'Immateriality' and Meaning

[Sair]

Cropped up on another thread, and I thought it warranted a discussion of its own.

What do people mean when they say that something is ‘immaterial’ or ‘non-physical’?

For that matter (if you’ll pardon the pun) what do people mean by ‘meaning’ - especially in terms of considering whether or not life has ‘meaning’.

To my way of thinking, meaning requires reference. A symbol has meaning when it refers to an object or state of affairs in the physical world. I don’t believe that life is a symbol of something else, so it seems vague, at best, to say that life must have meaning.

With that in mind, when one says something is ‘immaterial’, to what does one refer? What qualities of this immaterial entity make it what it is, other than its nonconformity to our notions of what physical things are? I have often found that the word ‘immaterial’ is tossed out when people don’t have - and don’t particularly want - an explanation for some particular phenomenon. They want to say that this particular non-physical entity is undetectable, but by claiming so, they are also, by implication, claiming that such an entity is ineffectual - since by its effects, it could be detected, and would therefore come under the scrutiny of those who seek a physical explanation.

 

[Heuchler]

Well I think to put it simply, these things are not composed of matter in any shape or form. So, you can’t measure it, see it, feel it, hear it, etc. So, your soul is an example. You can’t find it or see it but it is there. But yes, you have a great point. If it has no matter how can it affect matter. But that would be like saying a gas can’t affect a solid because you can’t see a gas. But air can cause wind which can over time erode enormous rock structures. (I know these analogies aren’t great but theyre what I got )

The immaterial was also around before the material and was the cause of it. So, the immaterial seems to be able to produce and affect the material. But since we really don’t know the answer (or anything about the immaterial) it is impossible to really answer your question. It would be like asking how does an alien react to oxygen without knowing anything about the being.

It may be that the immaterial is more like concepts which have sentience and can act and will. In this case our soul would be like our essence and everything about us stored and known and what makes our choices and where our “moral self” is stored. And this would include knowledge of the body and the ability to work with it and its faculties to produce who we are. That would be why we say that our choices help to form our soul and that sin blackens and changes it.

 

[Xntrik]

It’s funny, OP, that you’d post on this topic, because the other day, someone here brought up the question, “Is the soul immaterial?” To which I was tempted to reply, “The materialist would say so.”

 

[twinc]

so here is the only answer feasible - this was known by the old sages of the ages and finally confirmed by our scientists and science on the dematerialisation of matter - but here we are confronted by dematerialised to what? - so how does the brain communicate with the mind ?- How does mind make the miraculous leap from a physical to a non-physical immaterial entity like sensation ? How can mind testify to the existence of anything outside itself.We come to a sudden full stop when we come to the molecular change in the brain.There the continuity ends.Consciousness makes an abrupt appearance at the other side of the chasm and we do not know how to unite two such totally different orders of existence together.How can physiology bring the two ends together ?
The answer is it does not bring them together.It leaves them precisely where they are.It bridges the chasm by using the word “somehow”,by assuming the ends are somehow united.It accepts the chasm and then assumes it is not a chasm.When therefore the science of physiology says that the gap is somehow closed,it is indulging in a play of speculative fancy,not in a discovery of ascertained and verified fact. The leap it makes is not natural but arbitrary.Thus we return to the troubling question : how is it possible to relate mind which is immaterial to the brain which is material ?[Dr.Paul Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[tonyrey]

so here is the only answer feasible - this was known by the old sages of the ages and finally confirmed by our scientists and science on the dematerialisation of matter - but here we are confronted by dematerialised to what? - so how does the brain communicate with the mind ?- How does mind make the miraculous leap from a physical to a non-physical immaterial entity like sensation ? How can mind testify to the existence of anything outside itself.We come to a sudden full stop when we come to the molecular change in the brain.There the continuity ends.Consciousness makes an abrupt appearance at the other side of the chasm and we do not know how to unite two such totally different orders of existence together.How can physiology bring the two ends together ?
The answer is it does not bring them together.It leaves them precisely where they are.It bridges the chasm by using the word “somehow”,by assuming the ends are somehow united.It accepts the chasm and then assumes it is not a chasm.When therefore the science of physiology says that the gap is somehow closed,it is indulging in a play of speculative fancy,not in a discovery of ascertained and verified fact. The leap it makes is not natural but arbitrary.Thus we return to the troubling question : how is it possible to relate mind which is immaterial to the brain which is material ?[Dr.Paul Brunton] - more later - twinc

