I am baffled, please explain

[SonOfMan]

And it is indeed a warranted request.

There seems to be a weird hypocrisy being embraced: “I’ll only believe in things that are empirically demonstrated to be true!” and “Of course the mind exists. I don’t need to have empirical data to demonstrate that!”

The mind is a function of the brain and the brain can be physically proven to exist. There is also a way to test thinking skills to demonstrate the existence of a functioning mind.

The same cant be proven, demonstrated, or tested with God.

 

[PRmerger]

The mind is a function of the brain and the brain can be physically proven to exist. There is also a way to test thinking skills to demonstrate the existence of a functioning mind.

The same cant be proven, demonstrated, or tested with God.

So what you have proved is the existence of the BRAIN. Not the mind.

Yet you believe in the mind.

 

[Aloysium]

One might say that the brain is the physical representation of the mind in the material world. An integral component of the body, the brain’s neurophysiological processes connect us to the world in which we participate. The mind and brain are actually one entity, viewed through different conceptual grids. If you want to understand the brain, learn neurology; if you want to know the whats and whys the brain does what it does, you have to know something about the mind. Knowing a bit about politics, economics, sociology, philosophy and theology helps. The person is a unity of matter and spirit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ve got it exactly right. Except that, for whatever reason, you don’t want to admit it. It beats me…

Those ‘small choices’ we make every day constitute accepting or rejecting the information we have. That’s what a choice is, for heaven’s sake. It’s a decision to accept one thing and reject another. Whether, as you say, they are preferences/judgements or objective facts (if it’s an objective fact, you have no decision to make unless you want to be perverse and deny the undeniable or accept the unacceptable).

All other choices are, obviously, a matter of taste or judgement. ‘I prefer this’ or ‘I consider him to be honest’ or ‘I don’t like this’ or ‘That doesn’t appear to be true’. You are making those ‘small choices’ by accepting or rejecting information. If someone’s honesty is in question then you believe him to be honest or not because of, wait for it, information that has been given to you about that person. You make that ‘small choice’ by accepting or rejecting that information. The choice that you make THEREFORE forms your belief. You CANNOT have that belief until you have made that choice – to accept or reject.

You CANNOT reject something and believe it to be true. You CANNOT accept something and believe it to be false. This is so incredibly, amazingly, mind-boggingly obvious that I am at a complete loss as to why you are even trying to deny it.

The fact that you are mind boggled by my denial of what you think undeniable refutes the very point you are insisting has to be the case,

AND, Bradski, below is another glaring example of exactly what you think is undeniable…

The mind is a function of the brain and the brain can be physically proven to exist. There is also a way to test thinking skills to demonstrate the existence of a functioning mind.

The same cant be proven, demonstrated, or tested with God.

So here we have one person, SonofMan, claiming the “fact” of brain/brain functions proves indisputably the existence of a functioning mind, while another person DCNBILL claims that the existence of a mind doesn’t depend at all upon a brain to exist. Same facts, wildly different views. Now why would that be if “facts” necessarily compel believers?

By the way, where two individuals come down on the the side of a belief, for example, that a supernatural God exists or does not makes a very large difference to the repertoire choices made every day by those two individuals. So the same basic facts result in completely opposite world views. Why would that be, do you think? Choices made in the past, perhaps?

The mind is a function of the brain and the brain can be physically proven to exist. There is also a way to test thinking skills to demonstrate the existence of a functioning mind.

You are begging the question, by the way. To argue that the mind is “a function of the brain” and then conclude that brain functions demonstrate the existence of a functioning mind is presuming in the premise (the mind is a function of the brain,) what you conclude must be true.

The only real possible certainty we have of what a functioning mind is, is our own subjective experience of being a functioning mind. The brain, perhaps, can be “proven” to exist physically, but there is no way that the existence of brain function logically entails that the mind is merely a function of the brain because there is no way to logically arrive at what is required to entail a mind or the existence of a mind without a whole lot of presuming going on.

Again, we have no way of knowing with any degree of logical certainty that other minds exist because we have no clear objective understanding of what it takes to be a mind - other than the first-hand experience of actually being one.

The hard problem of consciousness blocks precisely this kind of necessary inference from brain function to mind; to say nothing of the fact that no brain function has yet been connected directly to having the conscious awareness of that function - which is essentially and minimally what a mind would be.

 

[Bradski]

So here we have one person, SonofMan, claiming the “fact” of brain/brain functions proves indisputably the existence of a functioning mind, while another person DCNBILL claims that the existence of a mind doesn’t depend at all upon a brain to exist. Same facts, wildly different views. Now why would that be if “facts” necessarily compel believers?

Is there something wrong with your comprehension skills recently? Or are you purposely misrepresenting (yet again) what I am saying. I’m sure I cannot make it any clearer.

Whether you accept a given ‘fact’ as acceptable or unacceptable is not, I repeat NOT, relevant. What IS relevant is that you have to make that choice before you make a belief claim about it.

Any given ‘fact’ is, as I have repeatedly said, open for you to accept or not as you yourself dictate. If I say that I have a dragon in my basement and you make the choice, for whatever reason, to accept that information then you will THEREFORE believe there is indeed a dragon there. If you make the choice, for whatever reason, to reject that information you will THEREFORE not believe there’s a dragon there.

