]

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.

I can’t stop you imagining that a logical proof that the sun will rise tomorrow is to wait until after the sun has risen tomorrow.

I’ve not claimed the mind is physical, nor reductive materialism, nor any other -ism.

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).

I’ve not claimed the mind is physical, nor metaphysical naturalism, nor any other -ism.

*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. *

You said “Despite the solid evidence, it is probably accepted reluctantly and that’s because of the implications” which I refuted by saying “Universities offer courses on change of mind = change of brain, including the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved”. You can look up these courses for yourself.

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. <snip to fit in 6000 chars>

Yes, and it’s still called learning. In line with the null hypothesis that all can be explained from the physical, we hypothesize that a desire to change doesn’t of itself change behavior. But it leads to self-reflecting and/or training, and so new thoughts are repeated which make neurons fire together, which then wire together, changing behavior. That fits the evidence and you’ve not proposed any disproof.

*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. *

From what I could find out, you and the blogger seem to be the only two people on the planet who think this disproves any -isms, so perhaps you should get together.

You keep accusing me of things! Scroll down to the bottom of that blogger’s page and you’ll see it says BLOG AT …] By definition he is a blogger. I never implied anything, just said he is a blogger. Do you have something against bloggers?

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.

I only needed one counter-example to refute your “Biologically-based behaviors imply fixed behaviors”. I have no idea whether all behaviors can be changed, and said that some may be so deeply part of one’s identity that it would be unethical to try. The outcome may risk destroying someone’s soul.

But it is definitely possible, and much easier, and absolutely ethical, to treat homophobia.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, we have a problem related to creation out of nothing if we accept Mind as creator. The problem is related to fact that time is a part of the universe. This means that there was no time before beginning of the universe. Therefore there was never nothing which can turned into the universe. The universe has been always, from beginning to now, existing.

“Therefore there was never nothing which can turned into the universe” implies that there was something. Two negatives = one positive.

You are assuming reality consist only of beings who exist in time and space - a dogma confined to materialists.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I can’t stop you imagining that a logical proof that the sun will rise tomorrow is to wait until after the sun has risen tomorrow.

My claim is that we can empirically verify that the sun will rise tomorrow. Empirical verification is not the same thing as logical reasoning.

I’ve not claimed the mind is physical, nor reductive materialism, nor any other -ism.

You’re beginning to sound like an agnostic

You said “Despite the solid evidence, it is probably accepted reluctantly and that’s because of the implications” which I refuted by saying “Universities offer courses on change of mind = change of brain, including the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved”. You can look up these courses for yourself.

Unless they’re also teaching that neurobiological behaviors can change, then they’re probably still advocating for biological determinism.

Yes, and it’s still called learning. In line with the null hypothesis that all can be explained from the physical, we hypothesize that a desire to change doesn’t of itself change behavior.

Desire by itself doesn’t change the behavior, but it is involved since the brain function is changing to match what we desired or wanted. The fact that we can reach our desired goal defeats biological materialism.

But it [desire] leads to self-reflecting and/or training, and so new thoughts are repeated which make neurons fire together, which then wire together, changing behavior. That fits the evidence and you’ve not proposed any disproof.

I appreciate you describing the physical process, but you left out the mental process. The mental process came before the physical change (normalizing of brain functions). The mental process involves using ‘thought’, and the change in thought at the mental level sparked a change at the physical level (the brain). In other words, the neural wiring associated with a behavior did not change before the thought nor did it change at the same time as the thought change. If either scenario happened, then we could say that the change in neural wiring led to the change in thought or we wouldn’t know which cause which if both happened at the same time.

Also, when scientists are able to directly observe the content our thoughts, and make the connection between the physical brain and mental qualities/states, then I’ll say that he mind is physical.

I only needed one counter-example to refute your “Biologically-based behaviors imply fixed behaviors”.

No fixed behaviors implies no biological determinism.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14500167:

I’ve not claimed the mind is physical, nor reductive materialism, nor any other -ism.

You’re beginning to sound like an agnostic

When I said I’ve not claimed any -ism, that included agnosticism.

Unless they’re also teaching that neurobiological behaviors can change, then they’re probably still advocating for biological determinism.

The classes I saw teach facts, as in what actually happens, for clinicians and scientists.

*Desire by itself doesn’t change the behavior, but it is involved since the brain function is changing to match what we desired or wanted. The fact that we can reach our desired goal defeats biological materialism.