We are presumptuous if we expect to understand the ultimate nature of reality. Our primary datum and our sole certainty is our mind with its thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions. The success of science is sufficient evidence of the primacy and power of the mind…

 

[Sair]

It’s funny, OP, that you’d post on this topic, because the other day, someone here brought up the question, “Is the soul immaterial?” To which I was tempted to reply, “The materialist would say so.”

Perhaps, but only in the sense of ‘immaterial’ that means ‘unimportant’, ‘irrelevant’ or ‘negligible’… :yup:

 

[Sair]

Well I think to put it simply, these things are not composed of matter in any shape or form. So, you can’t measure it, see it, feel it, hear it, etc. So, your soul is an example. You can’t find it or see it but it is there. But yes, you have a great point. If it has no matter how can it affect matter. But that would be like saying a gas can’t affect a solid because you can’t see a gas. But air can cause wind which can over time erode enormous rock structures. (I know these analogies aren’t great but theyre what I got )

Electricity is not composed of matter, but of energy (although matter is energy in a different form). Not even philosophical physicalists deny that electricity exists. Nor do they deny the existence of forces, but these are natural, physical phenomenal also, with demonstrable effects upon matter and energy. So my question still stands - what are people talking about when they refer to ‘immaterial’ or ‘non-physical’ things?

The immaterial was also around before the material and was the cause of it.

Has this been demonstrated to be the case? Or is it just a supposition made by supernaturalists?

So, the immaterial seems to be able to produce and affect the material.

If that were so, we would be able to identify and measure the immaterial.

But since we really don’t know the answer (or anything about the immaterial) it is impossible to really answer your question. It would be like asking how does an alien react to oxygen without knowing anything about the being.

If we don’t know anything about it, how can we know it exists?

It may be that the immaterial is more like concepts which have sentience and can act and will. In this case our soul would be like our essence and everything about us stored and known and what makes our choices and where our “moral self” is stored. And this would include knowledge of the body and the ability to work with it and its faculties to produce who we are. That would be why we say that our choices help to form our soul and that sin blackens and changes it.

A concept is a concept of something; any abstract idea must be abstracted from something. They are a simplified means of categorising and ordering the reality we experience, moving from the specific to the general. It might be relevant to say that a person’s ‘soul’ is their self-concept, stored in the brain as memory and experience, but that is hardly approaching a supernaturalist account of souls. The point about such things is that they would be meaningless without direct relationship to the physical world; concepts such as morality and love, for example, would be nothing without their physical expression - there would be nothing from which they could be built.

 

[Sair]

We are presumptuous if we expect to understand the ultimate nature of reality. Our primary datum and our sole certainty is our mind with its thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions. The success of science is sufficient evidence of the primacy and power of the mind…

Understanding the ultimate nature of reality is not the same as identifying and categorising aspects of that reality. Ask a physicist what energy is and they will most likely tell you that it’s just that - energy. We can observe and measure and calculate its presence, but that’s not the same as understanding precisely what it is or where it comes from, or even knowing all its capabilities.

Physicalism, as a philosophical position, does not attempt an exhaustive understanding of what reality is, but simply categorises such things as we can observe and experience, such things that interact with and affect the physical, as being physical things. According to this view, all accessible reality is physical - hence the original question: if immaterial things are not accessible in a way that allows them to be experienced as entities somehow distinct from the physical, what are they? How can we know they exist if they are not available to our experience?

The mind does not affect the physical but through physical means. If the immaterial is fundamentally separate and inaccessible to the material, then this knife cuts both ways - the immaterial cannot affect the material. Mind is not prior to matter and energy, but arises from them, and is thus a manifestation of the physical. What happens if your mind is eroded by a disease of the brain? Would you still be certain of it then? Would the entity you think of as ‘you’ - your self-concept, perhaps - still exist? Certainly in some form, but all around you would observe that it was a different entity to the one that existed before the deterioration of your brain.

