Is the intellect necessarily immaterial?

[Ben_Shipman]

I have already dealt with representation in the brain. You still need a mind to assign representations or symbols to an object. You still haven’t explained how does a neuron or physical object or electrical impulse automatically assign symbols to objects through natural physical laws? In your example your mind is assigning symbols. But how does a physical object do that unaided by a mind?

Yes, information can be stored in the brain just like information can be stored in a computer. But a mind is still needed to interpret that information.

Btw, if our minds are purely physical then we don’t have free will. Do you agree with that?

No, I don’t agree that (physical minds = no free will), because quantum indeterminacy means that different ‘choices’ are available within the context of physics.

And artificial neural networks can assign labels to things based on natural physical laws. See this article.

Note: I don’t think this neural network labelled the cat pictures as “cat”, but rather some arbitrary label of its own. The English language wasn’t part of its training data, but there is no reason why you couldn’t have a neural network use the Internet to learn names in conjunction with images.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No, I don’t agree that (physical minds = no free will), because quantum indeterminacy means that different ‘choices’ are available within the context of physics.

And artificial neural networks can assign labels to things based on natural physical laws. See this article.

Note: I don’t think this neural network labelled the cat pictures as “cat”, but rather some arbitrary label of its own. The English language wasn’t part of its training data, but there is no reason why you couldn’t have a neural network use the Internet to learn names in conjunction with images.

The Google x system is just algorithms. To quote the article,

“The Google X system is close, but not quite there. He states, “It’d be fantastic if it turns out that all we need to do is take current algorithms and run them bigger, but my gut feeling is that we still don’t quite have the right algorithm yet.””

In other words it is a simulation using algorithms that require the intervention of a human mind. This does not show how objects or abstract ideas have a natural physical representation or symbol dictated by physics, that do not require a mind. In fact the whole thing presupposes a mind in order to program algorithms.

Also, I don’t see how uncertainty, unpredictability, or randomness leads to free will. Can you explain that?

 

[Michael19682]

GEddie;13290221**:

Light is immaterial, in that it has no weight, but it is definitely physical. That is why a piece of black cloth over your eyes can stop your seeing.

ISTM that a word better than immaterial is needed for the mind, if what is meant is that Our mind is not a process of the physical body. All of our human senses are physical, but only smell and taste involve strictly material substrates. The others receive pure energy (as light, sound, pressure, heat or motion) that is not per se material.

ICXC NIKA

OK. But I thought that was the OP’s question? I’m not sure the black cloth automatically proves materiality or physicality. The effect could be purely psychological, individually or group-wise as in a mass hypnosis effect? God is light, and a black cloth will not stop him – nor a dream image that is being seen?

 

[GEddie]

OK. But I thought that was the OP’s question? I’m not sure the black cloth automatically proves materiality or physicality. The effect could be purely psychological, individually or group-wise as in a mass hypnosis effect? God is light, and a black cloth will not stop him – nor a dream image that is being seen?

The universal experience is that a lack of light, or a black cloth on the eyes, hood over the head, etc., stops the human sight. There is no empirical evidence otherwise, and this is a purely physical effect.

It is true that we enjoy “sight” while dreaming, even though our human eyes are then “bound and closed.” But what we see while dreaming is really a combination of visual memories stored while our eyes are open. Those born blind never dream visually, and those who become blind slowly lose that capability.

ICXC NIKA

 

[vz71]

It is true that we enjoy “sight” while dreaming, even though our human eyes are then “bound and closed.” But what we see while dreaming is really a combination of visual memories stored while our eyes are open.

I doubt that.

Some of what I have seen dreaming I know was never seen while awake.

 

[fisherman_carl]

How do you explain near death experiences where the brain is no longer active if the mind is purely physical? People have seen things out of the body.

 

[GEddie]

I doubt that.

Some of what I have seen dreaming I know was never seen while awake.

Not specific visual memories, but incredible combinations of bits and pieces from the visual memory (which occupies a huge part of our head).

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

How do you explain near death experiences where the brain is no longer active if the mind is purely physical? People have seen things out of the body.

The problem with NDE testimonies (which IMNAAHO the religious sector makes too much use of) is twofold: these people are not really dead; and the experience could just result from the breathless head fighting the darkness.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Tomdstone]

How do you explain near death experiences where the brain is no longer active if the mind is purely physical? People have seen things out of the body.

Out of body experiences can be created in the living by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the temporoparietal junction of the brain.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Out of body experiences can be created in the living by transcranial magnetic stimulation of the temporoparietal junction of the brain.

That doesn’t explain how one can have no brain activity and an out of body experience. Nor does it explain how people can see people and objects in the next room and then later describe what they were doing even though their body wasn’t conscious.

 

[Tomdstone]

That doesn’t explain how one can have no brain activity and an out of body experience. Nor does it explain how people can see people and objects in the next room and then later describe what they were doing even though their body wasn’t conscious.

A person’s heart may stop and the brain may appear to be inactive, but the temporoparietal junction of the brain could continue to function.

 

[fisherman_carl]

A person’s heart may stop and the brain may appear to be inactive, but the temporoparietal junction of the brain could continue to function.

How is that if there is no more electrical activity in the brain? These people see things that are really happening and describe them accurately later. There is no way to account for that by something purely physical. It is like the computer is unplugged and you are saying it is still running algorithms that seem even more real than when it was on. How do you explain that?