Same facts, wildly different beliefs, wouldn’t you say? One based on consciously accepting the information and one based on consciously rejecting it. Whether it is true or not is IRRELEVANT. If the steps are too difficult to follow, I’ll number them.

1. You know nothing about a particular matter.
2. You cannot make a belief statement about it because you know nothing about it.
3. You are given a fact about the matter (true or not is irrelevant).
4. You EITHER accept it OR reject it (justifiably or not is irrelevant).
5. You THEREFORE believe it or not (correctly or not is irrelevant).

I am not describing how you find the truth. I am describing the process that literally everyone has to go through before stating a belief or a disbelief. Yet again, whether the facts that you accept or reject are true or not is IRRELEVANT and whether that belief is right or wrong or justified or not is IRRELEVANT. The only conscious choice you have is accepting or rejecting information.

Belief is not a choice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Belief is not a choice.

I choose not to believe that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not describing how you find the truth. I am describing the process that literally everyone has to go through before stating a belief or a disbelief.

Well, no. What you are describing is the process you believe “everyone” has to go through before arriving at a belief because that is what you, personally, go through to arrive at a belief.

In reality, you have no idea what the process actually is that others go through. I am not sure how you would establish for certain what the process is that “everyone” goes through. What you have is a belief about “everyone” based upon other beliefs of yours that you have decided (by a choice) must be representative of “everyone.”

 

[Bradski]

I choose not to believe that.

 

[Bradski]

I choose not to believe that.

Here’s the rub: Why don’t you believe it?

If you have no reason, you have made a nonsensical statement (I don’t believe it for no reason at all). If you do have a reason then I’d like you to explain why. And that explanation will, without any doubt whatsoever, entail you rejecting my argument.

You are given information (this is how it happens), you reject the information (you don’t agree with it) and THEREFORE do not believe. If you did accept the information, then THEREFORE you would believe. QED.

Well, no. What you are describing is the process you believe “everyone” has to go through before arriving at a belief because that is what you, personally, go through to arrive at a belief.

In reality, you have no idea what the process actually is that others go through. I am not sure how you would establish for certain what the process is that “everyone” goes through. What you have is a belief about “everyone” based upon other beliefs of yours that you have decided (by a choice) must be representative of “everyone.”

Off you go, then. Tell me how anyone at all can form a belief without:

A - being giving information about it.
B - accepting of rejecting that information.

And I’m not going to accept ‘I don’t know’ as an answer, as if you’d need to talk to ‘everyone’ to see how they do it. Just point out the errors in my reasoning or offer another method. It shouldn’t take you long to investigate all those. There aren’t any.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As a theology student, surely you would be aware of secular morality. Even if you don’t agree with it, surely you see how it is developed. I can’t see you simply learning about Christianity in a vacuum. Aren’t other world views presented, explained and discussed as part of the curriculum?

Yes, of course I know about secular morality, and no, I don’t believe in it or agree with it if one is an atheist. If one is an atheist, the only “morality” I can see is the one the atheist invents for himself or herself. My own belief is that those professing to be atheists, in truth, are not.

Even though philosophies like humanism and consequentialism profess to eschew God and religion, in reality, they do not. I agree with C.S. Lewis that if a supernatural, objective standard of right and wrong does not exist, then morality becomes mired is the is/ought conundrum. Preferences for one moral standard over another become as arbitrary as my preference for a Milky Way bar over a Snickers.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

…morality becomes mired is the is/ought conundrum.

And that is exactly the case.

Preferences for one moral standard over another become as arbitrary as my preference for a Milky Way bar over a Snickers.

There is a “slight” difference (not really slight, of course). Whether you prefer one candy over another does not affect your relationship with others.

You live in a social environment and as such your behavior will not go unobserved, and if you go against the accepted social norms, it will have a very negative effect on you. From being “frowned upon”, to outright ostracism and even to jail, if you go against the legally codified rules. It is the social “feedback” mechanism which will weed out certain behaviors in the preference of others.

The only necessary and sufficient foundation for a “moral system” is the one expressed in the different versions of the golden rule - which have nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, of course I know about secular morality."

Would you mind telling me where you get the information from? I’m going to assume that there would be literature to which you would be directed as a student of theology.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

One might say that the brain is the physical representation of the mind in the material world. An integral component of the body, the brain’s neurophysiological processes connect us to the world in which we participate. The mind and brain are actually one entity, viewed through different conceptual grids. If you want to understand the brain, learn neurology; if you want to know the whats and whys the brain does what it does, you have to know something about the mind. Knowing a bit about politics, economics, sociology, philosophy and theology helps. The person is a unity of matter and spirit.

Pretty good summary. I am just amazed that some people still operate on the level of Aristotle, who thought that the brain is just an organ to cool the blood.

Let’s look at “memory”. Every time we experience an external stimulus, there is a physical change to the neural system, new connections are made. Invoking the affected area, we recall the event, we remember it. As time goes on, some of those changes are “overwritten” and we forget. How can some people deny this is beyond comprehension.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here’s the rub: Why don’t you believe it?