 

[tonyrey]

We are presumptuous if we expect to understand the ultimate nature of reality. Our primary datum and our sole certainty is our mind with its thoughts, emotions, decisions and perceptions. The success of science is sufficient evidence of the primacy and power of the mind…

We have direct experience of immaterial reality. If you doubt that your mental activity exists you will end up in a psychiatric unit! We **infer **the existence of material objects from our perceptions - which are often misleading. Our intellect - not our senses - tells us that a mirage is an illusion.

The mind does not affect the physical but through physical means. If the immaterial is fundamentally separate and inaccessible to the material, then this knife cuts both ways - the immaterial cannot affect the material.

Mind and matter interact and are obviously related but neither is reducible to the other.
From the dawn of history human beings have distinguished them.

Mind is not prior to matter and energy, but arises from them, and is thus a manifestation of the physical.

How you can possibly know that? It is a hypothesis which fails to explain the power of the mind.

What happens if your mind is eroded by a disease of the brain? Would you still be certain of it then? Would the entity you think of as ‘you’ - your self-concept, perhaps - still exist?

The mind is not eroded by disease of the brain. When you are “out of your mind” you don’t cease to exist as a person. Do you believe your body would no longer have a right to life? If not why not?

Certainly in some form, but all around you would observe that it was a different entity to the one that existed before the deterioration of your brain.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean…

 

[Sair]

We have direct experience of immaterial reality. If you doubt that your mental activity exists you will end up in a psychiatric unit! We **infer **the existence of material objects from our perceptions - which are often misleading. Our intellect - not our senses - tells us that a mirage is an illusion.

To what extent is our ‘direct’ experience of this so-called ‘immaterial reality’ different to our inference of material objects? If a direct experience, whence ‘immaterial’ or theoretically unquantifiable?

Mind and matter interact and are obviously related but neither is reducible to the other. From the dawn of history human beings have distinguished them.

From the dawn of history and for much longer than we have thought otherwise, humans assumed natural phenomena were governed by personal beings. That does not make this a correct assumption about reality.

As for the relationship between mind and matter, again the question arises - how, if one is material, and the other immaterial, do these things interact or have any dependence upon each other? You assume that a physicalist approach to reality necessitates some kind of reduction, without knowing all the properties and capabilities of physical substance. Reduced from what, exactly? Inscrutability to accessibility?

It is a hypothesis which fails to explain the power of the mind.

Immaterialism also fails to explain the power of the mind, or to harmonise with human experience the idea that the mind is transcendent over other aspects of reality. The power of the mind is not explained by any supernaturalist accounting - it is merely assumed.

The mind is not eroded by disease of the brain. When you are “out of your mind” you don’t cease to exist as a person.

But, for all intents and purposes, you cease to exist as the same person - with the same mind - that you were before the disease took hold.

Do you believe your body would no longer have a right to life? If not why not?

What does a right to life - however one interprets such a right - have to do with the condition of one part of the body in which such life persists? As well ask whether I would still have a right to life if I lost an arm. We are speaking of the independence - or otherwise - of the mind from the physical properties of the brain and body and the environments in which they exist. The only way you could assume that the body containing an altered brain no longer had a right to life was if you considered the two to be fundamentally separate.

 

[tonyrey]

We have direct experience of immaterial reality. If you doubt that your mental activity exists you will end up in a psychiatric unit! We infer the existence of material objects from our perceptions - which are often misleading. Our intellect - not our senses - tells us that a mirage is an illusion.

We do not experience material objects at first hand. A baby sees only a mass of shapes and colours and has to learn what they represent. Its experience is initially the uncomprehending reception of raw data.

If a direct experience, whence ‘immaterial’ or theoretically unquantifiable?

Our mental experiences cannot be observed by the senses or measured.

Mind and matter interact and are obviously related but neither is reducible to the other. From the dawn of history human beings have distinguished them.