I appreciate you describing the physical process, but you left out the mental process. The mental process came before the physical change (normalizing of brain functions). The mental process involves using ‘thought’, and the change in thought at the mental level sparked a change at the physical level (the brain). In other words, the neural wiring associated with a behavior did not change before the thought nor did it change at the same time as the thought change. If either scenario happened, then we could say that the change in neural wiring led to the change in thought or we wouldn’t know which cause which if both happened at the same time. *

I wish you and that lone blogger well but can’t see either of you getting anywhere as existing theory is more detailed, more simple, more general, more useful and fits all the evidence.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I wish you and that lone blogger well but can’t see either of you getting anywhere as existing theory is more detailed, more simple, more general, more useful and fits all the evidence.

I’m not sure why you claim that the prevailing view, which involves biological determinism, fits all of the evidence when you yourself disputed it when you questioned biological determinism by disputing the existence of “fixed behaviors”. To establish that the brain causes or controls the mind, you have to show that a distinct pattern of brain states/activity precedes a distinct pattern of thought/behavior (distinct pattern = fixed behavior). Perhaps you did not know that biological determinism (brain controls thought and behavior) was the only scientific evidence that materialists had to support their side. What other scientific evidence is there to show that the mind is physical??? So you unknowingly disputed your own position.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure why you claim that the prevailing view, which involves biological determinism, fits all of the evidence when you yourself disputed it when you questioned biological determinism by disputing the existence of “fixed behaviors”. To establish that the brain causes or controls the mind, you have to show that a distinct pattern of brain states/activity precedes a distinct pattern of thought/behavior (distinct pattern = fixed behavior). Perhaps you did not know that biological determinism (brain controls thought and behavior) was the only scientific evidence that materialists had to support their side. What other scientific evidence is there to show that the mind is physical??? So you unknowingly disputed your own position.

Biological determinism is the doctrine that biology alone determines behavior. It was used by Aristotle to justify slavery and ruling classes, more recently it was the basis for discredited racist and sexist theories, etc. Not only is there no evidence for it, its long association with distasteful ideologies means it is very far from the prevailing view.

Here’s a psychiatrist who got his church (and Saddleback in one big church) to run a program telling people all the ways they can live longer and happier by changing their brains. No dualism or any other -ism, just hard facts.

Here’s a comedian, Ruby Wax, who beat her depression by getting herself a Masters degree on how to change her brain by awareness and reflection. Again, no dualism or other -isms, nothing mystical.

There are lots of other talks, watched by thousands of people, some giving the exact mechanisms at molecular level. No conspiracy of silence, no worried biologists with unanswerable questions, no -isms. You’re right that it’s exciting to have scientific confirmation of how we can break habits, beat anxiety, conquer addictions, be more compassion to ourselves and others. But the reason it’s exciting is that plasticity is simple and easy to grasp, without any need for dualism or any other -ism.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Biological determinism is the doctrine that biology alone determines behavior. It was used by Aristotle to justify slavery and ruling classes, more recently it was the basis for discredited racist and sexist theories, etc. Not only is there no evidence for it, its long association with distasteful ideologies means it is very far from the prevailing view.

Your point is clearly a straw man. I never claimed that all behaviors are determined by biology alone; I said that biological based behaviors, which is only ONE type of behavior, are determined by biology. Examples of neurobiological based behaviors are schizophrenia, OCD, and Parkinson’s disease - plenty of evidence for their biological roots. Perhaps you’d have more of a case with those scientists who claim that there’s no free-will or those in the LGBT community who claim that homosexuality is determined by biology.

Please refer to the 2nd and 3rd sentences of my last post where I clearly explain the sense in which I was using biological determinism. To say that the mind is the brain is to say that the mind is caused and controlled by neural activity and nothing more. The evidence that materialists cite for their viewpoint are the connections found between brain states/function and mental functions/behavior.

Here’s a psychiatrist who got his church (and Saddleback in one big church) to run a program telling people all the ways they can live longer and happier by changing their brains. No dualism or any other -ism, just hard facts.

Here’s a comedian, Ruby Wax, who beat her depression by getting herself a Masters degree on how to change her brain by awareness and reflection. Again, no dualism or other -isms, nothing mystical.

There are lots of other talks, watched by thousands of people, some giving the exact mechanisms at molecular level. No conspiracy of silence, no worried biologists with unanswerable questions, no -isms. You’re right that it’s exciting to have scientific confirmation of how we can break habits, beat anxiety, conquer addictions, be more compassion to ourselves and others. But the reason it’s exciting is that plasticity is simple and easy to grasp, without any need for dualism or any other -ism.