I choose not to.

That is my reason!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Pretty good summary. I am just amazed that some people still operate on the level of Aristotle, who thought that the brain is just an organ to cool the blood.

Well, clearly that’s wrong!

Obviously it is an organ that conjures up non-existent identities in order to post relentlessly on Internet forums.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I choose not to.

That is my reason!

Bradski, you may think I am being facetious, here, but I can assure you I am not.

I can accept that many people, as a matter of fact, do act on reasons. That, however, does not mean every belief or action MUST be determined by reasons. There are also many people who, I suspect, have allowed their ability to act deliberately to become flaccid and impotent.

My own understanding, based on several drawn out experiences in my life, have shown me that it is possible to choose to act rationally and choose to act irrationally. Human mental existence rides a “cusp,” of sorts between rationality and a kind of irrationality that verges on causality. We can choose to be rational and act/decide by virtue of reasoning or we can choose to allow ourselves to be irrational and let things happen to us. We have the power of will - underwritten by God’s grace - to choose. In fact, we have the power to choose which “truths” we will accept, even those which are not so true. Conversely, we can rise above all competing “truths” and see them all in light of the Truth, which doesn’t depend upon anything in our past experiences but on reality itself.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . As time goes on, some of those changes are “overwritten” and we forget. How can some people deny this is beyond comprehension.

I am not sure who would deny this. I think it is pretty clear that lop off someone’s head and they are gone from this world.

The brain is a constituent of the person.
It is the person who thinks and remembers. We have minds and all of society is constructed on this reality.

The brain is the means by which we are able to enter into relation with the physical world, of which we are an integral part.
Our being is not limited to what is contained in a sac of skin nor what is in our skulls. This is where the soul comes in.
At any rate, consider the concept that when you remember you are connecting to a part of yourself in time and space.

One tries to remember a particular word. As it is on the tip of the tongue, neuronal connections are set in motion, in search of the right one. Eventually or not one gets it and this sets off neurons in the limbic system associated with the emotional response.

The brain does not cause this to happen and the mind does not control the brain. The person is an entity in him/herself, doing the thinking, feeling, the biochemistry.

When one dies, the body returns to dust, as complex molecules are reduced to their constituents. The soul which “contains” the body, which is a small part of all space and time, returns to its Source, the relationship it has with God. Until, that is we are resurrected. This of course has been revealed and to me makes so much more sense than anything else ouutr there that attempts to explain all this.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am not sure who would deny this. I think it is pretty clear that lop off someone’s head and they are gone from this world.

Probably all those who believe that the mind is independent from the brain.

The brain does not cause this to happen and the mind does not control the brain. The person is an entity in him/herself, doing the thinking, feeling, the biochemistry.

And one can start to remove the individual “parts”, one at a time, and the “person” is still there, until the brain’s functionality is removed. As a matter of fact, it is enough to perform a lobotomy, and the “person” is gone. The parts are all there, but the “personality” is taken away. If the operation could be reversed, the personality would come back.

The soul which “contains” the body, which is a small part of all space and time, returns to its Source, the relationship it has with God. Until, that is we are resurrected. This of course has been revealed and to me makes so much more sense than anything else ouutr there that attempts to explain all this.

This is sheer conjecture. I have never seen a coherent definition of what the “soul” might be, much less any evidence for it. Sometimes it is an “animating principle” (whatever THAT might be), other times it is a “form” (which is not a shape) yet other times it is a fully immaterial “something” that will survive our physical existence.

Not to mention that the question was about the “mind”, and not the “soul”.

 

[Aloysium]

Probably all those who believe that the mind is independent from the brain. . . And one can start to remove the individual “parts”, one at a time, and the “person” is still there, until the brain’s functionality is removed. As a matter of fact, it is enough to perform a lobotomy, and the “person” is gone. The parts are all there, but the “personality” is taken away. If the operation could be reversed, the personality would come back. . . This is sheer conjecture. I have never seen a coherent definition of what the “soul” might be, much less any evidence for it. Sometimes it is an “animating principle” (whatever THAT might be), other times it is a “form” (which is not a shape) yet other times it is a fully immaterial “something” that will survive our physical existence. . . Not to mention that the question was about the “mind”, and not the “soul”.

I don’t know what mind independent or dependent on the brain means. I think the brain is dependent on the soul in order to constitute a human being.

In my view: person=/=personality=/=self. The person is he who feels it when you stub your toe, whether he calls himself PA or HZ. Lobotomized people, and I knew one, feel pain and have feelings. People with CP, Down’s etc are no less people than the anyone else, including embryos.

Sheer conjecture, as would be everything else when our thoughts are divorced from reality. Everything is actually very simple, very clear. This is what this is - sheer awesomeness.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t know what mind independent or dependent on the brain means.

I cannot speak for those who assert that the mind has nothing to do with the brain. For myself I can say that the mind is the electro-chemical activity of the brain. If you “mess” with the brain, you mess with the mind.

I think the brain is dependent on the soul in order to constitute a human being.

Since the “soul” is undefined I cannot comment on this.