From the dawn of history and for much longer than we have thought otherwise, humans assumed natural phenomena were governed by personal beings. That does not make this a correct assumption about reality.

They were right! Natural phenomena are often governed to a large extent by personal beings!

As for the relationship between mind and matter, again the question arises - how, if one is material, and the other immaterial, do these things interact or have any dependence upon each other?

No one understands the ultimate nature of reality - not even the physicalist!.

You assume that a physicalist approach to reality necessitates some kind of reduction, without knowing all the properties and capabilities of physical substance.

It is not an assumption but a fact - unless you can explain how thoughts and emotions **are **neuronal impulses.

Reduced from what, exactly? Inscrutability to accessibility?

From personality, intangibility, consciousness, rationality, sentience and autonomy to that which lacks these attributes.

It is a hypothesis which fails to explain the power of the mind.

Immaterialism also fails to explain the power of the mind, or to harmonise with human experience the idea that the mind is transcendent over other aspects of reality.

We know the power of the mind from our personal experience of making decisions and controlling our thoughts, emotions and actions.

The power of the mind is not explained by any supernaturalist accounting - it is merely assumed.

No one understands the ultimate nature of reality whether it be mental or physical.

The mind is not eroded by disease of the brain. When you are “out of your mind” you don’t cease to exist as a person.

But, for all intents and purposes, you cease to exist as the same person - with the same mind - that you were before the disease took hold.

For all physical intents and purposes. No one knows what occurs in another person’s mind.

Do you believe your body would no longer have a right to life? If not why not?

What does a right to life - however one interprets such a right - have to do with the condition of one part of the body in which such life persists? As well ask whether I would still have a right to life if I lost an arm. We are speaking of the independence - or otherwise - of the mind from the physical properties of the brain and body and the environments in which they exist. The only way you could assume that the body containing an altered brain no longer had a right to life was if you considered the two to be fundamentally separate.

You identify the mind with the activity of the brain and believe the mind no longer exists if the brain can no longer function correctly. It is absurd to attribute the right to life to a mindless body - unless you have a good reason for doing so…

What does a right to life - however one interprets such a right - have to do with the condition of one part of the body in which such life persists? As well ask whether I would still have a right to life if I lost an arm. We are speaking of the independence - or otherwise - of the mind from the physical properties of the brain and body and the environments in which they exist. The only way you could assume that the body containing an altered brain no longer had a right to life was if you considered the two to be fundamentally separate.

You identify the mind with the activity of the brain and believe the mind no longer exists when the brain can no longer function correctly. It is absurd to attribute the right to life to a mindless body - unless you can give a good reason for doing so…

 

[twinc]

contd - Nobody has ever adequately explained the facts of psychology by the phenomena of physiology.All such efforts have failed because they failed to understand the connection between mind and matter.Is it not foolish to imply that in nodding their visible heads men nod their invisible minds at the same time[Dr.Paul Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[Sair]

But, for all intents and purposes, you cease to exist as the same person - with the same mind - that you were before the disease took hold.

Hmm…it occurs to me that some clarification is required here (it was very late in my part of the world when I wrote this). The above, it should be pointed out, is not my assumption, but that suggested by a dualistic perspective of mind and matter - on such a view, if the mind alters, the person alters, despite the mind inhabiting the same body. It’s a bit like saying, “I’m a different person to who I was ten years ago” - I would suggest this is a metaphor; of course you’re the same entity, but with a different store of experience and new knowledge. A dualistic perspective, however, if by this one understands the person to reside wholly in the mind, would seem to suggest that whenever the mind changes, the person is fundamentally altered and becomes a different entity altogether. How would the thinking entity of the Cogito, isolated from all else, have any awareness of being the same thinking entity it was five minutes ago?

 

[tonyrey]

contd - Nobody has ever adequately explained the facts of psychology by the phenomena of physiology.All such efforts have failed because they failed to understand the connection between mind and matter.Is it not foolish to imply that in nodding their visible heads men nod their invisible minds at the same time[Dr.Paul Brunton] - more later - twinc

Very cute - and incisive!