Well there are some misuses of the concept of neuroplasticity, and it’s funny that you cite its use among non-scientific organizations (like religious groups and other non-experts) which tend to be the prime areas of misuse. The misuses involve exaggerating what neuroplasticity involves and what it can do, perhaps to entice more people and for monetary profit.

You also seem to be arguing that since many people use neuroplasticity concepts then there’s no mind/body dualism involved. The fact that many people use the concept of neuroplasticity does not prove nor disprove mind/body dualism or monism. The fact that many people also accept free-will and live their lives thinking they have this ability also does not have any bearing on the validity of free-will. I’ve already given you a break down of my argument from neuroplasticity (refer to post #62, the 2nd or last response to you).

 

[inocente]

Your point is clearly a straw man. I never claimed that all behaviors are determined by biology alone; I said that biological based behaviors, which is only ONE type of behavior, are determined by biology.

You kept accusing people of biological determinism, which is the belief that all behavior is innate, and now you say you didn’t mean that. But it’s highly contestable whether any behavior is fixed throughout life. Ask scientists. Ask philosophers. For that matter, ask Christians whether anyone is trapped by his past and cannot be born again.

*Please refer to the 2nd and 3rd sentences of my last post where I clearly explain the sense in which I was using biological determinism. To say that the mind is the brain is to say that the mind is caused and controlled by neural activity and nothing more. The evidence that materialists cite for their viewpoint are the connections found between brain states/function and mental functions/behavior.

Well there are some misuses of the concept of neuroplasticity, and it’s funny that you cite its use among non-scientific organizations (like religious groups and other non-experts) which tend to be the prime areas of misuse. The misuses involve exaggerating what neuroplasticity involves and what it can do, perhaps to entice more people and for monetary profit.

You also seem to be arguing that since many people use neuroplasticity concepts then there’s no mind/body dualism involved. The fact that many people use the concept of neuroplasticity does not prove nor disprove mind/body dualism or monism. The fact that many people also accept free-will and live their lives thinking they have this ability also does not have any bearing on the validity of free-will. I’ve already given you a break down of my argument from neuroplasticity (refer to post #62*, the 2nd or last response to you).

You seem to claim that a scientist with hard data can’t be reliable because he happens to be a Christian.

You imply that he is “exaggerating what neuroplasticity involves and what it can do, perhaps to entice more people and for monetary profit”. But he’s a psychiatrist with a therapy program. Exactly like your Dr Schwartz.

Your case seems completely inconsistent to me, at ever level and in every respect, and I can find no one else on the entire planet who agrees with you, except one blogger who may even be you. I’ve said all I have to say, by all means have the last word.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You kept accusing people of biological determinism, which is the belief that all behavior is innate, and now you say you didn’t mean that.

I used the term biological determinism but I also defined what I meant. I’m not sure why you went elsewhere to find a definition that’s contrary to what I defined in my post. Did you see my definition in one of my past post where I mentioned that you disputed biological determinism?

Post #108

Perhaps you did not know that biological determinism** (brain controls thought and behavior)** was the only scientific evidence that materialists had to support their side.

But it’s highly contestable whether any behavior is fixed throughout life. Ask scientists. Ask philosophers. For that matter, ask Christians whether anyone is trapped by his past and cannot be born again.

The :“null hypothesis”, as you like to bring up, is that SOME behaviors are fixed. I gave you examples of such behaviors, including the view that the brain is always in control of the mind throughout a person’s lifetime.

You seem to claim that a scientist with hard data can’t be reliable because he happens to be a Christian.

One scientist doesn’t equal mainstream. I’ll quote from an article in the Psychiatric Times that best illustrates the mainstream position in psychiatry,

Many psychiatrists have also held the unfortunate dichotomized position that psychotherapy is a treatment for “psychologically based” disorders, while medication is for “biologically based” disorders.

. The same article goes on to explain the recent view,

During the past several decades, it has become clear that all mental processes derive from mechanisms of the brain.2 This means that any change in our psychological processes is reflected by changes in the functions or structures of the brain. Straightforward reductionistic stances, however, are unfounded because there is clear evidence that our subjective experiences affect the brain.1

Your case seems completely inconsistent to me, at ever level and in every respect, and I can find no one else on the entire planet who agrees with you, except one blogger who may even be you. I’ve said all I have to say, by all means have the last word.

I’ve made my case and I’m the only one here to provide scientific peer-reviewed evidence. The evidence speaks for itself, really. Bringing up who argues what or how many people argue it has no bearing on validity and I hope you’re not using that just because you have not been able to offer a valid rebuttal.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Inocente,

It might help if you think of CBT as being the placebo effect on steroids when it comes to mental health.