 

[Michael19682]

If we retain intellect on death, and at that point and thereafter are no longer material in body, perhaps the vestige that remains was immaterial all along? This sounds like the old adage about material things, money in particular, “You can’t take it with you,” but since we have a will that is integrated in our intellect and that will becomes frozen, some say: Why not take the intellects non material part with us – lord only knows if it is useless in life?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Here is an interesting video called Evidence For An Immaterial Mind: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlWevhrhLJ6lsN_Z-gBxcp7HHZdOFJGSu

 

[Tomdstone]

How is that if there is no more electrical activity in the brain? These people see things that are really happening and describe them accurately later. There is no way to account for that by something purely physical. It is like the computer is unplugged and you are saying it is still running algorithms that seem even more real than when it was on. How do you explain that?

There may be other activity but people don’t see it. The person can’t be dead in the first place, because if he were, you would not know about his out of body experience later on.

 

[fisherman_carl]

There may be other activity but people don’t see it. The person can’t be dead in the first place, because if he were, you would not know about his out of body experience later on.

First, that is a circular reasoning. You are assuming they are not dead because they were revived. I know of someone who was dead for days (Richard Ebby) and lying on a table in the morg, before he came back to life. He describes his trip to heaven and hell. people that describe these experiences say that it is more real with greater visual acuity than before with greater colors. How can you explain that? If the brain was powering down you would expect at best a hazy distorted image if that. Not a greater visual clarity.

 

[Tomdstone]

First, that is a circular reasoning. You are assuming they are not dead because they were revived. I know of someone who was dead for days (Richard Ebby) and lying on a table in the morg, before he came back to life. He describes his trip to heaven and hell. people that describe these experiences say that it is more real with greater visual acuity than before with greater colors. How can you explain that? If the brain was powering down you would expect at best a hazy distorted image if that. Not a greater visual clarity.

You may have thought that the person was dead, but he was not because he was living and breathing a short time after your observation. It is well verified that applying transcranial magnetic stimulation to the temporoparietal region of the brain and then deactivating it causes out of body experiences in living human beings. A similar effect is observed when this part of the brain is damaged.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

How do you explain near death experiences where the brain is no longer active if the mind is purely physical? People have seen things out of the body.

Death is the separation of the soul from the body. When the soul ‘unplugs’ from the brain, mental events cease to correspond to physical processes. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t correspond before.

The Google x system is just algorithms. To quote the article,

“The Google X system is close, but not quite there. He states, “It’d be fantastic if it turns out that all we need to do is take current algorithms and run them bigger, but my gut feeling is that we still don’t quite have the right algorithm yet.””

In other words it is a simulation using algorithms that require the intervention of a human mind. This does not show how objects or abstract ideas have a natural physical representation or symbol dictated by physics, that do not require a mind. In fact the whole thing presupposes a mind in order to program algorithms.

Also, I don’t see how uncertainty, unpredictability, or randomness leads to free will. Can you explain that?

Uncertainty means the outcome is up to chance. It might seem confining if I say that what you do is up to chance, but you are the chance. The dice that are rolled are atoms in your own brain - they are your choice.

Can you ask for more? What if you could dictate how the dice would come up? How would you choose what to dictate? This route leads to an infinite regress.

There is supernatural grace, and I’m sure it plays no small role in Christian life. But even in the realm of the supernatural, there is chance.

Why did Lucifer choose to defy God, when he was created capable of loving God? Chance. That’s just what happened.

If anyone can improve on this analysis of free will, please do. Maybe free will isn’t chance, but then I don’t see what it is.

---

And yes, it is still necessary for humans to write algorithms, or algorithms that write algorithms. But eventually there will be algorithms that write algorithms that write algorithms that write algorithms, and the circle will close. At that point, discussions like this may be too late to do much.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Death is the separation of the soul from the body. When the soul ‘unplugs’ from the brain, mental events cease to correspond to physical processes. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t correspond before.

Uncertainty means the outcome is up to chance. It might seem confining if I say that what you do is up to chance, but you are the chance. The dice that are rolled are atoms in your own brain - they are your choice.

Can you ask for more? What if you could dictate how the dice would come up? How would you choose what to dictate? This route leads to an infinite regress.

There is supernatural grace, and I’m sure it plays no small role in Christian life. But even in the realm of the supernatural, there is chance.

Why did Lucifer choose to defy God, when he was created capable of loving God? Chance. That’s just what happened.

If anyone can improve on this analysis of free will, please do. Maybe free will isn’t chance, but then I don’t see what it is.

---

Chance is not the same as free will. That would be like saying every time you are forced to make a decision it is like there is a little guy in your brain that throws the dice to see what you are going to do. This is not the case. Free will is not being dictated an action by the roll of the dice, but it is being able to freely choose one path or another. It is anything but random. Because it requires you to use your intellect to determine what is the best course of action. Using the dice does not require any intellect or freedom of thought/action. If you were forced to follow any action that was governed by the rolling of the dice you would not have free will. Your will would be dictated by the roll of the dice.

And yes, it is still necessary for humans to write algorithms, or algorithms that write algorithms. But eventually there will be algorithms that write algorithms that write algorithms that write algorithms, and the circle will close. At that point, discussions like this may be too late to do much.

“The circle will close” What does that mean? Sounds a bit like the perpetual motion machine.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You may have thought that the person was dead, but he was not because he was living and breathing a short time after your observation. It is well verified that applying transcranial magnetic stimulation to the temporoparietal region of the brain and then deactivating it causes out of body experiences in living human beings. A similar effect is observed when this part of the brain is damaged.

That certainly does not disprove NDEs. Just because you can generate a fake experience does not mean there are no genuine experiences. Just like you can create a counterfeit money does not disprove the existence of real money. There is plenty of evidence of people who have NDEs that witnessed certain events happening while they were out of their body or acquired knowledge that they could not have if they were just experiencing a hallucination or some brain effect.