 

[tonyrey]

Hmm…it occurs to me that some clarification is required here (it was very late in my part of the world when I wrote this). The above, it should be pointed out, is not my assumption, but that suggested by a dualistic perspective of mind and matter - on such a view, if the mind alters, the person alters, despite the mind inhabiting the same body. It’s a bit like saying, “I’m a different person to who I was ten years ago” - I would suggest this is a metaphor; of course you’re the same entity, but with a different store of experience and new knowledge. A dualistic perspective, however, if by this one understands the person to reside wholly in the mind, would seem to suggest that whenever the mind changes, the person is fundamentally altered and becomes a different entity altogether. How would the thinking entity of the Cogito, isolated from all else, have any awareness of being the same thinking entity it was five minutes ago?

Why should a person reside wholly in the mind when we are embodied persons? Christianity is not Platonism! The doctrine of the Resurrection implies that the body is not only precious but an essential part of our human nature…

It is the physicalist who has the problem of explaining the problem of personal identity and continuity. How can we be the same persons when virtually every cell of our body changes every few years?

 

[Sair]

We do not experience material objects at first hand. A baby sees only a mass of shapes and colours and has to learn what they represent. Its experience is initially the uncomprehending reception of raw data.

But it is this raw data that provides the substance of later thought. As I’ve said before, from before the time we can think, we are receptacles of sensory experience.

Our mental experiences cannot be observed by the senses or measured.

I think there are many neuroscientists who would disagree that mental activity cannot be measured. The problem is primarily the difficulty of describing first-person experience in third-person terms.

They were right! Natural phenomena are often governed to a large extent by personal beings!

So, when was the last time you invoked a thunderstorm or willed a volcano eruption? As far as I am concerned, personal beings are natural phenomena, and thus circumscribed by the characteristic behaviours of natural things.

No one understands the ultimate nature of reality - not even the physicalist!.

And as I explained before, the physicalist does not claim to have full comprehension of the ultimate nature of reality - only a (largely tentative) grasp of such reality as is accessible to us. Only the supernaturalist claims the existence of a reality that we cannot sense or hope to comprehend; and as such, makes greater pretension to an understanding of ‘ultimate’ reality than any physicalist. What the supernaturalist is essentially claiming is that we already know everything there is to know about physical reality, and hence can assume a second order of reality. Yet I’ve never seen any supernaturalist come up with a definitive explanation of how he can tell the difference.

It is not an assumption but a fact - unless you can explain how thoughts and emotions **are **neuronal impulses.

You can’t explain how they’re not, therefore your ‘fact’ is also an assumption.

From personality, intangibility, consciousness, rationality, sentience and autonomy to that which lacks these attributes.

But the point is, something that we could explain in physical terms would not ‘lack’ these attributes; it is only your dualistic assumptions that lead you to think it would. These are the things we seek to explain - they are experiential realities, and until we can positively rule out physical explanations for them, what’s the point in assuming they are nonphysical?

We know the power of the mind from our personal experience of making decisions and controlling our thoughts, emotions and actions.

Yet, as I’ve pointed out, experimental data suggests that physical neural activity precedes conscious awareness of decisions - which is evidence that decisions are not governed by consciousness; similarly, I think you’ll find, if you consider it closely, that our thoughts, emotions and actions are very imperfectly ‘controlled’ by our minds, by our conscious awareness; if this were not the case, why would anyone ever refer to thoughts coming ‘unbidden’ to their minds? Why would not we be able to feel certain things that we might intellectually discern were appropriate to feel in given circumstances? Why would anyone be able to act in certain circumstances without conscious consideration? What would be the value of muscle memory? As I recall, even the Catholic church makes allowances for actions ungoverned by conscious decision, and even for potentially sinful thoughts not consciously sought and entertained.

No one understands the ultimate nature of reality whether it be mental or physical.

Supernaturalists claim to understand the ultimate nature of physical reality, since they see fit to posit an alternative kind of reality that cannot, they say, be explained in physical terms.

For all physical intents and purposes. No one knows what occurs in another person’s mind.

Except through physical means.

You identify the mind with the activity of the brain and believe the mind no longer exists if the brain can no longer function correctly. It is absurd to attribute the right to life to a mindless body - unless you have a good reason for doing so…

Mindless is different to an altered mind. I comprehend a right to life in a very different way than you, I suspect; you connect this right with notions of ‘personhood’, whilst I do not. Indeed, I see life itself as less a ‘right’ than as a basis upon which all other rights may be built.

I never said the mind ceases to exist when the brain is damaged. The mind ceases to exist when the brain no longer functions at all. What I queried was the ability of the mind to ‘know’ that it exists. You claim that we can always be certain that we exist as thinking beings; I wondered what might become of such certainty when the ability to think coherently was impeded by damage to the brain.

 

[Sair]

Why should a person reside wholly in the mind when we are embodied persons?

You tell me! You are the dualist…

Christianity is not Platonism! The doctrine of the Resurrection implies that the body is not only precious but an essential part of our human nature…

One to be subdued by the ‘immaterial’ mind, as I recall Christian doctrine…

It is the physicalist who has the problem of explaining the problem of personal identity and continuity. How can we be the same persons when virtually every cell of our body changes every few years?

You assume all of the body changes at the same time, and that there is no crossover between existing cells and replacement cells. Established structures are gradually replaced, without being compromised. It’s a bit like replacing a building, brick by brick, over a matter of years.

 

[tonyrey]

Why should a person reside wholly in the mind when we are embodied persons?

Interaction.

Christianity is not Platonism! The doctrine of the Resurrection implies that the body is not only precious but an essential part of our human nature…

One to be subdued by the ‘immaterial’ mind, as I recall Christian doctrine…

Not subdued but directed.

It is the physicalist who has the problem of explaining the problem of personal identity and continuity. How can we be the same persons when virtually every cell of our body changes every few years?

You assume all of the body changes at the same time and that there is no crossover between existing cells and replacement cells.

You wrongly infer that I assume…

,Established structures are gradually replaced, without being compromised. It’s a bit like replacing a building, brick by brick, over a matter of years.

Which of those cells express your personal identity? A person is not a collection but an entity.

We do not experience material objects at first hand. A baby sees only a mass of shapes and colours and has to learn what they represent. Its experience is initially the uncomprehending reception of raw data.

But it is this raw data that provides the substance of later thought.

Shapes and colours don’t represent personal attributes.

As I’ve said before, from before the time we can think, we are receptacles of sensory experience.

Receptacles are static and passive whereas minds are dynamic and active.

I think there are many neuroscientists who would disagree that mental activity cannot be measured.

Do you believe all personal activity is measurable in principle? If so what is the basis of that belief? That we are biological machines?

The problem is primarily the difficulty of describing first-person experience in third-person terms.

The impossibility - unless a person is reducible to a biological machine.

So, when was the last time you invoked a thunderstorm or willed a volcano eruption?

When was the last time you controlled your feelings or cut your nails? BTW Human beings have caused earthquakes and floods - and worse.

As far as I am concerned, personal beings are natural phenomena, and thus circumscribed by the characteristic behaviours of natural things.

In that case your thoughts - and conclusions - are caused by unintelligent events beyond your control. That is an excellent recipe for total scepticism!

And as I explained before, the physicalist does not claim to have full comprehension of the ultimate nature of reality - only a (largely tentative) grasp of such reality as is accessible to us.

If (s)he is consistent (s)he cannot have any comprehension of anything if thoughts are caused by unintelligent events…

Only the supernaturalist claims the existence of a reality that we cannot sense or hope to comprehend; and as such, makes greater pretension to an understanding of ‘ultimate’ reality than any physicalist.
Yet I’ve never seen any supernaturalist come up with a definitive explanation of how he can tell the difference.

I’ve never seen any naturalist come up with a definitive explanation of t**he bounds of nature. **How exactly would you define it?

It is not an assumption but a fact - unless you can explain how thoughts and emotions **are **

neuronal impulses. You can’t explain how they’re not, therefore your ‘fact’ is also an assumption.

I have pointed out that the assumption that thoughts and emotions are neuronal impulses is self-destructive. The assumption itself is caused by unintelligent events. You are faced with an unenviable dilemma:

1. Neuronal impulses do not know and have no control of what they are doing.
2. Neuronal impulses know and have control of what they are doing, thereby infringing the law of conservation of energy…

From personality, intangibility, consciousness, rationality, sentience and autonomy to that which lacks these attributes.

But the point is, something that we could explain in physical terms would not ‘lack’ these attributes.

“could” is begging the question.

It is only your dualistic assumptions that lead you to think it would. These are the things we seek to explain - they are experiential realities, and until we can positively rule out physical explanations for them, what’s the point in assuming they are nonphysical?

A far more cogent explanation is that the mind - on which you rely to make all your assumptions and reach your conclusions - is the prime factor because personality, intangibility, consciousness, rationality, sentience and autonomy are not accidental features but fundamental and irreducible aspects of existence which is essentially valuable, meaningful and purposeful.

 

[tonyrey]

We know the power of the mind from our personal experience of making decisions and controlling our thoughts, emotions and actions.

If every thought - and conclusion - comes unbidden there is no means by which they can be controlled. I fail to understand how you fail to understand the inevitable consequence of physicalism is self-contradiction.

Why would not we be able to feel certain things that we might intellectually discern were appropriate to feel in given circumstances?

Because you would be in the inflexible grip of determinism.

Why would anyone be able to act in certain circumstances without conscious consideration? What would be the value of muscle memory? As I recall, even the Catholic church makes allowances for actions ungoverned by conscious decision, and even for potentially sinful thoughts not consciously sought and entertained.

That is a far cry from believing that every single decision is ungoverned
and caused by physical events.

No one understands the ultimate nature of reality whether it be mental or physical.

Supernaturalists claim to understand the ultimate nature of physical reality, since they see fit to posit an alternative kind of reality that cannot, they say, be explained in physical terms.

Exactly the same description applies to naturalists. You are directly aware of the intangible contents of your mind but you seek to explain them away as tangible impulses.

For all physical intents and purposes. No one knows what occurs in another person’s mind.

Except through physical means.

No one ever knows precisely what occurs in another person’s mind. If you think that day will eventually come you have succeeded in demonstrating that you are irrational! Are electrical impulses an adequate source of insight into themselves? What did Godel say about incompleteness?

You identify the mind with the activity of the brain and believe the mind no longer exists if the brain can no longer function correctly. It is absurd to attribute the right to life to a mindless body - unless you have a good reason for doing so…

Mindless is different to an altered mind. I comprehend a right to life in a very different way than you, I suspect; you connect this right with notions of ‘personhood’, whilst I do not.

You connect it with impersonal objects?

Indeed, I see life itself as less a ‘right’ than as a basis upon which all other rights may be built.

Precisely what can justify it as the basis?

I never said the mind ceases to exist when the brain is damaged. The mind ceases to exist when the brain no longer functions at all.

I’m afraid your dogmatism is irrational.

What I queried was the ability of the mind to ‘know’ that it exists. You claim that we can always be certain that we exist as thinking beings; I wondered what might become of such certainty when the ability to think coherently was impeded by damage to the brain.

You are still assuming that thought is no more than brain activity - which is the very issue at stake. The inability of a person to use or control the brain does not entail inability to use or control the mind. It merely means that they cannot express themselves or communicate physically. The brain is an instrument - like other organs (!) - not an instrumentalist.

 

[abucs]

whatswrongwithatheism.wordpress.com/about/doesnt-science-rule-out-the-immaterial/

If we were inside a created computer world then the keyboard would be immaterial to us.

The striking of keys would cause changes in our world through mechanincs, electricity and then projection.

But the mechanics, electricity and projection, while creating our world, is ontologically different to us and so we could not see or examine it directly.

Both the keyboard and the projection process could only be surmised by the effects we would see inside our closed world (closed relative to us not to the greater reality).

So it is not directly detectable, but it is not ineffectual either.

Science was developed in the Christian West to examine the material world. We can only see the effects of the immaterial, we cannot directly control or examine it through a system that was designed to examine the material.

youtube.com/watch?v=s-eAoMw6gJg&feature=related